I know that what I’m about to say will confirm my status as an incorrigible and superannuated curmudgeon.
I know that the story below is intended to be inspirational and uplifting in the wake of Monday’s jihad terror attack in Manchester.
I know that the British people need to feel that their political leaders and their military are doing something meaningful in response to the “senseless evil” perpetrated by Salman Ramadan Abedi.
But this does not help.
The enemy is not over there in the “sandbox”. The enemy is in Manchester and Birmingham and London and Glasgow. The enemy is in Amsterdam and Oslo and Malmö and Berlin and Munich and Vienna and Toronto and Montreal and Sydney and Melbourne and Brooklyn and Dearborn and Minneapolis.
The enemy is among us, and there are millions of him, if you count the active wannabe shahids plus those who support, maintain, and provide cover for all those “youths”.
This gesture feels good, but it’s essentially meaningless. At best it’s a diversion from the awful truth. It’s one more way of NOT looking the problem squarely in the face.
The story is meant to evoke the pride and solidarity of the war fought from 1939 to 1945 by the Greatest Generation. But Coventry wasn’t full of Nazis when the Luftwaffe bombed it. And the Blitz was not carried out by German suicide bombers who blew themselves up at public events in London.
We could pave the entire Middle East over from sea to shining sea and not change the course of events in Manchester or Luton or New York. The RAF and the USAF could bomb Syria and Iraq for twenty years, and during that time the super-fecund Muslims in our midst would have more than doubled their numbers — even if none of their coreligionists manage to escape their native hellholes, cross our non-existent borders, and settle here as “refugees”.
This story is a distraction from the horrible reality of what we face.
Here’s the report from The Daily Mail:
RAF crew write ‘Love from Manchester’ on side of Paveway bomb on its way to blast ISIS targets in Syria
RAF crew scrawled a message on a missile on its way to blast ISIS targets in Syria that read ‘Love from Manchester.’
The defiant note was initially believed to be a social media hoax but RAF bosses confirmed its veracity later today.
It is understood it was the brainchild of a drone squadron based at a secret location in the Middle East, in response to Monday night’s terror attack at Manchester Arena that claimed 22 innocent victims.
It was reported to be a Hellfire missile on social media, although it was later confirmed as a Paveway IV bomb.
The message ‘Love from Manchester’ was written on a Hellfire missile destined for ISIS
The picture appeared on Twitter with the caption: ‘RAF Armourer on a Reaper UAV squadron wrote this on a Hellfire (sic) missile before taking off on a Syria mission’.
An RAF spokesman told MailOnline: ‘The RAF can confirm the photo was genuine’.
A source said: ‘The sentiment of the message is understandable under the circumstances.
‘There’s a history of messages being written on missiles in the RAF.
‘It’s unlikely the individual responsible for it will be disciplined.’
The last sentence in your article Baron really says it all doesn’t it!
‘It’s unlikely the individual responsible for it (sentiment) will be disciplined.’
The fact that someone could have been disciplined for writing ‘sentiments’ on munitions bound for the enemy, whom, one is after all supposed to hate in order to kill him, is hardly offensive to those who know who our enemy is, except that is to the PC police – but alas, there it is, one cannot express emotions on munitions for one’s enemy, the thinking of which is but another graphic example of why we are not yet winning this clash of civilizations.
You’re absolutely right, Baron. By directing our anger at ISIS we’re missing the point that the threat lives among us. But we can cut the RAF some slack – these are the men and women who risk their lives delivering these bombs to the horrendous monsters of ISIS. They need relief from the tension they feel when leaving on a bombing mission and they also need to feel that their actions bear some direct relevance to the well-being of their home country. But, I’m sure you know all this.
What is more disturbing about all the reportage on the Manchester bomber is that the media is only too eager, it appears, to attribute the evil to ISIS, when we know that the root of the problem extends far beyond this latter-day assemblage of “losers.”
Just today the media rushed to tell us that the massacre of Coptic Christians in Egypt was carried out by ISIS. Reports were careful to include the history of ISIS’s attacks on Copts. Yet we know that this hatred of Christians is integral to the teachings of Islam. If ISIS were to disappear tomorrow, Egypt’s Copts would be in just as much danger as ever.
Are there any naive (or willfully blind) souls who really believe that the defeat of ISIS would bring an end to all Islamic aggression? Yes, there are—but they are due for an very rude awakening. These are the people whose interest in Islam only developed when ISIS and its atrocities started dominating the headlines. Their interest started then, so they assume the problem started then.
What will outlets such as The Toronto Star do when they can no longer attribute Islamic atrocities in the Middle East, and around the world, to Daesh (as it calls ISIS in an attempt to obfuscate its Islamic roots)?
There’s something else to keep in mind.
The Coptic Christians lived for centuries under Muslims, and in some cases did quite well. Who do you think ruled Egypt prior to the Morsi presidency? All Muslims.
So, there’s something in addition to base Islam accounting for the massacres. In a lot of Muslim countries, non-Muslims lived as dhimmis, but they did live. In fact, if nationalism and ethnic identity becomes important in nation-building again, one can imagine a sort of modified dhimmitude for immigrants not able to fully adapt: civil and property rights, but no voting or political rights, and subject to immediate deportation for criminal violations or violations of their landed immigrant status.
Why don’t we call Islam the criminal conspiracy that it is and act accordingly. Instead of having a “Mob” of Italians to deal with as we did back in the day we now have a faceless mob, as they hide behind burkas and any other societal conventions that they can find. Of course, the law enforcement approach would hearken to the terror of the Gestapo. So why don’t we raid the mosques, seize the lists or its members, hand the list over to law enforcement authorities and then close them and then bulldoze them so that church buildings could be built instead. Hmmm?
If it isn’t sorted by state power soon, it’ll end more-or-less like the Lebanese Civil War eventually. It might not be for 20 or 30 years, but it’ll get there.
I think things are moving faster and wider now. It will take, at most, eight to ten years – not a whole generation.
It won’t ever be sorted by state power.
Isn’t it clear by now that this is what the elites think is best for society?
Isn’t it clear that this is what our elites want for the future of the West?
no, that is what they had agreed upon under pressure from unexpectingly powerful, imported monoculture.
…
Lebanon didn’t have a bad arrangement prior to the civil war. They allocated the legislature by religion. The Christians had a majority in parliament, regardless of demography.
It was only the horrible mistake of allowing in Palestinians that brought on the worst events of the past few decades.
“Palestinians” in Lebanon are denied many rights, including the right to vote.
in the core, everyone understands that there are only 2 options:
1)
apartheid
long term containment of Islam by the West, with subsequent degradation and extinction of the former
2)
submission of the West to Islam
more specifically – both may take place or instead or after civil war(s)
even more specifically – if “Nationalist” vision in the West prevails, all 4 scenarios can go in parallel in different geographies, before final state is eventually reached
the preferred option, however, is Global (1) without civil wars – all-out, systematic, concerted containment, isolation, siege, fragmentation and extinction
so – our goals a clear, the tasks are determined,
to work, Comrades!
…
Ay, to see what is going to happen, look at India. We’ll partition various countries, some of the Muslims will leave but others will stay, continuing their atrocities.
Yeah, in India they Hindu unto others as others would Hindu unto them. Just ask a Christian.
AY-
There is a third option that you left out.
Sadly the West no longer has the intestinal fortitude to pursue it.
I do not agree with the extinction part of your listing.
There has been some safety and progress in Muslim countries, usually under a dictator with the will and means to assert his authority ruthlessly. I think the argument can be made that Muslims do best under a dictator willing to use ruthless methods. If you look at Egypt, Iran, or even Afghanistan from several decades ago, you’ll find schools, commerce, and women without garbage bag coverings.
What is killing the West is the empire-building that took place. Britain was colonizing India and France Algeria, but in fact India was colonizing Britain and Algeria was colonizing France. The US had a colony, Puerto Rico, which is undeniably colonizing us with free movement to the states.
There is also the moral argument that colonial governments often are responsible for millions of deaths through their blundering administration, as happened in the India famines of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and the Irish famines of the nineteenth. But, when did a moral argument ever move empire builders?
There is a vast difference between initiating death on other peoples, and simply allowing them to live the consequences of their own actions or their own nature. I think we should keep Africa bottled up and stop interfering, as a government, in their affairs. Likely, their birth control would be starvation, but at least no Western government would have a hand in the events.
I’m perfectly willing for George Soros or Bill Gates to spend their entire fortunes in the region on whatever project rings their bells: they can have advertising campaigns extolling the virtues of huge families, for all I care, as long as Western governments observe their real function, which is to protect their countries from invasion.
for Islam to become extinct, doesn’t automatically mean that people are extinct.
I woluld welcome genuine mass apostasy and emancipation, but how likely is that?
well, Arab Spring in 2011,2013 has shown clear civilization split in Egypt.
Tto a degree it is urban/rural not only Islam related.
If they are capable of overcoming Archaic together with West,
good for them.
The same is about caste society in India, and alike. Turkey, Iran, – where there is division, there is hope.
But many, as we know from biology, will vanish.
I doubt countries like Somalia and Sudan will make it in noticeable numbers.
Most likely will be replaced with Chinese, over time.
…
Ronald-
It’s not so much the empire building as the reverse colonization.
After ceding their empires, the nations you mentioned should have closed the borders to all immigrants from former colonies save for those who had thoroughly absorbed the culture of the colonizing country.
That’s pretty ruthless, RonaldB. Niger, for example, is one of the world’s poorest countries, with few resources. Fertility is around six children per woman, which could be reduced if the women had other options; as it is, Niger is also one of the worst offenders for underage marriage.
Which Western government or NGO will be sufficiently brave to tie medical aid to insist on changing these parameters?