About the Manchester Slaughter

I have been reading quite a lot of material about the craziness. I find it very difficult to get my head around it. Watching the TV footage and reading about the information about the bomber which is coming to light, just fills me with sadness. An article in ‘Spiked’ says that we should not be so drippily emotional about those events, in the sense of ‘being together in love’, but, instead, we should be blazing with anger.

I think that we should be neither. We should be coldly determined. ‘Revenge is a dish best served cold’ is a phrase that I remember. But it is not revenge that we seek – it is termination. It is the restoration of our ability to move around our country, even if we do not know precisely what a given neighbourhood is like, without risk of being attacked in any way.

But what could we be determined to do? That is the unspoken question. The generalised phrase, “Stop it!” will not do. To ‘stop it’, measures have to be put in place. Actions must be taken.

I read somewhere that the Israelis had a procedure. If a ‘terrorist’ blew himself up with much death and destruction, they found out who he was, where he lived, and then went with tanks and machines and demolished the house where he lived. Parent, relatives, friends – it did not matter. That place was demolished.

I am not in the least saying that we should do that. The Israelis were in a warlike situation. But the general idea – that there must be serious repercussions – holds good.

Has anyone noticed how the Rotherham prosecutions have proceeded so quietly? There were some brief descriptions of what took place in court and very little else. Why has there not been a great deal of noise about where the culprits have been imprisoned and what deprivations will they will suffer?

I think that we need a couple of new definitions which we, the people of the UK, will make. ‘Muslimism’ defines the religion, in much the same way that ‘Catholicism’ defines the catholic religion. I would define ‘Islamism’ as a conquering, political entity. Thus, a person can be a Muslim but have nothing but horror for Islamism. An Islamist is a soldier,  a warrior, a terrorist.

So what can be done about abominations like Manchester? Should we adopt the Israeli solution? It could be done. For example, police, troops and demolition teams could thoroughly rip through the mosque which he attended, looking for ‘terrorist’ documents and then demolish it. There is a lot to be said for such an action in that the mosque authorities should have known what was going on in their mosque. Would we want that? I am not sure, but such a procedure would certainly put the cat among the pigeons as far as Muslimist tolerance of Islamist terrorism is concerned.

But there is much more that could be done if it were not for the confusion between Muslimism and Islamism. My thinking is that anyone who gets involved with Islamist atrocities is just as guilty as the patsy who kills himself. JB from Ireland recently linked me to a historian who believed that 9/11 was faked by the US Gov. He has strong evidence, but I do not believe it for one second. For a start, too many people would be involved in setting such an attack up, to say nothing of the massive slaughter. But there are some very peculiar things, such as why did the wings of the planes not sheer off when the planes hit those massive, strong buildings? The engines might have penetrate, but not the thin aluminium (or whatever amalgam) of the wings themselves. Thin metal sheets hit solid concrete. Which give way?

But my chief reason for mentioning that historian is his thinking about how such atrocities could actually succeed. First, he said, there needs to be a Patsy – someone to take the blame. In the Kennedy assassination, Oswald was the Patsy. He may or may not have been the actual culprit, but if he was not, then he was set up to take the blame.

There is no need to go further than that idea for our purpose, but the historian said that there must also be ‘moles’ inside the organisation to deflect the truth.

I think that there is only one solution. Planning such a crime is as bad as committing the crime. In the bible, Jesus said that ‘a person who contemplates adultery has already committed adultery’. But we must temper our thinking in the sense that Jesus meant ‘sinfulness’, and not crime.

In the circumstance which we are talking about, planning and assisting is as bad as being the Patsy. Thirty years. No excuse whatsoever. Thirty years. Further, the imprisonment must be as unpleasant as possible without being deliberately cruel. A prison on a Hebridian island would be a good place to put such prisoners. And no imams, no mosques, but visits would be allowed for ten minutes per an at the visitor’s expense.

The principle that I have in mind is that ‘Mass Murder’ is much, much worse than ‘ordinary’ murder. I know that the thought of ‘ordinary murder’ is difficult. If you think of extremes of killing, war is legitimised mass murder. Depending upon the circumstances, such mass killings are perfectly lovely. At the other end of the scale, is mass killing which has no excuse. Subjective excuses, such as bombings by UK, French and USA on Syrian targets, have no legal authority.

So I would envisage anyone who was connected to the Manchester bomber in the sense of helping him to plan, acquire the materials, make the bomb, transport him, and anything else, to be treated with the utmost severity. But I would also like to see any trials to be conducted in a blaze of publicity. No more ‘multiculti’. And when the culprits have been condemned and imprisoned on the Outer Hebrides, I would like to see their families repatriated to where they came from. Every single person. I really mean that. Dump them on the beach. But give them some money so as not to be cruel. Someone would have to work out what the amount of money should be. And perhaps contact their relatives if they want their relatives to be contacted. If they do not, then don’t.

The important thing is that the consequences of blowing yourself up and killing and maiming dozens of people must be dire – not for you because you are a Patsy and are dead. The Patsy is dispensable from everyone’s point of view.

The Patsy was already known to the Security Services. It is not the Patsy who is important. It is the organisation behind him. Our Security Services have to get much, much more serious and the law must enable that. But that does not mean that ordinary citizens must have their emails and personal conversations recorded and inspected, even though they might oppose various laws and regulations, and even defy such laws and regulations. Such spying is just as bad as Islamism.

And so I repeat. We must differentiate between Muslimism and Islamism.



%d bloggers like this: