Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.
Published in General
I’m not defending him, just pointing out the weaknesses in your attack.
The funding and past associations are disturbing, but is at best tangential to the actual issues at hand. The bottom line question is: Does Khan “accept” terrorism (as you originally suggested) or is it “self-evident” that he views it as a problem (as you suggested later)? I think your inability to pick a position speaks volumes about the clarity of your thinking here.
To be clear, you think that the Mayor of London is responsible (i.e., has blood on his hands) for a terrorist attack that took place far away, in another part of England, and attribute that attack to a hypothetical “open borders” policy for which he advocates, but is not actually implemented now, even though there is a Tory national government at present in the U.K. that has responsibility for its borders. Do I have that right?
I think you are ignoring a few valid points like the quote from Dave Sussman. I agree that we shouldn’t blame this attack on Khan, but we can set him as an example of wrong politics.
Here is a direct quote from the campaign :
This is the kind of message that ignores the role of different ideologies in radical islamic terrorism. Also, as the mayor of the UK’s largest city, it can’t be said that Khan isn’t influential. I have seen him as a prominent politician.
I also will point to:
Lets add this source as well. Birmingham is controlled by Labour party as is Manchester so Khan’s position as a influential Labour member is relevant.
Therefore, I think you are off base to say that bringing up Sadiq Khan in this setting is irrelevant. I think Khan’s views are relevant as representative as a prominent politician that people know more about then the local Manchester authorities and we should look into that as well and I except your point about pointing out everybody else who has contributed to the problem.
Any valid point Sussman tried to make with this post was obscured by overblown rhetoric (e.g., “There is blood on the hands of politicians who refuse to admit evil exists in our midst.”), misleading quotations, and outright confusion about who is presently in power in the U.K. Blaming a local (if prominent) politician in a minority party that has not governed nationally since 2010 for a terrorist attack in a completely different city based on that politician’s rhetoric of inclusion is a funny way to kick off a serious policy discussion. Khan’s tourism slogan did not set U.K. immigration policy.
It should also be noted that, as far as I can tell, Khan certainly didn’t give “the finger” to his voters. London as a whole voted against Brexit (I’m glad they lost!), and last I checked, Khan doesn’t have a national constituency. But then, I guess it is always the other side of the partisan divide that is viewed as “undemocratic.”
Only three words need be said about the Islamists and their enablers: “Drive them out!”
First off, I somehow doubt that tonight’s article was meant to start off a policy discussion. Any such discussion would be fruitless given the circumstances. Second, I don’t think a little eloquence (even if overstated) is problematic in this case, can’t you just let it be for the night? Third, you can’t tell me that Labour hasn’t done its best to delay or stop altogether the new movement against immigration policies (I think there was a court case or two against the government by Labour) and I think the example of Trump should have informed everybody that just because you are nominally in charge doesn’t allow you to effectively govern. Also, you clearly don’t know about America’s sanctuary policies if you think that a local politician can’t influence national issues especially in immigration. I don’t know if Khan has done anything like that, but I think I heard of a similar plan forming in London led by Khan or Labour.
Basically, I am just saying that your “not defense of Khan” is not really a good part of this thread. I am not saying that you don’t have a valid point to make, just that you aren’t doing it well here. I don’t want to be part of the “stop saying anything on the matter” type. But, I think your time and place isn’t the best. Besides, I must say that you haven’t convinced me of anything except your disbelief that local politics can effect national politics which doesn’t say much for your argument.
And yes, Khan is giving the finger to UK voters on national issues since national issues are not just about London. maybe London likes islamic no go zones and unfettered immigration, but I doubt the rest of UK does.
I had no idea you grew up here. I look forward to discussing this with you sometime where I can give you a more nuanced response. My god.
Huh. Not a problem in Tokyo. Or Warsaw. Or Budapest.
Riddle me this, what’s the common factor?
I can’t even get mad anymore. It won’t make any difference. Except maybe average Brits will lose some other bit of their lives. TSA style security on trains and major events for example.
I’ll take that side of the bet, any odds you care to make.
Yeah. Like Stalin.
A textbook Moderate Muslim.
Here.
Seawriter
That man behind the curtain is not a libertarian.
Not really a problem in Houston, DFW, or San Antonio, either. And Houston has a sizable Muslim population.
There was an attempted terrorist attack in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, but the perpetrators were shot dead before they could do anything. Yeah, there was the thing at Fort Hood, but it occurred on a Federal reservation during a period when the Executive Branch was ignoring warnings and the victims (despite being in the military) were disarmed.
What is the common thread there?
Seawriter
To be clear, because I don’t think it is in the excerpt quoted above, Mayor Khan did not write the book, The Lawful and Prohibited in Islam, which was written by Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, billed as a “Muslim scholar.”
James Delingpole had a fascinating podcast (April 5) with Tommy Robinson of the English Defense League. It confirmed my view that Islam is incompatible with the West. We have our heads in the sand if we don’t see Islam as our enemy.
The Londoners chose him. Much of this is a self-inflicted wound there, as it will be here in due time.
I can’t bear it. The bouncing among the emotions of anger, hopelessness, compassion for the victims, the naivetee of the politicians . . . sometimes it is just. too. much.
The politicians are not naive. Just politically correct.
Seawriter
Did you read the actual article you posted. Below are two excerpts from the article you linked to:
…
Which part of that excerpt do you find objectionable or disagree with?
The Western World’s tepid response to the scourge of Islamic terrorism has condemned our children to learn history the hard way.
I agree but until the people that voted for that clown are just as mad it won’t matter. It’s civilizational suicide.
I read the more complete article and see that you have a good point. I’ve been burned by (for example) WSJ and Drudge headlines enough times already that I should have known. However, if after the next school shooting someone points out that in large, impersonal school systems these things are going to happen, the gun control crowd will take that statement out of context until kingdom come.
The part where he’s talking like this, but is not likely going to do anything meaningful to prevent it from happening again.
Because this sounds like the ‘same old same old’:
This too:
“things” didn’t happen. They were attacked.
The Independent’s twitter feed wins the stupidest tweet of the year when they said last night “the proper reaction to this terror attack is continue to do what we’ve been doing.” Then they went back to bashing Trump. lol
This reaction could not have been more predictable……
Really? I don’t really care what kind of night he had. Think what kind of night the families of the victims had.
Yes, they did. Those who voted for him were either Muslim (so they know he will ultimately be “their ” mayor) or they were stupid and voted their Pollyanna views of kumbaya and “We are the World” and felt like such good modern post-nationalists for voting for a symbol of diversity as the Mayor of such a major city. Elites and those that follow them are all drinking the same sauce…aspirational “Co-exist” clap-trap! If I were a murderous dictator or an anti-western political zealot, I would promote this elitist view all day long…come to think of it, the status quo is the perfect Trojan horse for this! Brilliant!
This very same speech could have been given by the mayor of Oklahoma City regarding tornados. Like they are random, natural occurances. Dangerous. Tragic. But nothing you can do. Just be vigilant. Respond quickly and effectively. Not one word about the cause. Nothing about the perpetrators. Not a peep about prevention. He should be talking about creating a Europe where terrorist acts aren’t part and parcel of life. But he won’t. Because he know where that line of inquiry leads and he won’t go there.
Speculative / rhetorical question. If the terrorists were militant Catholic IRA white people do you think Kahn’s response would be the “part and parcel” stuff or more muscular talk about rooting out the militant Catholic Irish perpetrators and their networks and their philosophy so this never happens again?