Recommended by Ricochet Members Created with Sketch. Blood on Their Hands

 

Tonight our hearts break for parents, their teenagers and even young children who were brutally murdered and injured for simply attending a pop concert in Manchester, England. Those of us who feel angry are justified. There is blood on the hands of politicians who refuse to admit evil exists in our midst. Violence occurs when evil is allowed to metastasize, and it has been allowed. British officials have stepped back from no-go zones because “Islamophobia.” The Mayor of London has accepted this carnage as the price for “living in a major city”. Read that again. The Mayor of one of the world’s greatest cities said this:

Sadiq Khan: London mayor says terror attacks ‘part and parcel’ of living in a major city.

I grew up in England, have returned many times and watched as the town of my childhood profoundly changed. There is no doubt a vast majority of immigrants are hardworking, family-minded people of good faith. But we now have a reality that the media won’t report due to political correctness, that there are extremist Sharia no-go zones across the island country that politicians and police will not address.

Manchester is suffering tonight from the result of Islamism expanding across the country. On my last trip to Birmingham, I stopped for a pint at a local pub on the way to the airport and found myself in one such zone. I was practically escorted out as young Muslim men dressed like football hooligans eyed me with contempt. My guardian angel told me I had no business in that pub or neighborhood, that the “police won’t ‘elp you ‘ere, guv.”

As National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy stated, “Birmingham, a city increasingly enveloped by sharia enclaves that, to varying degrees, have become “no-go zones” for non-Muslims and agents of the state, including police.”

Theresa May is up for re-election on June 8 and this act of barbarism will play a role in her campaign, as it should.

For those of us parents who have taken their teenagers to concerts just like this, we have a message for politicians across the globe; It’s time to take back the narrative from those who’s national security policy’s primary concern is Islamophobia or racism. Frankly, damn them. Their political correctness will only result in more carnage, more parents mourning, and more children dying.

There are 245 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. RightAngles Member

    I’m so angry at what the mayor of London said I can barely type.

    • #1
    • May 22, 2017, at 8:18 PM PDT
    • 27 likes
  2. Dave Sussman Podcaster
    Dave Sussman

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    I’m so angry at what the mayor of London said I can barely type.

    I’m furious tonight.

    • #2
    • May 22, 2017, at 8:26 PM PDT
    • 12 likes
  3. RushBabe49 Thatcher

    The people of London elected a co-religionist of the terrorists, who apologizes for them, and tells the people that they just need to accept it. They elected him! They must want what they are getting.

    • #3
    • May 22, 2017, at 8:30 PM PDT
    • 30 likes
  4. The Reticulator Member

    I miss President Obama. He used to tell us when we should rush to judgment, and when we should not rush to judgment. Now we have to figure it out ourselves. How about these rules for starters?

    Suicide bombing, ISIS rejoices. Must not rush to judgment.

    School shooting. Must rush to judgment, unless ISIS takes credit.

    Trump tweets something. Must rush to judgment.

    • #4
    • May 22, 2017, at 8:54 PM PDT
    • 24 likes
  5. Dave Sussman Podcaster
    Dave Sussman

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):
    The people of London elected a co-religionist of the terrorists, who apologizes for them, and tells the people that they just need to accept it. They elected him! They must want what they are getting.

    Much like major cities in the U.S., London is very liberal. I would bet a hundred £ he wouldn’t have been elected if he was a WASP.

    • #5
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:03 PM PDT
    • 9 likes
  6. Nanda Panjandrum Inactive

    Hideous and so unnecessary! God forgive our timidity and complacency. This mayor should be held accountable for these blasé remarks: Unconscionable!

    • #6
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:07 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  7. RightAngles Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):
    The people of London elected a co-religionist of the terrorists, who apologizes for them, and tells the people that they just need to accept it. They elected him! They must want what they are getting.

    Much like major cities in the U.S., London is very liberal. I would be a hundred £ he wouldn’t have been elected if he was a WASP.

    I’ve said for years that multiculturalism will kill us. When will those idiots realize it? What will it take? On one hand I start to think they’re getting what they asked for, but the kids didn’t ask for it or deserve it.

    • #7
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:10 PM PDT
    • 21 likes
  8. Dave Sussman Podcaster
    Dave Sussman

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    I miss President Obama. He used to tell us when we should rush to judgment, and when we should not rush to judgment. Now we have to figure it out ourselves. How about these rules for starters?

    Suicide bombing, ISIS rejoices. Must not rush to judgment.

    School shooting. Must rush to judgment, unless ISIS takes credit.

    Trump tweets something. Must rush to judgment.

    Nails from a bomb vest of a suicide bomber, which happens to be the m.o. of ISIS – I’m feeling Occam’s razorish.

    • #8
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:14 PM PDT
    • 15 likes
  9. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    I’m so angry at what the mayor of London said I can barely type.

    I’m furious tonight.

    Really bad faith smear of Mayor Khan here Dave. He said terrorism has become part and parcel of living in a major city. That is a factual, not a normative statement. He never said that people shouldn’t do anything about it.

    With what part of Mayor Khan’s statement do you take issue? Do you disagree that people who live in cities should always be vigilant about possible terrorist attacks? Should city officials be encouraging complacency? Or do you think city officials should not be “reassured that every single agency and individual involved in protecting our city has the resources and expertise they need to respond in the event that London is attacked”?

    For the avoidance of any doubt, tonight @davesussman linked to an article reflecting a statement Mayor Khan made in September, not to a statement about this evening’s bombing.

    That is the kind of Alinsky-ite nonsense I would expect from the PC crowd, not reasoned discourse from a logical conservative. Is there a spin you could put on the Mayor’s September 2016 statement that casts the Mayor in a bad light? Sure, if you want to play a game of semantics. I think we would all profit from considering his entire statement in context.

    • #9
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:15 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  10. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    RushBabe49 (View Comment):
    The people of London elected a co-religionist of the terrorists, who apologizes for them, and tells the people that they just need to accept it. They elected him! They must want what they are getting.

    “[C]o-religionist of the terrorists” is a pretty ugly smear. By that measure, we are all “co-religionists” of some terrorist or another.

    Radical Islamic terrorism is enough of a problem right now. You want to take on every Muslim in the world on top of that?

    • #10
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:18 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  11. RightAngles Member

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    I’m so angry at what the mayor of London said I can barely type.

    I’m furious tonight.

    Really bad faith smear of Mayor Khan here Dave. He said terrorism has become part and parcel of living in a major city. That is a factual, not a normative statement. He never said that people shouldn’t do anything about it.

    With what part of Mayor Khan’s statement do you take issue? Do you disagree that people who live in cities should always be vigilant about possible terrorist attacks? Should city officials be encouraging complacency? Or do you think city officials should not be “reassured that every single agency and individual involved in protecting our city has the resources and expertise they need to respond in the event that London is attacked”?

    For the avoidance of any doubt, tonight @davesussman linked to an article reflecting a statement Mayor Khan made in September, not to a statement about this evening’s bombing.

    That is the kind of Alinsky-ite nonsense I would expect from the PC crowd, not reasoned discourse from a logical conservative. Is there a spin you could put on the Mayor’s September 2016 statement that casts the Mayor in a bad light? Sure, if you want to play a game of semantics. I think we would all profit from considering his entire statement in context.

    I can’t for the life of me understand why Libertarians are aligning with the Left.

    • #11
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:19 PM PDT
    • 25 likes
  12. Luke Baker Member
    Luke BakerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Has it been confirmed the explosion was caused by Islamists?

    • #12
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    I’m so angry at what the mayor of London said I can barely type.

    I’m furious tonight.

    Really bad faith smear of Mayor Khan here Dave. He said terrorism has become part and parcel of living in a major city. That is a factual, not a normative statement. He never said that people shouldn’t do anything about it.

    With what part of Mayor Khan’s statement do you take issue? Do you disagree that people who live in cities should always be vigilant about possible terrorist attacks? Should city officials be encouraging complacency? Or do you think city officials should not be “reassured that every single agency and individual involved in protecting our city has the resources and expertise they need to respond in the event that London is attacked”?

    For the avoidance of any doubt, tonight @davesussman linked to an article reflecting a statement Mayor Khan made in September, not to a statement about this evening’s bombing.

    That is the kind of Alinsky-ite nonsense I would expect from the PC crowd, not reasoned discourse from a logical conservative. Is there a spin you could put on the Mayor’s September 2016 statement that casts the Mayor in a bad light? Sure, if you want to play a game of semantics. I think we would all profit from considering his entire statement in context.

    I can’t for the life of me understand why Libertarians are aligning with the Left.

    Just on the side of Truth here. Dave took a quote wildly out of context. You can’t defeat an enemy you refuse to name, and you can’t win a war if you’re cutting down potential allies needlessly.

    • #13
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:24 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  14. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    LB (View Comment):
    Has it been confirmed the explosion was caused by Islamists?

    I think that’s a fair assumption at this point. That doesn’t mean Mayor Khan has “blood on his hands.”

    • #14
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:27 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Hoyacon Member

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):Just on the side of Truth here. Dave took a quote wildly out of context. You can’t defeat an enemy you refuse to name, and you can’t win a war if you’re cutting down potential allies needlessly.

    Leaving the quote issue aside, is Khan supposed to be the potential ally? Toby Young wonders.

    • #15
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:29 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  16. Profile Photo Member

    The Reticulator (View Comment):
    Suicide bombing, ISIS rejoices. Must not rush to judgment.

    School shooting. Must rush to judgment, unless ISIS takes credit.

    Trump tweets something. Must rush to judgment.

    Well played. Perfect.

    • #16
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:33 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  17. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):Just on the side of Truth here. Dave took a quote wildly out of context. You can’t defeat an enemy you refuse to name, and you can’t win a war if you’re cutting down potential allies needlessly.

    Leaving the quote issue aside, is Khan the potential ally? https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/is-it-islamophobic-to-draw-attention-to-sadiq-khans-links-with-extremists/#

    Khan is certainly someone with a checkered past. But no more so than the Saudi royal house that the President was dancing with on Saturday. He’s certainly a potential ally.

    If you’re going to claim the man has “blood on his hands” in his capacity as mayor, show me some tangible policy he enacted that led to the terror attack or some negligence that allowed it to happen. Don’t present a random quotation out of context and call him a “co-religionist” of the attackers. That is intellectually lazy and, in this particular case, dishonest.

    • #17
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:35 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  18. RightAngles Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):Just on the side of Truth here. Dave took a quote wildly out of context. You can’t defeat an enemy you refuse to name, and you can’t win a war if you’re cutting down potential allies needlessly.

    Leaving the quote issue aside, is Khan the potential ally? https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/is-it-islamophobic-to-draw-attention-to-sadiq-khans-links-with-extremists/#

    Wow. An excerpt (about Mayor Khan):

    Among other things, he’s the author of a book called The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam in which he justifies wife beating and discusses whether homosexuals shours be killed. Most notoriously, he condones ‘martyrdom operations’, i.e. suicide bombings, against Israeli civilians, which he describes as ‘God’s justice’: ‘Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do.’ In spite of holding these views, Qaradawi is not an ‘extremist’ in Khan’s eyes.

    • #18
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:37 PM PDT
    • 17 likes
  19. Dave Sussman Podcaster
    Dave Sussman

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    I’m so angry at what the mayor of London said I can barely type.

    I’m furious tonight.

    Really bad faith smear of Mayor Khan here Dave. He said terrorism has become part and parcel of living in a major city. That is a factual, not a normative statement. He never said that people shouldn’t do anything about it.

    With what part of Mayor Khan’s statement do you take issue? Do you disagree that people who live in cities should always be vigilant about possible terrorist attacks? Should city officials be encouraging complacency? Or do you think city officials should not be “reassured that every single agency and individual involved in protecting our city has the resources and expertise they need to respond in the event that London is attacked”?

    For the avoidance of any doubt, tonight @davesussman linked to an article reflecting a statement Mayor Khan made in September, not to a statement about this evening’s bombing.

    That is the kind of Alinsky-ite nonsense I would expect from the PC crowd, not reasoned discourse from a logical conservative. Is there a spin you could put on the Mayor’s September 2016 statement that casts the Mayor in a bad light? Sure, if you want to play a game of semantics. I think we would all profit from considering his entire statement in context.

    Disagree. Sadiq Khan obviously doesn’t want attacks on his or anyone’s city. That goes without saying and referring to his own words made after the recent bombing in NYC as Alinsky-ite nonsense is an ad hominem and completely unnecessary. Kahn was elected with a very public sordid history of surrounding himself with anti-Semites, fighting for Louis Farrakhan to speak in England after being banned for extremist statements about Jews, and fully supports Labour’s Corbyn who repeatedly refers to terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah as friends.

    But the point of the post refers to all extremist left-wing politicians like Khan across the globe who refuse to address that the increase in terrorism is a result of open immigration policies provided to those countries that export Islamic extremism, terrorism, and death.

    • #19
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:37 PM PDT
    • 38 likes
  20. Luke Baker Member
    Luke BakerJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    LB (View Comment):
    Has it been confirmed the explosion was caused by Islamists?

    I think that’s a fair assumption at this point. That doesn’t mean Mayor Khan has “blood on his hands.”

    I don’t think anyone will be surprised that that’s the case. It just feels unprovoked to be having the ‘we’re doing nothing about Sharia’ conversation, before the dust settles. Shouldn’t we wait until we know more?

    • #20
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:45 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  21. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    Disagree. Sadiq Khan obviously doesn’t want attacks on his or anyone’s city. That goes without saying and referring to his own words made after the recent bombing in NYC as Alinsky-ite nonsense is an ad hominem and completely unnecessary. Kahn was elected with a very public sordid history of surrounding himself with anti-Semites, fighting for Louis Farrakhan to speak in England after being banned for extremist statements about Jews, and fully supports Labour’s Corbyn who repeatedly refers to terrorist groups Hamas and Hezbollah as friends.

    But the point of the post refers to all extremist left-wing politicians like Khan across the globe who refuse to address that the increase in terrorism is a result of open immigration policies provided to those countries that export Islamic extremism, terrorism, and death.

    That is nonsense, and you know it. Khan might have deplorable politics, but he didn’t have any role in setting the U.K.’s immigration policy. That, as you must admit, has been a fully bipartisan affair and has resulted from decades of inaction by the U.K. government and the European Union. Khan is the mayor of a City, and you tried to tag him as complacent in matters of terrorism because of policies that are made at the level of national government and international treaties. Within the jurisdiction of his office, what specifically are you alleging he has done or has not done to make terrorism more likely?

    Your argument is perfectly described as Alinsky-ite. It’s exactly the kind of nonsense we hear from the anti-gun crowd after any mass shooting. “All the Second Amendment folks have blood on their hands!” is the constant refrain. And [calling your argument Alinsky-ite is] not an ad hominem attack. Saying someone has “blood on his hands” most assuredly is.

    • #21
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:49 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  22. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    LB (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    LB (View Comment):
    Has it been confirmed the explosion was caused by Islamists?

    I think that’s a fair assumption at this point. That doesn’t mean Mayor Khan has “blood on his hands.”

    I don’t think anyone will be surprised that that’s the case. It just feels unprovoked to be having the ‘we’re doing nothing about Sharia’ conversation, before the dust settles. Shouldn’t we wait until we know more?

    It might be a bit too early, but given the 99.999% chance it is Islamic terrorism, I think this is a conversation worth having.

    • #22
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:51 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  23. Hoyacon Member

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):Just on the side of Truth here. Dave took a quote wildly out of context. You can’t defeat an enemy you refuse to name, and you can’t win a war if you’re cutting down potential allies needlessly.

    Leaving the quote issue aside, is Khan the potential ally? https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/is-it-islamophobic-to-draw-attention-to-sadiq-khans-links-with-extremists/#

    Khan is certainly someone with a checkered past. But no more so than the Saudi royal house that the President was dancing with on Saturday. He’s certainly a potential ally.

    As much as I admire the wordsmithing involved in the euphemistic “checkered past,” the comment regarding Trump and the royals is irrelevant and at least a nod in the direction of what seems to be bothering you here. My link was intended to provide some context that was lacking in the discussion. It’s certainly true that readers are free to make up their minds as to whether he should be viewed as an “ally,” potential or not.

    • #23
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:53 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  24. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Hoyacon (View Comment):

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):Just on the side of Truth here. Dave took a quote wildly out of context. You can’t defeat an enemy you refuse to name, and you can’t win a war if you’re cutting down potential allies needlessly.

    Leaving the quote issue aside, is Khan the potential ally? https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/is-it-islamophobic-to-draw-attention-to-sadiq-khans-links-with-extremists/#

    Khan is certainly someone with a checkered past. But no more so than the Saudi royal house that the President was dancing with on Saturday. He’s certainly a potential ally.

    As much as I admire the wordsmithing involved in the euphemistic “checkered past,” the comment regarding Trump and the royals is irrelevant and at least a nod in the direction of what seems to be bothering you here. My link was intended to provide some context that was lacking in the discussion. It’s certainly true that readers are free to make up their minds as to whether he should be viewed as an “ally,” potential or not.

    I think you should give another listen to the President’s excellent speech from this past weekend. My point was that if a foreign state that has been consistently backwards and anti-Semitic (and that may have participated in actual funding of terrorists) can be an ally, then so can a Lefty fringe mayor from the U.K. who, by all accounts, doesn’t want the blood of his countrymen to run in the streets.

    • #24
    • May 22, 2017, at 9:58 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  25. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    Disagree. Sadiq Khan obviously doesn’t want attacks on his or anyone’s city. That goes without saying and referring to his own words made after the recent bombing in NYC as Alinsky-ite nonsense is an ad hominem and completely unnecessary.

    Also, you made a strong statement before. You claimed that “The Mayor of London has accepted this carnage as the price for ‘living in a major city.'” Now you’re flip-flopping. You claim it “goes without saying” that he “doesn’t want attacks on his or anyone’s city.”

    Has he simply accepted the attacks, as you initially suggested, or do you think he does what he can within his powers as a mayor to stop them? It seems to me it has to be one or the other, and can’t be both, but I’d love for you to convince me that he both “accepts” the attacks and works to stop them.

    The entire post could have stuck to policy points. Instead, you injected an ersatz blood libel into the discussion.

    • #25
    • May 22, 2017, at 10:14 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  26. Jamie Lockett Inactive

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    I’m so angry at what the mayor of London said I can barely type.

    I’m furious tonight.

    Furious about something he said 9 months ago that is taken out of context?

    Theres only one person to be furious at tonight and he is being judged by someone far above our station b

    • #26
    • May 22, 2017, at 10:24 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  27. JustmeinAZ Member

    RightAngles (View Comment):
    I can’t for the life of me understand why Libertarians are aligning with the Left.

    I remember some quote about being so open-minded your brains fall out.

    • #27
    • May 22, 2017, at 10:29 PM PDT
    • 20 likes
  28. ModEcon Inactive

    @nylibertarianguy I think you should let this one go. While it is fair to point out that nothing has been confirmed yet, the mayor’s convictions about supporting Islam and unfettered immigration are very fair to criticize under the premise of islamic terror.

    I believe that the mayor could, if he wanted to, focus on solving the issue of radical islam in Britain like allowing the police force to combat no go zones and such, but he doesn’t. If he does want to, he isn’t doing a good job and it is fair to criticize both his actions (lack there of) and his priorities (which isn’t solving terror). Also, I believe he is well known for shady connections like visiting terrorists and was a vocal anti brexit and pro uncontrolled immigration.

    I think it is fair to be angry at the mayor tonight even if tomorrow may bring different news.

    • #28
    • May 22, 2017, at 10:32 PM PDT
    • 12 likes
  29. Dave Sussman Podcaster
    Dave Sussman

    NYLibertarianGuy (View Comment):

    Dave Sussman (View Comment):
    Disagree. Sadiq Khan obviously doesn’t want attacks on his or anyone’s city. That goes without saying and referring to his own words made after the recent bombing in NYC as Alinsky-ite nonsense is an ad hominem and completely unnecessary.

    Also, you made a strong statement before. You claimed that “The Mayor of London has accepted this carnage as the price for ‘living in a major city.’” Now you’re flip-flopping. You claim it “goes without saying” that he “doesn’t want attacks on his or anyone’s city.”

    Has he simply accepted the attacks, as you initially suggested, or do you think he does what he can within his powers as a mayor to stop them? It seems to me it has to be one or the other, and can’t be both, but I’d love for you to convince me that he both “accepts” the attacks and works to stop them.

    The entire post could have stuck to policy points. Instead, you injected an ersatz blood libel into the discussion.

    Your defense of Khan is curious in that you can google countless articles referring to his financiers and organizers who also support the worst terrorist groups throughout the Middle East and North Africa. But more interesting is your outrage over me referring to Khan’s own words. While you demand on parsing his words, you don’t answer the larger question I referred to in my response; that leftists throughout Europe and America continue to maintain open border immigration policies that make attacks like this all the more likely.

    But if you insist on sticking to Khan, then here are where his latest efforts lie. As the conservative government under May is now exporting immigrants (and giving them 2,000 pounds for the trouble) in response to BREXIT Khan gave voters the finger by creating a program called “London is Open”. The slogan is “London – Everyone Welcome”. His reasoning for the ‘open immigration into London’ is based on seeking business talent, and he wants to create a specific visa option for the City of London. This effort alone has been regarded by many as a potential national security problem. This from a Mayor who won’t crack down on London’s sharia militia’s and ignores the no-go zones where people who look like me and the police are not able to enter.

    Good night.

    • #29
    • May 22, 2017, at 10:44 PM PDT
    • 19 likes
  30. NYLibertarianGuy Thatcher
    NYLibertarianGuyJoined in the first year of Ricochet Ricochet Charter Member

    ModEcon (View Comment):
    @nylibertarianguy I think you should let this one go. While it is fair to point out that nothing has been confirmed yet, the mayor’s convictions about supporting Islam and unfettered immigration are very fair to criticize under the premise of islamic terror.

    I believe that the mayor could, if he wanted to, focus on solving the issue of radical islam in Britain like allowing the police force to combat no go zones and such, but he doesn’t. If he does want to, he isn’t doing a good job and it is fair to criticize both his actions (lack there of) and his priorities (which isn’t solving terror). Also, I believe he is well known for shady connections like visiting terrorists and was a vocal anti brexit and pro uncontrolled immigration.

    I think it is fair to be angry at the mayor tonight even if tomorrow may bring different news.

    I think you need to read my posts a little more carefully. I never suggested the attack tonight was done by anyone other than an Islamic extremist. I am certain it was.

    It seems that you are speculating about Khan’s actions and priorities. Would be very interested to see any sources on Khan’s supposed lax policies toward terrorism. Neither you nor Dave has identified any so far. Judging a man to have blood on his hands because of his past associations and policy views that have nothing to do with the office he actually holds is quite a stretch.

    Being angry at the mayor of London for an attack in Manchester seems an odd starting point for a serious policy discussion, whatever news tomorrow brings. Note that no blame is laid at the feet of conservative U.K. officials. Why is that? Because they’re on our “team”?

    • #30
    • May 22, 2017, at 10:46 PM PDT
    • 3 likes

Comments are closed because this post is more than six months old. Please write a new post if you would like to continue this conversation.