EU Referendum reminds us of a then and now double standard.
Than it was Sept. 15, 2004, and people in London peacefully protesting a ban of foxhunting:
Instantly, the police responded with a flail of truncheons.[...] They were scenes more associated with the clash of police and shaven-headed football hooligans or dreadlocked anti-capitalist demonstrators rather than men in flat caps and women in quilted waistcoats.Now its Feb 3, 2006 and Muslim's are protesting in London.
An Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman said that the protests did not yet represent a serious threat to public order. A Scotland Yard spokesman said: "Arrests, if necessary, will be made at the most appropriate time. This should not be taken as a sign of lack of action."Glenn Reynolds adds:
Scotland Yard says a decision not to arrest protesters was taken because of public order fears. It confirmed that police had received more than 100 complaints from the public about the protesters' behaviour.
Once again, the message is that if you blow things up, or even look as if you might, we'll be nice to you. And once again, I note that this is a very unwise message to send.
Hat Tip: Instapundit
3 comments:
It is sort of like dog-training. Yeah, I know dogs are an insult to muslims. That's why I used it. Muslims at this point in time are an insult to humanity.
It resembles dog training in that the entire non muslim world, except for us (and we keep insisting Islam is peaceful,ha ha), is training the muslims to believe this is a good thing they do. Just like a dog, if you give him a treat for every child he bites, he will bite every child he can.
Every time these barbarians behead someone, or explode a bomb and kill innocents, or burn a city, or car, or embassy, or in some other way show their strong resemblance to feces the world gives them a treat. We back off and give them more of what they demand, why the Hell would they quit tactics that we have proven work?
Perhaps someone as pugnacious as I might not be the answer. But we had better understand that this is a death match. We didn't call it, we didn't want it, but we damn well had better win it.
I know how. We don't have to kill them all. We just have to adopt a policy of obliterating whatever country, sect, or organization that sponsors and/or encourages these attacks on decency and civilizations. Even if it means destroying so-called "friendly" Islamic states. If they wear two faces we need to shoot them in both. If the remainder get the message and desist, we can desist, if they do not, we can see that they cease to exist. Not a really nice outcome, but the difference between us and them is that if they quit killing us, we will leave them alone. They have sworn to never leave us alone until we are all dead. Big damn difference,that.
There of course, will be those that say we can't do that because we may harm innocent women and children, the wives and children of the attackers, and others that live in proximity. I say, yes we will, but the guilt belongs to those that attack our innocents and then try to use theirs as shields. If they were men, they would not attack others and then hide behind their women and children. That they rely on our misdefined sense of humanity is a weapon we cannot afford to allow them.
That sense of humanity is misdirected for by allowing the survival of these barbarians because they hide behind and among their dear ones, who allow it, and hide them, we will have condemned other innocents to death and atrocity who have no hand in it at all.
Should we keep doing that, we must share the guilt for the killing of non-muslim innocents. We will be what the pop-psych crowd call enablers. I think it is time the barbarians and their support systems paid their own freight.
The preceding is background for this. The UK is afraid of the barbarians, they know that nothing the do will please them, they just hope to be eaten last. They do not fear their own civilized citizens (yeah, read that non-muslim), ergo they have no problem "bustin' heads" as long as they are pretty sure that the response will be less than lethal. They have much in common with the barbarians, don't they?
Not part of above:
JinC, SA will work, if it is easier for you.
The real difference is that the fox hunters are effectively disarmed while the Jihadists aren't.
It's *all* about the 2nd amendment in the end.
-AC
AC, your response addresses the motive of law enforcement in the UK, and anywhere, for that matter, the citizen is disarmed and have become civilized to the point of domestication, much like oxen. I wholeheartedly agree.
The muslims are feared and break serious law with impunity. The unarmed citizen is not feared and is violated in extreme ways for the slightest infractions. That was the point of my query about how similar they were to the barbarians.
Post a Comment