« Moonbat Swarm Converges on Scotland | Main | DU Response to London Attacks »

Wonder how long before the moonbats (a) accuse Blair of knowing in advance and doing nothing; (b) blame an Israeli conspiracy; (c) accuse Bush of orchestrating the attack; (d) blame Britain for having been in Iraq in the first place and recommend a Spain-like retreat; or (e) all or some of the above?

The inmates at the Democratic Underground Message Board (DUMB) and Daily Kos have already concluded that it was Karl Rove.

"Can't blow up 'Murkins -'Murka would realize it's NOT safer... Where are there people who LOOK like 'Murkins? And how are we going to keep Karl Rove's indictment off the front page? And, do you think we can tie this to Iran or possibly Syria? This gang of criminals was at least complicit in allowing this to happen"

Link

Jonathan, it has already started.(AOTA)

And their brothers and sisters in Australia.

The UK "Human Rights" moonbats are already demanding that we hold back from doing anything that might cause pain to the Islamist community. I say, rubbish. We Brits never won a war with both hands tied behind our backs and we'll lose this won if our resolve is weakened by gutless immoral Jihadi endorsing liberals.

David

I think the point of the "Human Rights moonbats" is that if you demonise the whole Muslim community for the terrible tragedy that happened yesterday, then:

a) You harm community relations. This isn't a good idea in any society - it leads to tension, unrest and public order problems;
b) You alienate those in the Islamic community that you desperately need to bring in to either help bring those responsible to justice or to prevent a further spread of extremism
c) You let the terrorists win. We are a multicultural society in Britain; we have been for decades, and I for one am proud of it. We must not let terrorists destroy this absolutely central part of our society. It's as simple as that. Any undemocratic or unjust move that we now take - for example, introducing ID cards on these grounds - only further reduce our society, and let the terrorists win.

Mark,

I hear what you're saying, and it makes sense. However, this "we must not alienate the Muslim community" has gone too far.

The fact is that the Muslim community has not done nearly enough to corral the extremist elements in their religion. Therefore, they are complicit in the crimes being committed in the name of their god, and until they fight these bastards with us on a widespread scale, they're not helpful at all...and thus I don't give a damn if they feel alienated or not. I don't care if the average Muslim is scared of terrorists. Hell, I am, too...but I'll be damned if I don't try to stomp out their existence!

I mean, whenever a Christian wacko in America bombs an abortion clinic or kills an abortion doctor, 99.9% of the Christian community condemns the act and does everything in its power to find the cretin and bring him to justice. Christians don't house, harbor, feed, nurture, or protect this kind of cretin. We turn him in to the cops. Muslims do no such thing.

I do believe the vast majority of Muslims find terrorism committed in their name to be despicable. No doubt. But until they get more proactive in helping us bring these bastards to justice, they're part of the problem.

Jonathon has on his war face. How cute.

Any undemocratic or unjust move that we now take - for example, introducing ID cards on these grounds - only further reduce our society, and let the terrorists win.

Well, you could let the terrorists "win", and then you could let the terrorists really win. I guarantee you option #2 is quite different from option #1.

Hey, Rob! Nice of you to put down your latte long enough to hunt-and-peck on the keyboard.

You being a liberal and all, I'm kind of surprised you even knew that we were at war at all...considering your kind has wanted to treat this whole terrorism thing as a nuisance rather than a real bona fide threat. To you guys, a threat is a tax cut...not an Islamofascist attack that kills innocent people in the name of Allah.

So thanks for the breath of fresh air. With all of this pesky solidarity with the UK here, we sure were waiting for our resident moonbat to poke his pointy head in here and spew pearls of bile...er, wisdom... from his piehole. You, sir, did not disappoint.

Jonathan,

One of the things that you shouldn't forget is that several of the areas targeted yesterday had high concentrations of Muslims in the area - Aldgate, for example, is one of London's biggest Muslim communities.

Links of Muslims condemning the attacks:
MAB (1),
MAB (2).

Ken Livingstone's usually a pretty controversial bloke, but I don't think many people can really disagree with the speech he made yesterday in the aftermath of the attacks:

"This was not a terrorist attack against the mighty or the powerful, it was aimed at ordinary working-class Londoners. Black and white, Muslim and Christian, Hindus and Jews, young and old. It was an indiscriminate attempt to slaughter, irrespective of any considerations for age, class, religion whatever."

You said that you didn't care if we alienated them at this time, given what has happened. But it is precisely at this time that we must engage with the Muslim community; vindictive or hate-filled attacks against mosques, etc, will do nothing but push the community away at a time when we desperately need to bring in, as I said, in order to bring those responsible to justice. I think it's also faily sweeping to make statements such as "Muslims will do no such thing" with regards to turning in those responsible. Let's wait and see what happens before rushing to judgement.

Irene, you're not making any sense. Are you saying that introducing ID cards, while "letting them win", would not "really let them win"? Which means exactly what? Are you suggesting that ID cards would stop terrorism? Or what?

And obviously, you've got to make a distinction between people like me, who will (I would suggest) want to put forward rational arguments, and those at the likes of DU who have no such notions or rationalism.

Mark,

You make valid points, sir. And I agree with Livingstone's comments in his eloquent speech.

I certainly do not advocate retaliating against innocent Muslims. I was disgusted to see it happen here after 9/11, and I'd be disgusted to see it happen anywhere else after yesterday's attacks.

All I'm saying is that you have more confidence in their willingness to combat the problem of radical Islam than I have. I'd like to give the Muslim community the benefit of the doubt, but my experience has taught me to be pessimistic about their efforts to help us in that regard.

If the Muslim community proves me wrong, I will be thrilled and relieved and glad to be wrong. After all, the more the Muslim community helps ferret out the terrorist elements of their religion, the less that said terrorist elements can do.

No Mark, I wasn't making any particular comment about ID cards, just about fatuous cliches like "not letting the terrorists win by making us abandon our values."

There's that kind of "letting the terrorists win" and then there's the kind that occurs when the terrorists really do win, such as what the Iranians have been experiencing since 1979.

Like, for instance, 100,000 judicial and extra-judicial killings, by most estimates.

But ID cards and Gitmo and racial profiling and shutting down immigration from the culture that bedevils us are just like that, aren't they? Aren't they just the equivalent of 100,000 people being murdered for their political opinions, or stoned to death for non-violent "crimes" like adultery?

Isn't it all the same thing? Isn't it?

You decide. No give-backs if you get it wrong, unfortunatley.

V the K Neither Approves Nor Condemns the Content of this Poster

In all honesty, I'm keeping an open mind. That means I am just as skeptical of the claim that Islam is benign and peaceful as I am of the claim that it is The Problem.

If it is the case that Islam is in need of a "Reformation" to bring it in line with modern ideals, and that the Islam that produces terrorism is a radical off-shoot --- I don't think that the goal of 'enlightening' Islam can be accomplished so long as multiculturalists are willing to apologize for Islamic terror. I think pressure should be brought to bear on moderate Muslims, because if they don't feel like they are in danger of losing their status and comfort, they have no incentive to purge the radicals.

Also, if one has an open mind, one has to contemplate the possibility that Islam is in the midst of an "anti-Reformation" and an "anti-Enlightenment." Whereas Christianity centuries ago moved out of the Dark Ages, the radicals may be the ones who push all of Islam into it. Osama bin Laden may be the Islamic Martin Luther. Think about that.

(Cross-posted to LGF)

V the K

Without a doubt there are sections of Islam (the extreme fringes) that certainly are dangerous. Parts of the Middle East are indeed in a grave need of a reformation.

But what Irene is suggesting makes no sense. She is arguing that we must protect our way of life by destroying our way of life. Introducing ID cards won't stop terrorism (cf. Madrid, 9/11); I would argue that the detention without trial of hundreds of people at Guantanamo is severely harming opinion of the US around the world, at a time when it is absolutely critical that the US makes friends, not enemies, to prevent more terrorist outrages. But the idea that we should ban all Muslims from entering the UK ("shutting down immigration from the culture that bedevils us") is morally repugnant. NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXREMIST TERRORIST BOMBERS, IRENE! Plus, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce. What if a Muslim presented him as something else at customs? What would you do then in this pseudo apartheidic state of yours, Irene?

Why do we have to decide between a police state and an Islamic fundamentalist one? Simple answer: we don't. Sorry Irene, but many of my ancestors and relatives have fought and died to create and protect my country's democracy. I am not about to surrender it now.

Come on, Mark. ID cards and sane limitations on immigration do not make a society a police state. And if Gitmo is the worst thing our enemies can come up with to try to make us look bad, we ought to qualify for sainthood.

There's a rumor going around the Internet that one of the London bombers is a released Gitmo detainee.

If that turns out to be true, what will you say then Mark?

Irene, I won't say anything until I know that to be a fact. There were also rumours going round that there had been explosions on two other buses and one at Leicester Square station, and that a suicide bomber had been shot by marines at Canary Wharf. There were rumours on 9/11, conspiracy theories similar to those that you're now spouting, that Mossad or the CIA were responsible for those attacks. None of which turned out to be true. Until the police say otherwise, as far as I'm concerned there's nothing that links any of the released Guantanamo detainees to the attacks on Thursday. The police investigated the detainees, and have placed them under (in some circumstances) fairly stiff extra-judicial conditions - set by the home secretary. I very much doubt that any of those detained at Guantanamo were involved, but again, let's see some evidence before we start speculating.

Van Helsing - immigration isn't the answer. Terrorists will always find a way into our country (eg the Common Travel Area with Ireland), and the sort of limits on immigration that Irene is suggesting certainly aren't sane.

ID cards won't serve any purpose in this area - they won't help prevent terrorism - as I said before, they didn't on 9/11 or in Madrid. In and of themselves they don't signify a police state, but they certainly are yet another milestone of this increasingly illiberal government on the way towards a police state. Indeed, in the form suggested by our government - remember, *OUR* elected representatives - they serve pretty much no purpose at all. I refuse to be tagged like cattle to satisfy the ignorant hysteria of the tabloid press; I do not need a government license to walk down my own road. This will indeed become the plastic poll tax, as many have already suggested.

And my argument was that it would be impossible to prevent all Muslims from coming into this country without becoming a police state. In a free democracy there will always be a possibility that these things will happen - as they have always done in the past with the IRA, for example. Militarism isn't the answer, however. Though you may reduce terrorist activity, you can't eradicate it. Quite simply, you can't bomb people into submission.

Irene, I won't say anything until I know that to be a fact.

Weasel words. C'mon, answer the question.

It's a ridiculous question. I'd be quite prepared to answer it if it actually turned out to be true, but as it is I'd just be responding to unsubstantiated speculation and rumour.

Let me pose you a similarly absurd question:

There's a rumor going around the Internet that 9/11 was caused by the CIA and Mossad. If that turns out to be true, what will you say then Irene?

Actually Van Helsing, I was somewhat surprised that you brought me up on my comments and yet totally ignored Irene's outrageous statement that we should effectively ban Muslims from coming to our country!

And by the way, this isn't an argument about who hates the terrorists more. I visit London fairly regularly and I was on the Picadilly Line at King's Cross (admittedly accidentally) only a few weeks ago. There are also reports coming in tonight that the centre of my home city, Birmingham, is being evacuated. The whole of Broad Street's been shut down (the major entertainment, bars and clubs area), no traffic is being allowed inside the inner ring road (a fairly wide area) and Sky News (though it often delivers news in a sensational and tabloid way) is reporting controlled explosions. Altogether fairly worrying stuff. I'm just as angry towards these terrorists as you are - this is happening in my country, and in my cities. But what makes me equally angry is suggestions of collective punishment - kick out all the Muslims, for example. I have several very good friends who are Muslims (to varying degrees) and they are just as shocked and appalled at what has happened as anyone else. They themselves are not responsible; the only people who are responsible for these terrorist attacks are the terrorists.

Should we have kicked out all the Irish during the 70s and 80s when the IRA was at its peak, bombing our cities (especially Birmingham) and killing our citizens? (supported by organisations such as NORAID)

No, of course we shouldn't have, we didn't, and we won't start now.

But Mark, it would not be the least surprising to discover that released Gitmo detainees were involved in the London attacks, whereas the CIA and/or Mossad being involved in 9/11 would come as a very large surprise to anyone who doesn't go to bed at night wearing a tinfoil hat to defend against Karl Rove's mind control beams.

As for immigration, I don't think anyone is advocating kicking all Muslims out of Britain. But there is a difference between immigrants and invaders. Immigrants allow themselves to be assimilated into their new culture. Until the Muslim communities in Britain have been assimilated to a far greater degree than they are now, immigration from Muslim countries needs to be curtailed. Otherwise you are giving your own country away to people who want to destroy you. Britain is more vulnerable than the USA right now because of this large, unassimilated Muslim population that allows terrorists to operate freely and easily disappear.

If that were true, I'd say that Bush should be impeached (if he knew about it) and the US should demand that Israel hand over the perps, or face bombardment.

Your turn, Mark.

Once again, Van Helsing, I'll repeat this until I'm blue in the face: It doesn't matter if Muslims want to establish sharia rule violently through terrorism, or "peacefully" through the ballot box. The end result is the same. Sharia is still an apartheid system of law that discriminates against and oppresses "infidels" like you and me and our Mark here.

"Peaceful" Muslims can certainly implement sharia by the ballot box as they have in India once they gain numerical superiority. They are already trying to do it in Canada.

The immigration question needs to be faced today in all Western countries, before they obtain any more political power than they have now.

In Malaysia the Muslims have a discriminatory immigration laws that ensures that Malaysia will always be a "Muslim-majority" country (where non-Muslims live as second-class citizens, BTW.)

Muslims can just as easily implement such a policy in a Western country too, once they get the numbers.

When that happens, Bye bye Western culture, bye bye democracy, bye bye human rights as we understand it. That is what is happening to Holland even as we speak, where two legitimately elected servants of the people are not allowed to take their places in Parliament because of Muslim aggression. Holland is in the process of losing itself -- someday soon, it will no longer be a Western-culture country, but a portion of the Dar-al-Islam. It will disappear.

With the example of Holland staring him right in the face, Mark and other Brits like him put their heads in sand and pretend not to notice.