Halloween 2017, eight people murdered and 11 injured by an islamic terrorist proving what diversity can mean for the unwary.
Legend has it, that on the same day, 500 years earlier, Martin Luther published his thesis on the ails and ills of the Roman Catholic Church. His work was soon reprinted and distributed to begin what we now call the Protestant Reformation.
Whatever we think of the effects of that publication and the subsequent upheaval it initiated, there is no dispute that the words and ideas expressed resulted in a seismic shift in Christian thinking and history.
Back to the Manhattan murderer:-
He departs his killing machine, brandishing 'weapons' designed, not to kill more people, but to provoke his demise by a policeman's bullet, and entry to whatever his religion calls an afterlife; so convinced is he of martyrdom, that he shouts aloud that his god is greater [than that of those he has just slain] and waits to be shot dead. This doesn't happen, but his commitment to jihad remains.
And what does his community say? Are they appalled and dismayed by his actions, or are they committed to preserving their treasured status of victimhood?
So a question arises. Why does such a heinous crime, in the name of a 'religion of peace', not produce an outcry from his coreligionists?
If one document could so fundamentally change Christianity, how can so many acts of barbarism (more than 30,000 since 9/11), not change islam? And think about 9/11, almost 3000 killed and over 6000 injured, just a few blocks from this latest attack. Where was islam's introspection and debate following that earlier rendition of allahu akbar?
Surely, no true Religion of Peace could possibly continue unashamed and unabashed in the face of such brutality, without at least examining the possibility that so many koranic verses extolling the virtues of murder and mutilation might be having an effect on it's followers?
It might be a 1400 year old question, but it still requires asking: when will islam have it's own reformation?
Or to put it another way, just how bad does this have to get?
Thursday, 2 November 2017
Monday, 4 September 2017
Myanmar: A lesson for EU and US
As another IS inspired insurgency begets blood and destruction, the West appears incapable of recognizing, much less, understanding the threat of islamist expansionism.
The Saudi funded Salafist ideology that stretches out from Mecca, through the Balkans to the Caucasus, down into Africa, and east through Afghanistan to India and Kashmir, and on to the Philippines and China, is unrelenting and cruel. Anywhere, it seems that fundamentalist islam goes, war will soon follow.
When muslim populations grow, so inevitably the number of extremists increases, so too does the expansionist orthodoxy of Wahhabism, which provides the financial incentive and scriptural justification for murder and mayhem.
As with all the above conflicts, there are histories and versions of history, which each side will cite to validate their own position. There will also be crack-downs by governments and atrocities by combatants, both regular and guerrilla, and the media will take a side, based not on facts, but on who is paying the most and lobbying the hardest.
The issue for the West, though, is not who is at fault, but where will these conflicts affect next?
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the West, but never before has it claimed 'divine' sanction, and never have it's potential perpetrators been allowed to enter their avowed target populations in such unmanageable numbers.
Then what happens when our own muslim populations are so large, that the much vaunted minority of extremists, reaches sufficient numbers to threaten our stability and social cohesion?
Many on the Right will say that we have already reached this tipping point and that Sweden, France, Belgium etc are all the evidence we need to start defensive preparations in advance of the upcoming conflict; but the Left say that there's nothing wrong, and that we should welcome many thousands, or even millions, more muslims into Europe and America.
While the one viewpoint may be paranoid, the other is surely delusional.
And delusional is an apt word to describe, not just the German chancellor, but also the people who are threatening to vote her back into office.
The Saudi funded Salafist ideology that stretches out from Mecca, through the Balkans to the Caucasus, down into Africa, and east through Afghanistan to India and Kashmir, and on to the Philippines and China, is unrelenting and cruel. Anywhere, it seems that fundamentalist islam goes, war will soon follow.
When muslim populations grow, so inevitably the number of extremists increases, so too does the expansionist orthodoxy of Wahhabism, which provides the financial incentive and scriptural justification for murder and mayhem.
As with all the above conflicts, there are histories and versions of history, which each side will cite to validate their own position. There will also be crack-downs by governments and atrocities by combatants, both regular and guerrilla, and the media will take a side, based not on facts, but on who is paying the most and lobbying the hardest.
The issue for the West, though, is not who is at fault, but where will these conflicts affect next?
Terrorism is not a new phenomenon in the West, but never before has it claimed 'divine' sanction, and never have it's potential perpetrators been allowed to enter their avowed target populations in such unmanageable numbers.
Then what happens when our own muslim populations are so large, that the much vaunted minority of extremists, reaches sufficient numbers to threaten our stability and social cohesion?
Many on the Right will say that we have already reached this tipping point and that Sweden, France, Belgium etc are all the evidence we need to start defensive preparations in advance of the upcoming conflict; but the Left say that there's nothing wrong, and that we should welcome many thousands, or even millions, more muslims into Europe and America.
While the one viewpoint may be paranoid, the other is surely delusional.
And delusional is an apt word to describe, not just the German chancellor, but also the people who are threatening to vote her back into office.
Wednesday, 23 August 2017
EU: A post from afar.
Sitting here, in comfort and shade, half-way round the world and in another hemisphere, Europe looks quite different, yet uncomfortably familiar.
Spain has suffered an almost catastrophic attack, which nonetheless left many dead and many more injured.
Nothing to do with islam, of course, and that platitude continues to gather corpses.
The reaction among the people here is one of amazement that NATO countries can have so little control of their borders and societies.
The problem is seen very much as a security issue with little understanding of the problems we face.
A largely Christian continent like South America, cannot understand, how an erstwhile civilised and moral group of countries, could so quickly descend into social dysfunction.
But they do not live in Europe.
They do not live with the reality of a rampant fifth column of terrorist enablers and sympathisers, colluded and abetted by a fearful and corrupt establishment.
In this land, where using traffic indicators is considered the action of a wussy, and wearing a crash helmet, a sign of the oppressed, can have no concept of the dread of being called a racist or islamophobe.
For nations uncowed by political correctness, the issue is simple: Our people are dying, and we are doing nothing about it.
But there are many miles between us, and these incidents are seen as growing, but uncoordinated, much as our press would have us believe; the news blackout, it appears, is global, and in one respect, that is not such a bad thing.
For if they knew or asked about the rape gangs and sharia courts, there is nothing that I could begin to say in explanation, save to fall back on that old and trusted response to awkward questions:
Me no speakie da lingo.
Tuesday, 25 July 2017
EU: Who is defending Europe?
When Greenpeace was founded, back in 1971, their mission was simple enough, they would 'bear witness' to US nuclear testing and although that first mission was halted, they continued and are a well recognized world authority on environmental issues.
But it was not easy, and some of those intrepid fighters for all our futures, paid the ultimate price for their conviction.
Today, another renegade ship is sailing into controversy as the C-Star sails towards the Libyan coast in an attempt to end the terrible plight of refugees and migrants who are being ferried into Europe in their thousands. Those who do not perish on the journey, live mainly to regret ever setting out in the first place.
The Defend Europe project is straightforward:-
"Our goal is to document the doings of the NGOs, expose their collaboration with the human smugglers, and intervene if they do something illegal."
Simple enough, yet the media have already denounced the mission as racist, far-right extremism, and pounced on the first mainstream journalist who has attempted to meet with the crew. This is strange behaviour, because Katie Hopkins may not be everyone's favorite, but she is a known quantity and we should get an honest impression of what is actually happening.
When even Mama Merkel admits the folly of her failed policies towards unsustainable immigration, are we not entitled to know more about this voluntary attempt to uncover the real perpetrators of the human misery that continues, showing no signs of abating?
As we see here at section 30 the laws on rescue at sea are extremely vague, particularly where migrants or those claiming asylum are concerned.
"Since the “next port of call” with reference to the disembarkation of rescued persons is nowhere clearly defined, there are a number of possibilities, which would need to be further explored to clarify this concept. In many instances, especially when large numbers of rescued persons are involved, it will in effect be the nearest port in terms of geographical proximity given the overriding safety concerns..." [Emphasis mine]
So, if it is true that NGO's are colluding with people smugglers to ferry people across the Mediterranean, rather than to the nearest geographical port, then we need to know so that we can put an end to it.
We know that International Law has fallen out of favor, and the EU appears incapable of fixing this problem, so perhaps a small band of volunteers is what's needed, regardless of their supposed political viewpoint.
But it was not easy, and some of those intrepid fighters for all our futures, paid the ultimate price for their conviction.
Today, another renegade ship is sailing into controversy as the C-Star sails towards the Libyan coast in an attempt to end the terrible plight of refugees and migrants who are being ferried into Europe in their thousands. Those who do not perish on the journey, live mainly to regret ever setting out in the first place.
The Defend Europe project is straightforward:-
"Our goal is to document the doings of the NGOs, expose their collaboration with the human smugglers, and intervene if they do something illegal."
Simple enough, yet the media have already denounced the mission as racist, far-right extremism, and pounced on the first mainstream journalist who has attempted to meet with the crew. This is strange behaviour, because Katie Hopkins may not be everyone's favorite, but she is a known quantity and we should get an honest impression of what is actually happening.
When even Mama Merkel admits the folly of her failed policies towards unsustainable immigration, are we not entitled to know more about this voluntary attempt to uncover the real perpetrators of the human misery that continues, showing no signs of abating?
As we see here at section 30 the laws on rescue at sea are extremely vague, particularly where migrants or those claiming asylum are concerned.
"Since the “next port of call” with reference to the disembarkation of rescued persons is nowhere clearly defined, there are a number of possibilities, which would need to be further explored to clarify this concept. In many instances, especially when large numbers of rescued persons are involved, it will in effect be the nearest port in terms of geographical proximity given the overriding safety concerns..." [Emphasis mine]
So, if it is true that NGO's are colluding with people smugglers to ferry people across the Mediterranean, rather than to the nearest geographical port, then we need to know so that we can put an end to it.
We know that International Law has fallen out of favor, and the EU appears incapable of fixing this problem, so perhaps a small band of volunteers is what's needed, regardless of their supposed political viewpoint.
Thursday, 13 July 2017
US: Trivial Pursuit
The latest iteration of Trumpophobia has the placed president's son firmly in the unwanted glare of media scrutiny.
It seems that an enterprising lawyer enticed Trump Jr to attend a meeting on the pretext of serving up some juicy information on Hilary Clinton from the 'Crown Prosecutor of Russia', that such a post does not exist seems to have escaped everyone, but to be fair to the junior Trump, it's difficult to imagine who could resist such an opportunity.
Apparently the meeting lasted just a few minutes before he realized he'd been scammed, and left.
It is now being portrayed as a serious security incident, but I wonder what else was he supposed to do?
Should he have ignored the suggestion that Russia had sensitive information on a Presidential Candidate?
What if they had, and the Donald Jr had helped to prevent a major security incident, or if he hadn't gone to the meeting and some other catastrophe had ensued, would that have been preferable?
With the Clinton's links to foreign sponsors of terrorism common knowledge, was he not right to follow the lead, the only question is what would he have done with anything incriminating that he might have uncovered. Would he have used it for political gain, or would he have immediately turned it over to US security? We will never know the answer, but must surely give him the benefit of any doubt.
While the frenzy surrounding this nonsense continues, those politicians and pundits gleefully making all they can of the discomfort to president Trump, should be very careful about the outcome, because if the emails, texts and liaisons of their children are to be fair game for scrutiny, then I doubt that many in Washington or beyond, will escape unscathed.
It seems that an enterprising lawyer enticed Trump Jr to attend a meeting on the pretext of serving up some juicy information on Hilary Clinton from the 'Crown Prosecutor of Russia', that such a post does not exist seems to have escaped everyone, but to be fair to the junior Trump, it's difficult to imagine who could resist such an opportunity.
Apparently the meeting lasted just a few minutes before he realized he'd been scammed, and left.
It is now being portrayed as a serious security incident, but I wonder what else was he supposed to do?
Should he have ignored the suggestion that Russia had sensitive information on a Presidential Candidate?
What if they had, and the Donald Jr had helped to prevent a major security incident, or if he hadn't gone to the meeting and some other catastrophe had ensued, would that have been preferable?
With the Clinton's links to foreign sponsors of terrorism common knowledge, was he not right to follow the lead, the only question is what would he have done with anything incriminating that he might have uncovered. Would he have used it for political gain, or would he have immediately turned it over to US security? We will never know the answer, but must surely give him the benefit of any doubt.
While the frenzy surrounding this nonsense continues, those politicians and pundits gleefully making all they can of the discomfort to president Trump, should be very careful about the outcome, because if the emails, texts and liaisons of their children are to be fair game for scrutiny, then I doubt that many in Washington or beyond, will escape unscathed.
Monday, 10 July 2017
US: A sickness of the mind
For some time, the practice of inventing new words by suffixing nouns to fit a narrative was an amusing tool of the tabloid press.
I remember when anyone in the UK who bothered to learn French, was called a Francophile to signify that they were not as virulently anti-French as our Thatcherite press corps would prefer.
Some people even invent such self-descriptive words, so that those money grubbers who had little interest in their family or friends, would call themselves workaholics, not just as an excuse, but as though it were actually a good thing.
Having started as a trivial amusement, this construct then took a more sinister turn when people who refused to accept the demise of USSR, became jolly Russophobes, and were left to continue as though the Berlin wall remained and International Communism was still our greatest enemy. Those who feel this is just a harmless bit of fun, might like to ask the families of the dead and injured in Boston, what they think about Russophobia, or the survivors in Eastern Ukraine after US democratization attempts.
An even more insidious use of the form arrived when anyone who opposed Jihad, or reported on the gruesome history of Mohammedism, was called Islamophobic and also racist - thus another invention, the Race of Islam, arrived.
But, despite my scepticism, I have now relented, and accept that there is a real condition of phobia gripping America (and much of Europe too), and in it's latest and most blatant iteration should be called out for what it is; Trumpophobia.
I remember when anyone in the UK who bothered to learn French, was called a Francophile to signify that they were not as virulently anti-French as our Thatcherite press corps would prefer.
Some people even invent such self-descriptive words, so that those money grubbers who had little interest in their family or friends, would call themselves workaholics, not just as an excuse, but as though it were actually a good thing.
Having started as a trivial amusement, this construct then took a more sinister turn when people who refused to accept the demise of USSR, became jolly Russophobes, and were left to continue as though the Berlin wall remained and International Communism was still our greatest enemy. Those who feel this is just a harmless bit of fun, might like to ask the families of the dead and injured in Boston, what they think about Russophobia, or the survivors in Eastern Ukraine after US democratization attempts.
An even more insidious use of the form arrived when anyone who opposed Jihad, or reported on the gruesome history of Mohammedism, was called Islamophobic and also racist - thus another invention, the Race of Islam, arrived.
But, despite my scepticism, I have now relented, and accept that there is a real condition of phobia gripping America (and much of Europe too), and in it's latest and most blatant iteration should be called out for what it is; Trumpophobia.
Tuesday, 27 June 2017
US: Excuses, excuses, excuses
As the White house prepares it's excuse for another attack on the Syrian government, we needn't look far to find the reason why.
With Assad gaining ground, and IS facing defeat if not yet extinction, the US imperative to protect it's investment in the destabilization process and keep a foothold in the region seems to outweigh any desire or rational thought in imagining what happens next.
The middle East is littered with the results of unintended consequences of outside, and particularly Western, actions. Each one, it appears, more catastrophic than the previous.
But it all seemed to start so well.
Afghanistan fell quickly in the post 9-11 consensus, and, with Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda sent into hiding, there was a real chance of bringing some stability and order to the region, but Bush Jnr. had other ideas, so forgetting Afghanistan, and with Blair in tow and WMD as the excuse, he decided to invade Iraq and we are now experiencing how that turned out.
All the while, we have ignored the Gulf States and Turks funding and supplying the terrorists, with the excuse of supporting our 'allies' (who just happen to also be our ideological, and sometimes physical, enemies).
I suggest that president Trump should not take too much comfort from knowing that somewhere in Washington someone is busily working on the excuse for when it all goes horribly wrong, again.
With Assad gaining ground, and IS facing defeat if not yet extinction, the US imperative to protect it's investment in the destabilization process and keep a foothold in the region seems to outweigh any desire or rational thought in imagining what happens next.
The middle East is littered with the results of unintended consequences of outside, and particularly Western, actions. Each one, it appears, more catastrophic than the previous.
But it all seemed to start so well.
Afghanistan fell quickly in the post 9-11 consensus, and, with Bin Laden's Al-Qaeda sent into hiding, there was a real chance of bringing some stability and order to the region, but Bush Jnr. had other ideas, so forgetting Afghanistan, and with Blair in tow and WMD as the excuse, he decided to invade Iraq and we are now experiencing how that turned out.
All the while, we have ignored the Gulf States and Turks funding and supplying the terrorists, with the excuse of supporting our 'allies' (who just happen to also be our ideological, and sometimes physical, enemies).
I suggest that president Trump should not take too much comfort from knowing that somewhere in Washington someone is busily working on the excuse for when it all goes horribly wrong, again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)