Manchester: the escalation continues

Mark Steyn has some trenchant thoughts about the Manchester terror attack.  Here’s an excerpt.

A few months ago, I was in Toulouse, where Jewish life has vanished from public visibility and is conducted only behind the prison-like walls of a fortress schoolhouse and a centralized synagogue that requires 24/7 protection by French soldiers; I went to Amsterdam, which is markedly less gay than it used to be; I walked through Molenbeek after dark, where unaccompanied women dare not go. You can carry on, you can stagger on, but life is not exactly as it was before. Inch by inch, it’s smaller and more constrained.

And so it will prove for cafe life, and shopping malls, and pop concerts. Maybe Ariana Grande will be back in the UK – or maybe she will decide that discretion is the better part of a Dangerous Woman’s valor. But there will be fewer young girls in the audience – because no mum or dad wants to live for the rest of their lives with the great gaping hole in your heart opening up for dozens of English parents this grim morning. And one day the jihad will get lucky and the bomb will take with it one of these filthy infidel “shameless” pop whores cavorting on stage in her underwear. You can carry on exactly as before, but in a decade or two, just as there are fewer gay bars in Amsterdam and no more Jewish shops on the Chaussée de Gand, there will be less music in the air in western cities. Even the buskers, like the one in Manchester’s Piccadilly Gardens today serenading a shattered city with “All You Need Is Love”, will have moved on, having learned that it’s a bit more complicated than that.

. . .

Poland and Hungary and Slovakia do not have Islamic terrorism because they have very little Islam. France and Germany and Belgium admit more and more Islam, and thus more and more terrorism. Yet the subject of immigration has been all but entirely absent from the current UK election campaign. Thirty years ago, in the interests of stopping IRA terrorism, the British state was not above preventing the internal movement within its borders of unconvicted, uncharged, unarrested Republican sympathizers seeking to take a ferry from Belfast to Liverpool. Today it declares it can do nothing to prevent the movement of large numbers of the Muslim world from thousands of miles away to the heart of the United Kingdom. It’s just a fact of life – like being blown up when you go to a pop concert.

All of us have gotten things wrong since 9/11. But few of us have gotten things as disastrously wrong as May and Merkel and Hollande and an entire generation of European political leaders who insist that remorseless incremental Islamization is both unstoppable and manageable. It is neither – and, for the sake of the dead of last night’s carnage and for those of the next one, it is necessary to face that honestly. Theresa May’s statement in Downing Street is said by my old friends at The Spectator to be “defiant”, but what she is defying is not terrorism but reality.

There’s much more at the link.  Recommended reading.

I want to disagree with Mr. Steyn, but I can’t.  I disagree profoundly that Islam as a whole is the source of our terrorism problem;  but the fact that the terrorists are overwhelmingly fundamentalist Muslims undermines my argument, because it’s almost impossible to tell them apart from Muslims who are not terrorists or terrorist sympathizers.  If you can’t distinguish the dangerous from the harmless, you’re left with only one alternative to ensure your safety.  You have to regard all of them as dangerous until proven otherwise.

This is a tragedy of monumental proportions – and it’s one that until recently simply was not a factor.  I was discussing this with Lawdog last night.  He and I can recall many encounters with Muslims in Africa back in the 1970’s and 1980’s, he in the west of that continent, I in the south and east.  Almost universally, the Muslims we knew then were not radicalized, were perfectly happy to coexist in peace with their neighbors, and were not interested in terrorism as a tool to promote their beliefs.

If there was a single, seminal event that changed everything, it was the war against Soviet invasion in Afghanistan.  So-called ‘mujahideen‘ flocked there from every corner of the world to resist the invaders – and the survivors took back home with them the newly radicalized Islam they had learned there.  Now, in the aftermath of Afghanistan, things are radically different in Africa, to the point where Lawdog and I can no longer recognize the socio-political-cultural landscape we once knew.  From Boko Haram in West Africa to Al-Shabaab in East Africa, from Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) in North Africa to Qibla and PAGAD in South Africa, radicals attempted (with varying degrees of success) to subvert and take over more moderate Muslim organizations and activities.  Their efforts have been beaten back, but continue to this day.  The same is true all over the world.

After the November 2015 terror attacks in Paris, I wrote:

When one simply can’t tell whether or not an individual Muslim is also a terrorist fundamentalist, the only safety lies in treating all of them as if they presented that danger. That’s what the French people are going to do now. That’s what ordinary people all across Europe are going to do now, irrespective of whatever their politicians tell them. Their politicians are protected in secure premises by armed guards. They aren’t. Their survival is of more immediate concern; so they’re doing to do whatever they have to do to improve the odds in their favor. If that means ostracizing Muslims, ghettoizing them, even using preemptive violence against them to force them off the streets . . . they’re going to do it.

I’ve written before about how blaming all Muslims for the actions of a few is disingenuous and inexcusable. I still believe that . . . but events have overtaken rationality. People are going to start relating to ‘Muslims’ rather than to ‘human beings’, just as the extremists label all non-Muslims as ‘kaffirs’ or ‘kufars’ – unbelievers – rather than as human beings. For the average man in a European street, a Muslim will no longer be a ‘person’. He’s simply a Muslim, a label, a ‘thing’. He’s no longer French, or American, or British, no matter what his passport says. He’s an ‘other’. He’s ‘one of them’ . . . and because of that, he’s no longer ‘one of us’. He’s automatically defined – no, let’s rather say (because it’s easier to blame him) that he’s defined himself – as a potential threat, merely by the religion he espouses. He may have been born into it, and raised in a family and society and culture so saturated with it as to make it literally impossible, inconceivable, for him to be anything else . . . but that doesn’t matter. It’s his choice to be Muslim, therefore he must take the consequences. We’re going to treat him with the same suspicion and exaggerated caution that we would a live, possibly armed hand-grenade. He’s asked for it, so we’re going to give it to him.

That’s the bitter fruit that extremism always produces. It’s done so throughout history. There are innumerable examples of how enemies have become ‘things’. It’s Crusaders versus Saracens, Cavaliers versus Roundheads, Yankees versus Rebels, doughboys versus Krauts . . . us versus them, for varying values of ‘us’ and ‘them’.

. . .

And in the end, the bodies lying in the ruins, and the blood dripping onto our streets, and the weeping of those who’ve lost loved ones . . . they’ll all be the same. History is full of them. When it comes to the crunch, there are no labels that can disguise human anguish. People will suffer in every land, in every community, in every faith . . . and they’ll turn to what they believe in to make sense of their suffering . . . and most of them will raise up the next generation to hate those whom they identify as the cause of their suffering . . . and the cycle will go on, for ever and ever, until the world ends.

Again, more at the link.

The Manchester attack has merely added fuel to the fire, perpetuated the cycle . . . and that’s precisely what the extremists want.  Their brand of radicalism can only flourish in a climate of fear, uncertainty, doubt, and perceived racism and/or xenophobia.  Manchester will add to that climate, enhance it, make it more widespread.  Sooner or later, at least some of the people of Britain will rise up and react of their own accord, rather than wait for their leaders to do something about it.  When that day comes, Muslim immigrants to and residents of that country will bear the brunt of it – and since most of them are not involved in terrorism, they’ll respond with anger, outrage, and a reaction that grows increasingly more radicalized and violent.  In response, Christian churches are likely to grow less tolerant, more radicalized, in their turn.  I fear the Crusades were – and are – not merely an historical anachronism.

“To every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”  Newton said it about physics.  Radicalization demonstrates it in religion – and terrorism demonstrates it in our society’s response to terror.  If anyone in today’s world thinks that terrorism won’t affect them, they’re living in a fool’s paradise.  All of us are vulnerable, and all of us are already victims, even if only peripherally.  (Want to know why your right to privacy is systematically and deliberately being raped by our organs of government?  It’s all in the name of the War on Terror.  Yes, you’re affected, all right.)

Manchester was the latest episode.  Stand by for many more to come . . . and be prepared for the consequences.



  1. "Newly" radicalized Muslims?

    Yes, I understand that not ALL Muslims are terrorists. But this is not "new." The Muslims have been warring/slaughtering for their 'faith' for a long time, notably triggering the Crusades, the battle at Vienna, and the battle at Lepanto.

    Sorry, sir. They are a clear and present danger and have been so since 600AD or so.

  2. I consider the problem to be like the question of: "What could have been done to stop the rise of the Nazi party in 30's Germany?" A question that would be even more difficult in our modern "free" society where black and white has become a kind of continuum of social justice gray where morals are concerned.
    Once a dark ideology takes hold of a large enough segment of the population, the monsters within become free to roam at will. – Going back to the Nazi party analogy, as sure as I have eyes in my face, you can bet there were "good" people who joined the Nazi party, and carried out their civil duties, and during the entire run-up, blossoming and downfall, did not commit any atrocities, did not murder a single person, hell, they were probably decent human beings. And yet they didn't stop their fellow travelers from the dark path they traveled. Did not act to stop it, did not speak up in dissention, either out of fear, complacency, or what…? And once the evil sect of Naziism reached critical mass, it was too late for anyone inside Germany to stop the madness… it had to be stopped by outside forces. So you have to ask… once critical mass is reached in Europe, America seems like the last redoubt of freedom from that darkness… if our feckless, self serving "leaders" continue to allow and even encourage this country to be invaded (even by "good" muslims – who are startlingly silent – in the main – about the atrocities being committed, or the hate being preached in mosques, etc.)… and critical mass approaches here in the coming decades… how does America stand up and stop this virtual invasion in any effective way – and the last depressing question is, who will come from "outside" to "save us" once critical mass is reached? Where will Christian or other "apostates" escape to for refuge?

  3. Kim du Toit

    Muslims, like all immigrant invaders into civilized society, are shy, retiring, and subdued until they reach some critical mass. At which point they become a poison, a festering sore, which is like a sepsis, weakening and destroying that very civilization.

    As an immigrant yourself, you cannot allow yourself to see this. Few, very few immigrants pursue assimilation as you have, and all of their offspring for at least 2 generations are at risk of reverting.

  4. When you are told that you have a cancer you want to deny it, then you get second opinions, finally you decide on a course of treatment. The only other alternative is to decide to die.
    With cancer depending on kind and location you cut it out, kill it with radiation, or poison it with chemicals. Or a mix of all three.
    Radical Islam is a cancer to modern day society. We either remove it or our civilization will die.
    And if healthy tissue must be destroyed in order to kill that cancer we shall learn to live with that loss. The alternative is death.

  5. Anonymous, Dan and all you keyboard superwarriors and saviours of mankind:
    Looking back at the past (when America was inhabited only by native Americans) Europe was in the dark ages. I wish you would take into consideration that large parts of the muslim world were ahead of the West these days in a lot of ways, e.g. medicine and science. If Europe wouldn't have seen the reformation of the christian faith, all the western world might still be where islam is today. We are lucky that our forefathers developed a philosophy that helped science, elucidation and equal rights. It is true that the islamic part of the world may need a long time to reach this stage of development, but they ARE STILL HUMAN BEINGS. They suffer as well from the same terrorists. I am sure that there is a ratio of 1:100 or larger comparing non-muslim and muslim victims from islamic terrorism. No sane human being will take a large-scale general war against the muslim world into consideration. The only nutjobs that do (yes, you are included!)are exactly the same stuff as ISIS or the German Nazi Party. Obviously the scum of the earth, no less. If your kind ever will take over the american government, the whole rest of the sane world will rise up as one and stand against America, rest assured. I hope we never have to….

    1. The Arabic world was advanced. Islam is ,and always has been, a backwards, voilent, and regressive force. It destroyed the educated and civilized arabic culture just as it seeks to destroy the west

  6. Churchill recognized that while individual Muslims could be quite good, their underlying faith made them as a group rather a plague. Perhaps the correct solution is to permit the observation of the faith, but prohibit the establishment of mosques of any size at all. I understand that a couple of European countries have already done this.

  7. Until the gulf funding stops the super majority and control of the Madrasas, I don't see a nice solution.

    The dark ages may not have been so dark… Crusades seem to have been more a counter attack.

    Another anon

  8. Christianity had the Reformation because the Word of God was in essence a book about unspeakable Love and Grace brought about by forgiveness.

    The koran on the other hand does not have that redeeming characteristic and will not tolerate reformation of the doctrine.

    That is the reason why it's adherents will never assimilate.

  9. Billll
    I read reports from people who had the opportunity to hear sermons in a lot of European mosques. Unfortunately they preach a lot of radicalism. Even as an atheist I see the closing of churches as an "ultima ratio", but it seems prudent to monitor these mosques very close. Germany has already closed some mosques where "hate-prayers" were common.

  10. The quran commands muslims to convert enslave or kill EVERYONE on the planet. That makes EVERYONE who is a professed muslim OUR ENEMY and a fundamental part of the problem of terrorism. Any muslim who is nice and friendly to a nonmuslim is doing so for one simple reason. They are not in a position of power over that person. If that changes and they gain the advantage then friendship ceases and their true face becomes apparent. The face of evil and violence. Therefore to survive the world MUST fight ALL islam, not just "radical" portion. All of islam is by definition radical.

    During WW2 most Germans were not members of the Nazi party. But because they were complicit with the work of that party they were bombed MERCILESSLY by the allies.
    And rightly so. The war against islam is no different. And we'd best get started.

  11. Muslim countries were "ahead of the West" during the dark ages in science and such thanks to the countries and people they'd conquered. The religion of Islam itself was created as a means of conquering and spreading an empire.

    I don't hate muslims, but it would be a costly mistake to believe that Islam is in any way compatible with the West–or anywhere where there is anyone NOT Muslim. They need to go back to their own lands and remain there. Historically speaking, doing so would not only be for our safety, but for their own as well.

  12. Hey Peter;

    When Muslims settle in an area, they are very polite but as their numbers grow, then they become very concerned about "minority rights" while they are a minority. Once they become an majority, then there are no "minority rights." I use Lebanon as proof of this, when islam was a small minority, Beirut in Lebanon was called the "Paris of the middle East" for the party and culture during this time. But the Palestinian Muslims that got kicked out of Jordan after trying to overthrow the Monarchy. They settled in southern Lebanon, and as their numbers grew, they started using the Lebanese system against itself, the Law and election process to subvert the country. Now there is simmering and sometimes open warfare in Lebanon and the country is no longer prosperous and the citizens live in fear of the next time the adherents of islam will strike with car bombs and other things that target the civilians.

  13. On the subject of identifying extremist Muslims, Middle East expert Daniel Pipes believes the answer is a program of extensive questioning.

    To me this smacks of the kind of interrogations I associate with WWII-era European intelligence agencies, but maybe they knew what worked.

  14. RobC:

    "the Word of God was in essence a book about unspeakable Love and Grace"
    Ahem, RobC, you may have noticed that there is a large part of the bible ("The old testament", if memory serves right) that is filled to the brim with murder, vengeance, slavery, cruelty, sodomy, rape, including next of kin and even children… and most of it in the name of god or by god himself. Just like the Quran. Please be so kind and show me the major differences between these two books. I am an atheist and thus a little slow-witted….But I am pretty sure that, be it Quran, Bible or Thorah – these are big books with lots of good AND bad advice, full with love AND hate, full with nonsense AND good advise.. So basically everybody – including the extremists of all religions and flavours – can find one or two chapters to justify even the most abominable actions.
    Sorry, pal, if you keep writing nonsensical stuff I will have to search the Bible for each and every divine instruction that you assigned to Islam alone. You gonna loose your faith, believe me….

  15. Ya know what reduces violence?


    A homeland for every people.

    One religion for each people.

    Ensuring that the percentage of non-native or dissimilar people, cultures, and religions is under 5%.

    That's what establishes peace.

    War is simply the process of establishing these things, and determining who gets to have them or not.

    Then when you have them too long you get weak, and you're tested. If you lose due to your weakness, other people's, religions, and cultures get your stuff and land.

    That's history.

    The real question for everyone is what will you do to keep your stuff, family, and land? In America, the answer is, apparently, not much.

  16. Hansjorg, as you say about yourself, "I am an atheist and thus a little slow-witted…."

    As with most slow witted atheists, you proudly shove your atheist religion down people's throats and pick out portions of the Bible to show how wrong Christians are. Sorry pal (to use your vernacular) I've heard it all before and I'm not buying it. Why don't you study the Bible honestly? Ha, that would be the day! You might lose your atheist faith as you wished of RobC losing his faith.

    If you had eyes to see, you'd see the world had a creator.


  17. @Hansjörg

    Good to see you admit you are slow witted. The evidence stares you in the face, yet you deny the facts. The universe had a creator, and your denial of the fact is simply one data point in the idiocy you spew.

    Atheists are almost universally hatemongers. That you regard those who regard you as an idiot as a hatemonger is simply another data point on your idiocy.

    @The Host

    Muslims are commanded, not suggested, but commanded to offer the sword or the Quran. That there are those that will simply live with Christians around them, is not indicative of much about their religion. As Erdogan has so aptly put it, there are not radicals or moderates, there are only Muslims. Once they reach a critical mass, then the fun begins, and the fight of the life of your civilization begins in earnest. We are at the beginning of that fight. The fight is coming here in earnest and there will be no neutral ground, or safe spaces.

  18. Peter, the aspect of your blog that I really appreciate is the historical first-hand experience in places I have never visited.

    Your first paragraph after Mr. Steyn, has the foundation that must be recognized before solid work can be advanced. And you echo it here several times in quoting yourself and others. Keep banging on it. I hope it will be heard.

    Because I do not know all your recent history, and because I believe very little of what is presented to me on television; I am curious if you and Lawdog have direct or trusted second-hand knowledge that we hear accurately what life is like now, in your familiar areas. I worry that we are given the worst to see on television, and so miss out on alliances with people closer to the threat that could help our goals?

    I enjoy your wide ranging interests. You are accurately a renaissance man.

  19. Hansjörg Demand
    I cannot agree less with your propagandizing on behalf of Islam. You mouth precisely the CAIR & Co. talking points.

    The Dark Age was the fall of Rome through decadence and uncontrolled immigration. But this was not the Dark Age for Northern and Western Europe. That was the age that banished tribalism and brought enlightenment to the pagans. The resulting unity brought us modern Europe.

    Islam was invented in order to create an army of conquering zealots and was modeled on existing monotheism. It has always been spread by the sword and always will be.

    Minority faiths which are "of the book" may be permitted to exist, but only under very strict conditions similar to Jews under Nazism.

    Your logic fails. It is not even wrong.

  20. It brings the Crusades into a new light. The Crusaders were reacting to naked Muslim aggression. The Crusaders were essentially fighting the ISIS of their time.

  21. Uncle Lar is correct that Islam is a cancer. The problem is that instead of antibodies, half of our body politic is actually anti-antibodies working to ensure the success of the pathogen. That is why we are not treating the externally-sourced cancer. We have internal agents coursing through the nation's blood stream in large numbers disrupting those who would fight the disease. THAT is the first problem that needs to be solved. We need to rid ourselves of the suicidal anti-antibodies of the left in league with the Islamists.

  22. Islam is a death cult formed by a child-raping warlord. Everything the 'extremists' do is justified by the Koran and their doctrine. They are not extremists at all, actually, but essentially the most faithful of the bunch.

    That is why this keeps happening. It will always happen. The religion itself is the cause.

  23. "Their brand of radicalism can only flourish in a climate of fear, uncertainty, doubt, and perceived racism and/or xenophobia."

    No. People actually believe their religions – and are willing to act on them. Ideas have consequences. The ideas of Christianity espouse western values, such as separation of church and state, religious freedom and freedom in general, reserving judgment, living in peace with one's neighbor. When Christians kill it is in spite of their religion. When Muslims kill, they have verse after verse that calls for exactly that. They are then modelling themselves after their prophet. Peaceful, moderate Muslims are the ones departing from the doctrine they espouse to believe in.

  24. Hansjorg: If you wish to commit suicide, then please do so. Leave the rest of us, our cultures, our religions, our nations, and our countries out of it.

    If you love Muslims so much, there are quite a few countries full of them that you could move to. Rather than importing them to ruin our beautiful lands, please leave to go be with them in their natural homelands.

    All the points you have raised are very common atheist, anti-western lies. They're not clever or original. If you'd like to insult us, please take a while and try to think of something actually witty. Bonus points for using true facts instead of progressive mantras.

    Separate topic – Islam has always been at war with the rest of the world, since its founding. There are periods of relative peace after victorious expansions, and also after disastrous losses. WWI and WWII were losses for the Muslim world, and they were briefly cowed by the power of the West. This changed in the 1970s with OPEC and the power of oil money. Then there was the Lebanese civil war, which indirectly brought about the Iranian revolution, which enabled and popularized the Afghan resistance, etc.

  25. "When that day comes, Muslim immigrants to and residents of that country will bear the brunt of it…"

    They will have EARNED it. Watching from the sidelines prepared to cheer whoever wins later is what they did in the anti-civilizations they they came from originally. They are not the disease; they are the carriers.

    It's time for them to pick sides– and for us to demand they pick sides before the situation gets to the point where nobody will care what side they are on.

  26. Like you, Peter, I had pleasant contacts with Muslims in the past. Lived in a Muslim neighborhood of Mombasa for neearly two years and couldn't have asked for more generous, kind, tolerant neighbors. Now I'm wondering if they were such nice people because they didn't know that much about Islam (For instance, the kids learned to recite passages of the Koran in Arabic, but since they didn't speak Arabic this was just rote memorization of gibberish).

    Since 9/11 I've done enough reading about Islam to believe that despite the existence of peaceful Muslim communities, aggressive, sharia supremacist, intolerant Islam is very difficult to root out once it gets started, because it is fully supported by Islam's foundational documents. It's like herpes: sometimes dormant in the system, but always with the potential to break out.

    How do we deal with a religion that has this virus at its heart?

  27. "I disagree profoundly that Islam as a whole is the source of our terrorism problem;"

    Then, I'm sorry to say, Mr. Grant, on this subject you (and Lawdog) are simply ignorant. All you have to do is read the Koran as Mohammed wrote it, with knowledge of the difference between the Meccan and Medinan Suras, and the doctrine of abrogation.

    The principle of abrogation — al-naskh wa al-mansukh (the abrogating and the abrogated) — directs that verses revealed later in Muhammad’s career “abrogate” — i.e., cancel and replace — earlier ones whose instructions they may contradict. Thus, passages revealed later in Muhammad’s career, in Medina, overrule passages revealed earlier, in Mecca. The Koran itself lays out the principle of abrogation:

    2:106. Whatever a Verse (revelation) do We {Allah} abrogate or cause to be forgotten, We bring a better one or similar to it. Know you not that Allah is able to do all things?

    The Meccan suras, revealed at a time when the Muslims were vulnerable, are generally benign; the later Medinan suras, revealed after Muhammad had made himself the head of an army, are bellicose.

    "I was discussing this with Lawdog last night. He and I can recall many encounters with Muslims in Africa back in the 1970's and 1980's, he in the west of that continent, I in the south and east. Almost universally, the Muslims we knew then were not radicalized, were perfectly happy to coexist in peace with their neighbors, and were not interested in terrorism as a tool to promote their beliefs."

    And what you saw was an Islamic community living under "Meccan Sura" rules: where Muslims are a minority, where they do not have political power, and where they are aware that there is a militarily stronger opposition willing to crush them if they practice the "Medinan Suras": the ones written from a place where Muslims had political and military superiority, and a population majority, and which replaced the peaceful verses written in Mecca by abrogation as though they had never been.

    Islam was designed to be unreformable: there are none of the competing Christian schools Mohammed encountered while formulating Islam that allow for reform, no variety of writers of Scripture to see God even slightly differently. What there is is a doctrine that says oaths and agreements with kaffir are only binding while advantageous to Islam. Until this is recognized, and a realistic policy of quarantine backed up by execution when quarantine fails is adopted, there will be more Manchesters.

  28. Islam is exactly like Communism.

    Well, except that, as politico-social belief systems go it is both more irrational and more bigoted.

    I personally know communists who are good neighbours. I welcome anti-commie refugees fleeing the horrors of Communist Hell-holes.

    But only an evil lunatic would willingly import millions of bolshies into a country full of commie-simps and apologists.

    Link here:

  29. The only one here who I see using Nazi language ("sub-human" — Untermensch in the German original) is Hansjörg Demand.

  30. To all these wonderful people here, who keep regurgitaing the narrative that islam is pure evil and christianity/the western world/ rural american fundamentalists are the white knights and the saviours of the universe:
    There is a high percentage of people in the "modern" world, who have benefitted from a good education, know the history, traveled a lot and met a lot of foreign people. They condemn hatemongering. They condemn a policy of border walls, punitive tariffs and travel bans, They also condemn that simple anti-americanism that was so en vogue with the "bolshevique-chic" among college graduates during the past 40 years. I always used to come to the American's defence when I met this type of anti-americans. Please believe me, Anti-Americanism in the world has leapt from latent to ubiquitous during the last months. We, the "american-friendly" people are actually running out of arguments.
    You folks here are not Americans. You are Fascists, Nazis, even worse than ISIS. You know why? You live in a rich AND free country, you are free to get any information you want that you need to differentiate between propaganda and reality. But you decide not to use it, but to follow the simplest of all black and white stereotypes. That makes you even more despicable than any illiterate goat herder who follows ISIS….

    One more thing: When your actual president was elected, I really had a ball enjoying the butt-hurt of all the political correct liberal snowflakes in your country. I never saw anything else in Mr. Trump than a ruthless narcissist with the attention-span of a three year old and the maturity of a ten year old. But if America needed a person like him to drain that swamp called D.C., so be it. Then he choose his cabinet, and my doubts skyrocketed. Wall street, big money, creationists and so on. Turns out he is a big friend of every madman like Erdogan and Duterte. He stormed through NATO and G7 like a school bully. He gives top secret information to foreigners in a way that makes every sane person nervous. You bigots would have cried murder if Shrillary would have done it once, and he does it every time. Just because he is, you know, the greatest president ever, so why shouldn't he? This will go on as long as nobody stops this jackass. The most ridiculous thing is that you STILL believe that he REALLY IS a good president. Wake up, you people. It is Trump who will bring the U.S. Economy down if you don't stop him. It is Trump who will isolate the U.S. even further. Finally you, the not-so-rich rural Americans will pay the price. Please remind my words, although you may ridicule me: I said Trump will be President, and I was right. I said Merkel will be Chancellor and not socialist Schulz, and it looks that way. And I say America will be weeping because of Trump – mark my words.

  31. Alright, this is my last comment ever on these topics:

    There might be a day that I will leave my atheistic position and start praying again, sincerely and from the heart. You wanna know what happens that day? Trump has his first meeting with ISIS leaders.
    They tell him what a great job he is doing and that he is the best American president who ever lived and an awesome fellow. From the next day on the world will have to arrange with an ISIS that has thermonuclear weapons, spy satellites, carrier groups and close air support….
    Learn to live with the jokes, folks, you voted for him…

  32. @hans makes demands,

    So many classical rhetorical techniques all in one post! You must have been top of your class.

    Your use of personal attack, absurdities, straw men, and the rest doesn't make you RIGHT. (oh, forgot 'moving the goalposts')

    You might want to read this:

    to see why we dismiss you and really don't care what you say. It's tired, trite, and derivative.


    "Their brand of radicalism can only flourish in a climate of fear, uncertainty, doubt, and perceived racism and/or xenophobia. "

    I don't see this, I see it flourishing wherever enough of them gather.

    I saw it in the middle east (abu dhabi) when they were in charge, where their workers live in cowering fear. My coworker saw it when their masks came off while he was there working for their government as they celebrated an American pilot being dragged thru the streets of Mogadishu as his body was desecrated, and threatened my friend that 'his turn was coming.'

    I see it when the news shows crowds of ordinary people cheering every attack on the west.

    I'm watching the rise of muslims in Houston. I see mosques going in in hispanic neighborhoods. I see them making inroads in populations that are already marginalized, where they can enter and grow without triggering defensive responses.

    I can't believe that is entirely organic behaviour, unguided by a higher design.

    I see two possible outcomes. Massive backlash. Or incremental loss of western society. If the backlash comes, and you are a muslim that wants to avoid being collateral damage, you better start working NOW to separate yourself from the target environment. If you can't or won't then you are rightly part of that environment. If we continue to slide into decline, well, our female friends, relatives, and descendants will rightly hate us in their hearts, because we allowed what will happen to them.

    Neither is a 'good' outcome. One is worse than the other.


  33. O.K., one last time, especially for "Anonymous":

    You are very good in barking up the wrong trees, aren't you?

    1) I have read a large part of Larry Correia's oevre. He is a remarkable expert in the field of firearms and personal defence. His article about the only way to end school shootings is pure gold! But I like him most because he's a gifted writer. As it so happens I just finished his first Grimnoir book today (for the 3rd or 4th time…).I also own many books of Michael Z. Williamson, John Ringo, Matthew Bracken, Tom Kratman (who is entertaining, but politically awfully extreme), and last but not least Peter Grant – who called my attention to these gentlemen…

    2) Larry Correia's good advice is for internet discussions with
    – liberals (I am the modern version of a libertarian/conservative)
    – political correct people (I like to misbehave)
    – gun control advocats (I dislike the German gun control laws, because my little collection includes among others: M-16A1, Colt M1911, Thompson M1928A1, AK-47S, SKS, RPD, PPSh-41, PPS-43, Mosin-Nagant M44, Lee Enfield SMLE, Steyr-Mannlicher M1895 carbine, Uzi, Mauser M1908, P08(Luger), P-38, MG-42 and a Lupara (sawed of 16ga.- shotgun). Unfortunately all of them are either deactivated, blank-firing only or modelguns. Due to said German laws – anything else gets you behind bars over here…

    3)You should have at least the intellectual honesty to take one little thing into consideration: If your opinion is critizised by a person of the aforementioned background (NOT being the typical knee-jerk reaction of the standard leftist-college boy, NOT being the stereotypical Antiamericanism from self-opinionated European upper crust): Could there be the tiniest little possibility that YOU are a little bit off the tracks? Hmmm? Do yourself a favor and think….

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *