June 19, 2017

"When the guy came out from his van he wanted to escape, run away and he was saying 'I want to kill Muslims. I want to kill Muslims.'"

"I hit him on his stomach... and then me and the other guys... we held him to the ground until he couldn't move. We stopped him until the police came."
Another witness, who gave his name as Abdul, told the BBC the arrested man was shouting "kill me, I've done my job".

[Communities Secretary Sajid] said he wanted to reassure Muslims around the UK that the government would "always take a zero tolerance approach to hate crime".

Eyewitness Adil Rana, 24, said the suspected attacker was pinned to the floor by members of the public "and people were punching him and beating him, which was reasonable because of what he's done. And then the imam of the mosque actually came out and said: 'Don't hit him, hand him over to the police, pin him down'."

255 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 255 of 255
Earnest Prole said...

Before his belated departure for hell, Osama bin Laden told his death cult that it would never inflict sufficient murder on the infidel unless it could provoke ordinary peaceful Westerners to attack ordinary peaceful Muslims, thereby providing the pretext for mass murder on a truly global scale. I see some commenters here have signed on to bin Laden's strategy.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Christians killed hundreds of thousands of muslims in Iraq for no good reason.

ARM, do you get paid to lie or do you do it for free? Most of the dead Muslims in Iraq were killed by other Muslims. You may blame us, because we were there and it was all butterflies and zebras in Iraq till we got there, but it wasn't E-4s blowing up Iraqi cafes and recruiting centers and polling places, it was Them. Them vs. them, them vs. Them, and Them vs. them. vs. THEM.

Why be a jerk?

Bad Lieutenant said...

providing the pretext for mass murder on a truly global scale

Silly puppy. Pretext? They already got a text, it's called the Holy Koran. What they lack is the ability. What force can they apply that they are not already applying? The 80% that stay home and root on the 20%, come out to play instead? Yay, more targets.

Islam will be defeated when Muslims are more afraid of us than they are of Allah.

Drago said...

ARM: "Even if muslims are the problem that you claim, wouldn't it have been strategically smart to let them be the problem of those countries that border a muslim country? These countries include Russia, China and India, all of whom are past or future strategic rivals. Let them squander their resources fighting the muslim horde."

Yes, you are a 20-20 hindsight genius. The Muslims would have left us alone if we had only stayed where we belong.

Of course, Thomas Jefferson discovered that wasn't really the case, didn't he?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Drago said...
Yes, you are a 20-20 hindsight genius.


Some knowledge of British and French history with muslim countries, combined with an absence of arrogance, would probably have been sufficient. History didn't begin with the ascendance of the US after WWII and nukes don't suddenly change the calculus of asymmetrical conflicts.

mockturtle said...

There is no appreciable history of Islamic culture anywhere on continental America.

You apparently haven't been to Dearbornistan.

Jupiter said...

"The US has no borders with any Islamic country."

Last time I checked, you and your friends think borders are immoral.

"There is no appreciable history of Islamic culture anywhere on continental America."

I seem to recall some Islamic cultural activities in lower Manhattan a few years back.

Kevin said...

These countries include Russia, China and India, all of whom are past or future strategic rivals. Let them squander their resources fighting the muslim horde.

Isn't it treason these days to suggest working with Russia to fight ISIS? I was told it was at least an impeachable offense.

Jupiter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
tcrosse said...

You apparently haven't been to Dearbornistan.

Or Toronto.

Jupiter said...

"History didn't begin with the ascendance of the US after WWII and nukes don't suddenly change the calculus of asymmetrical conflicts."

Um, ARM, it's the nukes that make them asymmetric. Once the Persians build their bomb, it will get symmetric again. Should be real interesting. You will no doubt be pleased to learn that nuclear fallout is not subject to exclusion by Presidential decree. Nor are ICBMs, for that matter.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that the US has badly fucked up its relationship with Islamic countries? Not that we would ever been allies but that even a modestly well played foreign policy would have resulted in these countries being largely the problem of someone else.

Earnest Prole said...

The war America lost featured leaders who were incapable of fighting strategically, and who instead insisted on popping off shots at every noise in the jungle, thereby getting their whole platoons killed. These leaders were known as "bad lieutenants."

Michael said...

"Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that the US has badly fucked up its relationship with Islamic countries? Not that we would ever been allies but that even a modestly well played foreign policy would have resulted in these countries being largely the problem of someone else."

it would be "simpler" but would have no effect other than to applaud, silently, those of you who are standing on top of the I Told You So pole. And another commenter has fallen for the "that's what they want you to do" bullshit, Sure, terrorists are hoping for a beating so there can be mass murder on a global scale. However that might happen....

PS . There is no =Bin Laden Strategy" and Bin Laden was in charge of squat when Obama "got him."

Michael K said...

" understanding how the US, which has no borders with any Islamic country, became embroiled in such a conflict."

It's a long history, which I am sure you have no knowledge of.

Jackie Fisher and Winston Churchill converted the Royal Navy to oil. That's the modern version.

Of course, there was Charles Martell before that. The Gates of Vienna and the pretzel bakers' royal coat of arms for hearing the Turks digging their mine beneath the walls.

FDR made a deal with Ibn Saud for oil.

Nasser seizing the Suez Canal in 1956.

9/11 was very late in the history.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Jupiter said...
it's the nukes that make them asymmetric.


Not really - Asymmetric warfare.

Anonymous said...

ARM: The US has no borders with any Islamic country. There is no appreciable history of Islamic culture anywhere on continental America.

...and wisdom dictates that the influence of Islamic culture on continental America should be not be allowed to rise above this negligible level.

Given these facts wouldn't it be worthwhile asking how US leadership so fucked up our favorable strategic position that people such as yourself are now advocating nuking 1.6 billion muslims?

Indeed. A question that can be asked and satisfactorily answered without letting one more Muslim migrate to the West.

Even if muslims are the problem that you claim, wouldn't it have been strategically smart to let them be the problem of those countries that border a muslim country These countries include Russia, China and India, all of whom are past or future strategic rivals. Let them squander their resources fighting the muslim horde.

I agree with this. I also appreciate your specifying "U.S. leadership" instead of saying "we". "We" have had no more say in foreign policy than "we" have had any say in immigration policy. The people getting fucked by "invade the world" over there, and the people getting fucked by "invite the world" over here, are not the people running the tandem invade the world/invite the world policy.

By the same token I also insist that no non-Muslim nation has any obligation whatsoever to allow the migration of Muslims into its territory. There is not a shred of empirical evidence to suggest that doing so ever ends up as anything but bad news for the host population. I don't give a damn about the crackpot, anti-historical, anti-empirical universalist ideologies of either right or left that insist we must, because their infantile ideologies say so.

Nor should the U.S. be using its "soft power" channels to push immigration and "diversity" claptrap on other nations (which "our" State department certainly does).

It's not our job, nor do we have any right, to "fix" or "Westernize" or "reform" Islam, any more than Muslims have some "right" to migrate into other nations, or we have any obligation to allow them to Islamize our own societies. They are justified in keeping us out and fighting us if we intrude on their culture or territories, as we are justified in keeping them out and fighting them if they intrude upon our cultures or territories.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Michael said...
those of you who are standing on top of the I Told You So pole


While only some of us get to stand on that pole we can all benefit from the wisdom that gave us the pole.

Instead of hysterically framing Islam as a uniquely irresolvable existential problem, recast it as a difficult but manageable problem that should, as much as possible, be someone else's problem.

Anonymous said...

ARM: Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that the US has badly fucked up its relationship with Islamic countries?

It would be nice if the people who ran fucked up policies, foreign and domestic, admitted to their mistakes and hopeless incompetence and desisted forthwith. Unfortunately decades of rule by fuck-ups has left many Western countries with a "Muslim problem", and no admissions from said fuck-ups will do anything about that.

At any rate, you don't believe that there is any such thing as a "Muslim problem" in any Western country, so what your interlocuters "admit" is neither here nor there, no?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Angel-Dyne, I agree that we are getting screwed by idiots at both ends of the political spectrum. A lot more caution should have been the default position for leaders of every political persuasion.

Jupiter said...

"It's not our job, nor do we have any right, to "fix" or "Westernize" or "reform" Islam, ..."

I agree about Westernize and reform, but I'm afraid it is our job to to fix Islam, the same way it's our job to fix the rattlesnake in the back yard where the kids are playing. If you want to say that we have no "right" to fix that rattlesnake, and he is he is perfectly justified in doing what rattlesnakes are prone to do, well, fine. Say it. Then cut his fucking head off with a shovel, before he bites one of the kids. OK?

I'll say it again, you're all over-thinking this. It isn't about right or wrong, it's about life or death.

CWJ said...

It would also be simpler if Islamic countries admitted that they badly fucked up their relationship with Non-Islamic countries?

Drago said...

ARM: "Instead of hysterically framing Islam as a uniquely irresolvable existential problem, recast it as a difficult but manageable problem that should, as much as possible, be someone else's problem."

Lol

Yes, by all means, recast away. As if your words mean anything at all to them.

Too funny. Obama thinking on steroids. Pretty words can fix everything.

Michael K said...

I also insist that no non-Muslim nation has any obligation whatsoever to allow the migration of Muslims into its territory. There is not a shred of empirical evidence to suggest that doing so ever ends up as anything but bad news for the host population.

Well said. The Muslims are not ready for western civilization except for a few like Fouad Ajami who are sophisticated and not devout. Even there, we are having trouble with second generation jihadis like Major Hassan.

There are lots of examples of well educated jihadis who should have been well assimilated but who went radical under the influence of the religion. The results of Muslim immigration are too unpredictable to allow more than a minuscule number who are high achievers and may be immune to the crazy religious teachings. Even there, we need to see how that works out before we allow more.

Labour has probably destroyed Britain with its importation of hundreds of thousands of "safe Labour voters."

Earnest Prole said...

There is no =Bin Laden Strategy" and Bin Laden was in charge of squat when Obama "got him."

Bin Laden’s strategic vision dates to 1996 when he declared war on America. The thing about ideas is that they are capable of surviving their creators.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Angel-Dyne said...
you don't believe that there is any such thing as a "Muslim problem" in any Western country


Assertion lacking evidence. I think most of Europe is nuts taking in so many immigrants. The British and French have a more complex problem, because of their long and tortured colonial history. That never ends well. There was never a point where they simply said 'we're out of here' and pulled up the drawbridges. They constantly tried to exert 'influence' in their former colonies resulting in the current situation. They couldn't both exert influence and block all immigration from the colonies. Immigration was one of the carrots in their efforts to retain influence. Japan has little or no influence over its former colonies.

Anonymous said...

ARM: Instead of hysterically framing Islam as a uniquely irresolvable existential problem, recast it as a difficult but manageable problem that should, as much as possible, be someone else's problem.

I'm afraid that allowing an unimpeded inflow of Muslims appears to have some connection with an increase in local "problems with Islam" (no one knows why such a mysterious link should exist, but it appears to be so), so there's a slight contradiction within the collection of views you have expressed here over time, touching on matters Muslim.

Aside from that, your statement standing alone is perfectly sensible.

Kevin said...

Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that the US has badly fucked up its relationship with Islamic countries?

Sure. Badly fucked up.

Not that we would ever been allies but that even a modestly well played foreign policy would have resulted in these countries being largely the problem of someone else.

This is where I don't agree. Where did Sweden badly fuck up its relationship with Islamic countries? Where did the Netherlands? Where did Afghanistan badly fuck up its relationship with Islamic countries? Because people were chopping off body parts there long before the US got involved.

There is an internal Suni/Shia war within Islam, such that absent anyone else being there to kill, the neighbors just attack each other. When you talk about the Middle East, you're not talking about people who have chosen to live in peace, even when that choice was readily available.

We are a few years away from Iran having both a nuclear weapon and a missile capable of delivering it almost anywhere. Do we think it's going to matter what the historical relationship is going to be, or how close a border you have with them? You are either inside of or outside of missile range.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Kevin said...
We are a few years away from Iran having both a nuclear weapon and a missile capable of delivering it almost anywhere. Do we think it's going to matter what the historical relationship is going to be, or how close a border you have with them? You are either inside of or outside of missile range.


Pakistan has nukes, lots of them. Although difficult to quantitate, I would guess that the Pakistanis are approximately ten times crazier than the Iranians.

Anonymous said...

ARM: Assertion lacking evidence. I think most of Europe is nuts taking in so many immigrants.

I'm delighted to be corrected on this point. Please ignore any later posts of mine premised on this misapprehension.

The British and French have a more complex problem, because of their long and tortured colonial history. That never ends well. There was never a point where they simply said 'we're out of here' and pulled up the drawbridges. They constantly tried to exert 'influence' in their former colonies resulting in the current situation. They couldn't both exert influence and block all immigration from the colonies. Immigration was one of the carrots in their efforts to retain influence. Japan has little or no influence over its former colonies.

That is true as far as it goes, but the accelerated mass migration of recent decades was not an inevitable consequence of colonialism, or even of a desire to maintain influence. At no point was it necessary to make a choice between "maintaining influence" and "block[ing] all immigration". Reviewing the history of the last several decades, and observing current events, it is impossible to believe that these policies were and are driven by incompetent pursuit of otherwise reasonable foreign policy goals. There is an astonishing mix of malice and hubris running through it all.

Kevin said...

Pakistan has nukes, lots of them. Although difficult to quantitate, I would guess that the Pakistanis are approximately ten times crazier than the Iranians.

They only need their missiles to reach India. They would not waste a precious nuke on anyone else.

Unknown said...

ARM has the minor problem that his party has the burning desire to see mass murder committed by Muslim in America. They love it. His side lusts after it; they thrill to the sound of "allah ackbar" over a pile of Christian corpses.

The US had no real problem with Islam, until the Democrats decided to surrender to Islam. It's that simple.

Now we have Muslims raping and murdering all through the western world, and the left says it's all our fault and if we'd only surrender then we could be slaves of the Muslims and all would be well.

Well, forget that. I will not be a slave to the Ummah.

--Vance

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Kevin said...
They only need their missiles to reach India.


Fair point.

Gahrie said...

Pakistan has nukes, lots of them. Although difficult to quantitate, I would guess that the Pakistanis are approximately ten times crazier than the Iranians.

They weren't crazy enough to sell/give one to the Iranians.

Gahrie said...

This is where I don't agree. Where did Sweden badly fuck up its relationship with Islamic countries? Where did the Netherlands? Where did Afghanistan badly fuck up its relationship with Islamic countries? Because people were chopping off body parts there long before the US got involved.

By refusing to submit to Allah and converting to Islam.

Shahid Q. Public said...

A bit off-topic, but Quinn wrote: "...but only in the way the infinite set of all even numbers is less than the infinite set of whole numbers".

Actually, this isn't true, as for every whole number there is an unique even number that is its double. It may seem counterintuitive but infinity gets weird. (If you had compared whole numbers to real numbers, that would have been correct, though I don't recall the proof being deductive when I ran across it thirty-odd years ago.)

With regard to the topic of terrorism, first, it's not clear that this guy actually killed anybody. A rather incompetent terrorist.

Of course, there are a lot of incompetent Muslim terrorists as well, so unless the western non-Muslim terrorists display a similar level of organization and muderous sophistication, it seems a little silly to compare them in any way. (Generally, I ignore ARM since I've fond anyone who has to adervertise a certain quality, in their nickname as ARM does, probably doesn't display that in their actual behavior. And what I've read of ARM doesn't disappoint.)

I will say that taking this is as civilizational war, i.e., a war of annihilation between cultures, is very much what these self-described Islamists want. That is exactly how they want all other Muslims to see it, even as they spend most of their time and resources murdering other Muslims. I do think that a more focused and less handicapped effort to actually annihilate the declared terrorist groups, like Isis, Taliban, and Al Qaeda would pay huge dividends and would likely be more than enough to change the dynamic in the Islamic world. (Let's take out as much of Hezbollah as we can that are involved in Syria to boot.) Let's show them we have a spine.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Gahrie said...
They weren't crazy enough to sell/give one to the Iranians.


Kevin has an explanation for this that is consistent with my assessment of their relative level of insanity.

Gahrie said...

In this case it started in 639

That would be right after the Roman and then Byzantine annexation.


Yes. The Muslim Arabs conquered Egypt while it was ruled by Christian Byzantines.

What is your point? My point was that Islam launched a war on Christianity and Western Civilization around 639, and has been fighting it ever since.

Achilles said...

This thread is a complete waste. I apologize for responding to ARM the one time I did. I still can't find a single post he has made in good faith. We need to stop feeding that and discuss actual solutions.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Shahid Alam said...
I do think that a more focused and less handicapped effort to actually annihilate the declared terrorist groups, like Isis, Taliban, and Al Qaeda would pay huge dividends and would likely be more than enough to change the dynamic in the Islamic world. (Let's take out as much of Hezbollah as we can that are involved in Syria to boot.) Let's show them we have a spine.


Rarely is a moby quite so transparent.

Gahrie said...

A troll is someone who suggests that a war with 1.6 billion muslims would be a good use of US personnel, political capital and treasure.

1) Islam is already at war with us, and has been for around 1,400 years.

2) My suggestion had nothing to do with the U.S.. It was about Western Civilization as a whole defending itself, and was based on volunteers from all of Western Civilization. The whole point was that it wasn't the U.S. versus Islam.

Achilles said...

Kevin said...
Pakistan has nukes, lots of them. Although difficult to quantitate, I would guess that the Pakistanis are approximately ten times crazier than the Iranians.

They only need their missiles to reach India. They would not waste a precious nuke on anyone else.

Pakistanis would be more likely to nuke Iran than give them nukes. That whole sunni/shia thing.

Gahrie said...

Even if muslims are the problem that you claim, wouldn't it have been strategically smart to let them be the problem of those countries that border a muslim country

Sure...but Europe and the U.S. fucked up and allowed them to move here.

Gahrie said...

Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that the US has badly fucked up its relationship with Islamic countries?

Yeah...back in 1801 we really fucked up by not allowing Muslims to capture our ships and turn our citizens into slaves.

Gahrie said...

They are justified in keeping us out and fighting us if we intrude on their culture or territories, as we are justified in keeping them out and fighting them if they intrude upon our cultures or territories.

The problem with this is the fact that Islam demands the destruction of our culture, and Islam believes our territory rightfully belongs to them.

Jupiter said...

"You are either inside of or outside of missile range."

The Iranians are working on an EMP attack, which could be launched from a boat off the Atlantic coast, using missiles they already possess, and might well shut down the whole power grid. Of course, they could also just sail up the East River and toast lower Manhattan without even using a missile.

I think it will take something along those lines to get Americans to understand that this isn't about separation of Church and State. It's about separation of body and soul.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Achilles said...
This thread is a complete waste. I apologize for responding to ARM the one time I did.


The spirit was willing, but the flesh weak.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Rarely is a moby quite so transparent.
6/19/17, 5:25 PM

Oh I don't know, some guy who says he's reasonable posts everyday, hundreds of times a day. So I wouldn't say *rare* because he's always transparent.

Bad Lieutenant said...

Earnestly Prolix,

I have it now. You're trying to be funny! Hahaha. Is that better? But I would say that your attempts at wit are not cost effective.

Also, a stupid analysis of Vietnam. And of the Middle East. But, you're alive, so you have that going for you.

Mark said...

Has no one told Unknown 5:48 that the suspect in the Virginia killing has an ICE detainer lodged against him for being in the country illegally?

HoodlumDoodlum said...

AReasonableMan said...Wouldn't it be simpler to admit that the US has badly fucked up its relationship with Islamic countries? Not that we would ever been allies but that even a modestly well played foreign policy would have resulted in these countries being largely the problem of someone else.

Pretty sure the last Admin's support for R2P - responsibility to protect- goes against this, ARM. Pretty sure those people who argued for staying out of ME problems and focusing only on international situations where vital US (domestic) interests are concerned were denounced as xenophobic isolationists, and worse. The guys who argued for staying out of the ME and only bombing the hell out of hostile actors when necessary (the "rubble don't cause trouble" crowd) were dismissed entirely. People who said "leave them to their own devices, leave their countries alone" were called enablers of genocide, etc.

Are...are you saying those deplorable types were right all along?

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Pretty sure Bush started the war in Iraq.

Gahrie said...

Pretty sure Bush started the war in Iraq.

Well you're wrong. Saddam started it when he invaded Kuwait.

Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...

Angel-Dyne said...
That is true as far as it goes, but the accelerated mass migration of recent decades was not an inevitable consequence of colonialism, or even of a desire to maintain influence. At no point was it necessary to make a choice between "maintaining influence" and "block[ing] all immigration". Reviewing the history of the last several decades, and observing current events, it is impossible to believe that these policies were and are driven by incompetent pursuit of otherwise reasonable foreign policy goals. There is an astonishing mix of malice and hubris running through it all.


The hubris is a given. I wonder about the malice. I am not sure about Britain or Europe, but in the US the influx of Hispanics is driven by greed. I don't think employers specifically hate US citizens, they just don't care about them, especially if they can make more money using cheaper labor. There is no sense of community.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

Ah.
History started with GWBush.
The world began with Republican mistakes.
Very simple, very clear.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 255 of 255   Newer› Newest»