What to do about terrorism?

Terrorist attacks like yesterday’s vehicle and knife attack in London (in countries we have an affinity with, as opposed to the terrorist attacks in Nigeria) provoke understandable reactions around the world – fear, anger, sometimes hate. This is a primary aim of the attacks.

This is despite the relatively infinitesimal risk to any of us individually. We are at much greater risk of death by murder (about one a week in New Zealand), by vehicle (about one a day in New Zealand), by suicide (more than one a day). In an unknown number of cases vehicle deaths are suicides and sometimes suicide attacks.

One person’s terrorist can be another person’s ‘freedom fighter’ or allied military force. More innocent people are killed by drone attack than by the vehicle attacks that have occurred in Europe. This is a scattered asymmetric warfare.

It makes a difference if we have been where the attack has occurred. I haven’t been to London but I have been to a city in Germany that had an attack last year.

In most publicised terrorist attacks in the Western world the perpetrators turn out to be associated with Islam, and currently usually associated with ISIS.

The aim of ISIS and their followers is to spread fear as widely as possible, to create division and build hate between the Islam world and the Western world.

So far (fortunately) in New Zealand most of us have been only by perceptions, how we react feel about distant atrocities. We may fear being a victim, and we may fear what ISIS and others are trying to do in the world.

Some in New Zealand have more to contend with – they can become collateral victims.

Muslims in New Zealand must dread ISIS attacks, because it is common for people to blame not only the terrorists but also to blame all Muslims throughout the world, including New Zealand.

So New Zealand Muslims sometimes become the targets of abuse (which is contemptible), and must feel stares of unease in the streets and especially in buses and planes. This is unfortunate but it is a natural human instinct, no matter how unfounded the actual risk. And female Muslims in particular stand out by the way they dress (at least the ones that stand out do).

Not that long ago the UK had a reign of terror inflicted by close neighbours, the Irish. While they looked much the same as many others an Irish accent could cause unease.

Communists have been victimised not for being terrorists but for having a different political ideology – and perhaps for stirring up union unrest.

People of German and Japanese were ostracised and incarcerated during the Second World War.

Muslims (a very small minority of them) just happen to be the current perpetrators of terrorism.

We have to somehow deal with our feelings about terror attacks and our unease about risks to us here.

Blaming many for the actions of a few is common but doesn’t help. Driving division between all Muslims, stirring up hate and fear, this is what the terrorists are trying to achieve. They know it victimises many innocent people, that is part of their method.

We can and should condemn the sum who carry out and encourage terrorist acts.

But we have to understand smearing many innocent people is a reactive boost to what terrorists want – and it’s not fair on the targets of unfounded criticism.

If a black car crosses a white line and kills innocent travellers we don’t condemn all drivers of black cars, not all passengers in black vehicles.

If a P addict murders someone we don’t blame all pot smokers.

It makes no sense blaming a Muslim from Fiji for the actions of an Islamic terrorist from Pakistan or from Birmingham.

Terrorists aim to make many victims out of a single attack. We should resist adding to this by accusing innocent Muslims for something they have nothing to do with.

We have to hope our security and policing is vigilant and will prevent most if not all potential terrorists from attacking in New Zealand. We are lucky that the risks are relatively very small here.

We need to exercise tolerance and understanding as much as we can. We should avoid ostracising innocent people to avoid the risk of provoking one into a violent attack in reaction.

As in London we have to go about our lives as normally as possible – and allow all New Zealanders to do the same.

We have to be better than terrorists, much better, and avoid being drawn into playing their game for them. That’s our best way of winning against them.

Previous Post
Leave a comment

150 Comments

  1. SwedishSquadleader

     /  24th March 2017

    I strongly believe we need to take a look around. Especially among young people. What are they up to? Becoming introvert? Strange ideas or questions? Lonely? There must be a meaning to life, family and social relations. We must take care of each orher.
    As for now we know Daesh is about to be defeated in Syria and Iraq. Still there’s other organizations and followers all over the world. However, attacks will fade as there’s fewer people able to call for those acts.
    Remember, this has nothing to do with religion. The Dash fighters are brainwashed with what they think is Islam but it all comes from a sick mind. The leader al-Baghdadi flees and would never sacrifice him self in what he asks from others. This is a bitter man full of hatred and unfortunately he got a very big audience.
    Best regards from Sweden 🙂

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  24th March 2017

      Thanks for taking the time out from Sweden to post on our little ole blog, SSL.

      Reply
      • Kevin

         /  24th March 2017

        Yes, especially considering what’s happening over there. Nothing to do with religion of course.

        Reply
  2. Kevin

     /  24th March 2017

    To stop terrorism you do two things:

    1. You ramp up security.
    2. You use overwhelming force to defeat them. If one of them stabs a civilian then you drop a bomb on where they live. If they attack you with guns you attack back with tanks and aircraft and completely annihilate them.

    Forget the “if we attack them we just create more terrrorists BS.” That’s the same BS logic as telling a women not to fight back against a rapist because it’d just make him angry.

    Reply
    • That has never stopped terrorism, especially on a world wide scale.

      Reply
    • Blazer

       /  24th March 2017

      you been reading the Nutanyahoo manual.Bibi is an expert on terrorism,has a long history …of it.

      Reply
    • Griff

       /  24th March 2017

      What you are proposing is to go kill the rapists family and neighbors .
      Has it got better since the USA invaded Afghanistan ?
      The extremism spread to neighboring country’s .
      On top of that Afghanistan is rapidly reverting to a theocracy.
      Lose lose.
      The war on terror has had the same effect as chucking petrol on a fire.
      “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein
      If we had of spent the trillions wasted on senseless war on education and infrastructure in Afghanistan the result would have been far different and longer lasting.

      Reply
  3. Corky

     /  24th March 2017

    Well written and thoughtful comments, Pete. You and I will never agree on this topic. In my opinion, if the West was a person I would have him executed for treason.

    Obviously it would be manifestly unfair to remove Muslims from Western countries when they have applied for and been accepted as legal immigrants.

    But Western Nations, particularly, Britain have know Muslims are a problem for decades, yet they have continued to allow immigration. What madness is this?

    And again, too many are missing a salient point: just because a Muslim isn’t attacking us, doesn’t mean they don’t wish us ill.

    So are there any leaders who can hold their heads high and say” I’m doing something about it” Why, yes – President Trump. And his reward for protecting the realm..he’s shat on by idiots who are so liberal they honestly don’t live in the real world.

    Reply
    • “And again, too many are missing a salient point: just because a Muslim isn’t attacking us, doesn’t mean they don’t wish us ill. ”

      You could be suspicious of everyone if you wanted to. What’s the point of that when only a very small minority are an actual risk?

      You are far more at risk of being hit by a fist or a boot or a car by a drunk – do you view anyone drinking alcohol with suspicion?

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  24th March 2017

        I tend to report them if they’re driving at the same time.

        Reply
      • Corky

         /  24th March 2017

        This was a ‘friendly game’ . These were football fans. My point in Sound and Colour.
        50,000 Muslims(?) who support terrorism? Or were they just taking the piss?

        Reply
  4. Anonymous Coward

     /  24th March 2017

    “Muslims (a very small minority of them) just happen to be the current perpetrators of terrorism.” Current since Leila Khaled in 1969.

    “We are lucky that the risks are relatively very small here”.
    The way that ISIS works, however, is via global networks. You no longer have to travel to Afghanistan for training, and so you no longer leave a paper trail.
    Connected through TOR there is almost no way of knowing where someone is accessing ISIS sites from, Benghazi or Bryndwr, who knows?
    Border checks can stop the indoctrinated entering NZ, but we have exactly the same chance as any other country of having someone radicalised from their basement.

    Reply
  5. Blazer

     /  24th March 2017

    Step 1-stop bombing their homelands,and killing people to acquire resources or strategic territory.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  24th March 2017

      This is a very good idea, and one I have mentioned before.

      Reply
      • I go along with that too … ONE of the steps the West can take … including NZ as Five Eyes & Coalition ‘partners’ … We can stop BEING terrorists ourselves …

        What people seem to forget is that ‘terrorism’ is a strategic, military or para-military response to something … The Zionists used it very successfully immediately after WW2 to establish their State of Israel … ridding Palestine first of the British … and then rapidly expanding their territory beyond their original mandate …

        During WW2 ‘terrorism’ likw what we see today was used by multiple, often competing partisan groups in Nazi occupied countries and was considered legitimate and necessary …

        We, the West, personified by the USA, have backed terrorists on numerous occasions, as during Russia’s occupation of Afghanistan …

        I don’t know the answer. I’d suggest something along the lines of a greatly beefed-up United Nations acting on behalf of the united nations of the world, which overwhelmingly favours mediation ahead of military action …. but I also recognise that it may be too late in the case of some ultra-extremists … Previous military action has made them irreconcilable … More will only make them worse … WE KNOW THIS …

        Consequently, in the face of essentially our entire human history, those who favour ‘power bloc’ and “overwhelming force” rather than peacekeeping military solutions should be forcibly hospitalised for psychiatric treatment IMHO …

        Reply
    • Corky

       /  24th March 2017

      Like wise.

      Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th March 2017

      Rubbish. ISIS have to be bombed out of their bases to demoralise them, destroy their resources and smash their recruitment attraction for naive fools.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th March 2017

        are you advocating ..total annihilation,Mr warmongering hawk?

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  24th March 2017

          I’m advocating total removal of ISIS control over any territory, resources and people by whatever means is necessary. Do you have a problem with that?

          Reply
          • I do, absolutely Alan. “Whatever means is necessary” is more-or-less the US response to the failure of their ground forces against the VietCong, NVA et al.

            The answer was indiscriminate carpet bombing using horrific Napalm incendiary bombs, terrorising of civilians … and God knows what … Civillian casualties were horrendous …

            It drove the population into the madness of the Pol Pot regime … Vietnamese re-education camps and boat-people …

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Events_in_Southeast_Asia

            Western militarism has already driven Middle East ‘insurgency’ from Taliban to Al Quaeda to ISIS, Daesh madness …

            The overwhelming evidence is that “whatever means is necessary” will only result in the emergence of something even worse …

            Reply
            • Should read … Western imperialism and militarism …

            • Kevin

               /  24th March 2017

              The United States was whipping the Vietcong. Something like 100 Vietcong were being killed for every US soldier. There’s no way that any side can withstand those kind of loses no matter how fanatical. What the US lost was the propaganda war at home.

            • It’s a century at least since propaganda became an integral part of every war Kevin. The West’s and especially U.S’s favourite ones are the ones that get zilch propaganda … Panama …

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War

              Scroll down a ways and have a look at the respective figures … They don’t support your assertion … although there may have been a brief period when Vietcong and NVA casualties surpassed the ‘Allies’ by such a ratio … More likely it was including Vietnamese civilians, predominantly South Vietnamese … murdered by the Allies “protecting them” …

              e.g. ‘Strength’ – South Vietnam, US & Allies ≈1,830,000 (1968): North Vietnam & Vietcong ≈461,000 … and ‘Casualties’ respectively – Total dead: 479,668–807,311, Total wounded: ≈1,340,000+ and Total dead: 510,114–1,166,114, Total wounded: ≈604,200.

              Your response kinda says it all Kevin. In 1968 South Vietnam had 850,000 soldiers in action alongside America’s 536,000 … ’74-75 South Vietnam had 1.5 million … but they and their military losses, let alone civilian, don’t even register with you …

              They’re just ‘Gooks’ … Right?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th March 2017

              First, the Vietnam war was unsoundly based from the start and not comparable. Second, what ever means is necessary means choosing strategies that work rather than fail.

          • Blazer

             /  24th March 2017

            what about Al Queda?

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th March 2017

              So long as they remain a threat to the West, same treatment.

  6. duperez

     /  24th March 2017

    It seems the risk of being involved in a dairy robbery in New Zealand is greater than the risk of someone in Britain being involved in terrorism on home soil.

    Reply
    • Griff

       /  24th March 2017

      TERRORIST attacks are fiendishly hard to prevent. Anyone can rent or steal a lorry and drive it at a crowd. Especially in America, it is all too easy to buy high-powered semi-automatic weapons that can kill scores of people in moments. Neither great planning nor great intelligence is required to carry out such attacks. Thus it seems likely that much of Europe and America will have to get used to acts of Islamist-inspired terrorism becoming, if not routine, at least fairly regular occurrences.

      But even though the number of deaths from attacks is rising, the West has experienced this level of terror before. As a result of the Troubles in Northern Ireland and the actions of ETA, a Basque separatist group, terrorism was consistently deadlier in the 1970s and 1980s than it has been since.

      Yet the chance of being murdered was small. During the 30 years of the Troubles, the annual risk for civilians of being killed in Ulster was about one in 25,000. Even in 2001, the likelihood of an American in the United States being killed in a terrorist attack was less than one in 100,000; in the decade up to 2013 that fell to one in 56m. The chance of being the victim in 2013 of an ordinary homicide in the United States was one in 20,000

      Reply
    • Brown

       /  24th March 2017

      I hate these stupid risk comparisons which point to a solution of doing nothing because we already face risky options in day to day living. When a Muslim cleric says Islam is the political answer and democracy has no place in his world he really means it. Islam and the secular west cannot coexist politically so you have to make a decision as to which you prefer and take steps to pursue one or other option. Presently the west is pursuing option Islam.

      Reply
      • duperez

         /  24th March 2017

        I understand the notion of risk comparisons being sheer whimsy. I understand a Muslim cleric really meaning it when he says Islam is the political answer and democracy has no place in his world and that meaning the likelihood of violence. I realise that means decisions and options.

        Go back to my New Zealand scenario. No imam has to get up and make a speech about youth not having money has no place in this world and they’re going to do something about it. And that meaning violence. That is how it is though and that means decisions and options.

        So I won’t make a stupid risk comparison, I’ll just say at the moment there are a hell of a lot of people in dairies and service stations being violently attacked and robbed.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  24th March 2017

          You are missing the point that if there is already so much risk of being violently attacked & killed through various risk factor circumstances that already exist, it makes little sense to add another risk factor & say that somehow that doesn’t matter 😳

          Reply
          • But is it really a risk factor rather than a risk perceived by some people?

            I don’t feel at risk from immigrants at all in New Zealand.

            I was somewhat concerned about all the illegal immigrants I saw when I was in Italy.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  24th March 2017

              I’ve lost count of the number of people in Western countries you can’t ask whether it’s just a perceived risk because they’re dead from the actual risk manifesting.

            • How many in the country that I live in?

            • Gezza

               /  24th March 2017

              None yet. But the risk isn’t necessarily from Muslim immigrants. It can come from their kids. At present our Muslim community is tiny. But we’ve already locked up two worrisome characters in Auckland.

  7. Pete, you make the fundamental error of understanding that affects so many in the Western world, of ignoring Muslims’ religion while trying to explain their actions. Once you grasp Islam’s basic tenets, the actions of Muslims, whether it be the most heinous of terrorists or one’s wonderful doctor, become crystal clear.

    With necessary brevity in explanation, Islam has a rule-based morality (as opposed to the West’s ethics-based) set in the tribal culture of the 7th century, and is not permitted to change. Muslims’ sacred texts oblige them to use violence to bring non-Muslims into line with Islamic principles throughout the world. Good Muslims do this, bad Muslims just try to get on with their lives and neighbours in peace. This is not a joke or a misprint, and it’s crucial to understand this difference.

    There is no real solution to Islamic terrorism because it’s innate. It will continue to increase not because of the West’s actions, Gezza and Blazer, but because resurgent Islam and its obligations compel Muslims as a collective to dominate the world “until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah.”

    The only thing the West can do in its defence is to use pre-emptive containment. Restricting Muslim immigration and monitoring extremists will help delay Islam’s conquest. Ultimately, however, Islam will dominate the West because the the people of the West have lost the will to preserve their culture. But that’s another story.

    Oh, East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet,
    Till Earth and Sky stand presently at God’s great Judgment Seat;
    But there is neither East nor West, Border, nor Breed, nor Birth,
    When two strong men stand face to face, though they come from the ends of the earth!

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  24th March 2017

      ”Ultimately, however, Islam will dominate the West because the the people of the West have lost the will to preserve their culture. But that’s another story.”

      Post of the day.

      God bless Rudyard Kipling. Sad he was considered anachronistic fool towards the end of his life. He is enjoying a resurgence in popularity.

      Reply
    • The glaring weakness with the “Islam is out to get us” argument is that we, much more than them IMHO, have created the ties that bind the two ‘cousin’ civilisations together …

      By all means, let the West do without their oil, resources and strategic locations … and migrant labour … and knowledge … and cultural traditions … and Middle East markets … and travel destinations …

      Reply
      • Corky

         /  24th March 2017

        ”Two ‘cousin’ civilisations together …” That may have been at one time, but our civilisation has moved on ( religious ties may be argued otherwise). We still hold the ideal of freedom before us , they don’t. Hence their civilisation is an affront to anyone with a modicum of rational thought.

        Reply
        • All the more reason for the West to part company with Islam do you reckon Corky?

          And do without the oil, resources, strategic locations, migrant labour, culture, markets and travel destinations …

          Reply
    • Gezza

       /  24th March 2017

      There is no real solution to Islamic terrorism because it’s innate. It will continue to increase not because of the West’s actions, Gezza and Blazer, but because resurgent Islam and its obligations compel Muslims as a collective to dominate the world “until all chaos ceases, and all religion belongs to Allah.”

      My point is simply that the West attacking Muslim countries & killing both Islamic extremists & innocents as collateral simply generates more jihadis – and it is generating them among Western-born Muslims too. Islam as a religion is a supremacist ideology, imo incompatible with Western secular society, & the larger Western Muslim communities get the more evident this becomes because that is what orthodox Islam says and what the evidence in Europe shows. I would be completely ok with a ban on Muslim immigration. I think Muslims should live where their religion originated until they grow out of it & leave it. Hunt down Islamic extremists in our countries. We won’t eliminate them in their own. Let them eliminate themselves in their own countries.

      Reply
      • “My point is simply that the West attacking Muslim countries & killing both Islamic extremists & innocents as collateral simply generates more jihadis – and it is generating them among Western-born Muslims too.”

        This is overly reductive and misses the point that those who want Western support to maintain peace in MENA states are the governments of those states themselves. Those who oppose Western support are the Islamic supremacists, rebels, Islamic State, destructive liberal Lefties in the West, and Muslims everywhere who want Islamic neo-imperialism, that is, global hegemonic conquest. It is imperative that you understand Muslim attitudes to achieving eternity in paradise, for which this life, the ones we secular materialist democrats have made so good for ourselves, is but a brief preface for Muslims to prove their worth to Allah. Life for Muslims has a different meaning, but they know precisely what it means for us, and they use it as a weapon against us to take the moral high-ground where in fact it doesn’t exist.

        While the rest of your comment is bang-on, it is vital to be aware of when we are being strung along by false moral equivalence. After all, a huge majority, over 90%, of violent Muslim deaths, are caused by Muslims. For the record, there is an act of terrorism committed by Muslims somewhere in the world every five hours. Every day, week, month, year and decade since 9/11. Mostly against Muslims.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  24th March 2017

          I have no argument with your last two sentences. Ring fencing them will reduce the problem they present by attrition. My argument against continued Western military involvement in Muslim countries is not based on moral equivalence. It’s based on history, military history, logic and reason.

          Reply
          • The US is ramping up it’s military action in the Middle East now. This creates more refugees, more families of NZ interpreters at risk, and more Muslims wanting to find somewhere safe to live out of a hellhole stirred up by Western countries.

            Reply
            • MaureenW

               /  24th March 2017

              It is a hell-hole, has always been a hell-hole, that’s why they leave, and for some reason that’s why they take it with them.

            • Blazer

               /  24th March 2017

              @Maureen,what made the former ‘cradle of civilisation’..a hellhole…do you think?

          • Gezza

             /  24th March 2017

            That is correct. Trump getting T-Rex to say this time we won’t leave is ignoring the fact that while that might suit Al Abbadi, for example, it won’t suit Moqtada Al-Sadr, nor will it fix their endemic corruption or the Sunni/Shiite conflict. The US coalition not leaving immediately after deposing Saddam created both Sunni & Shiite insurgencies. Those will resume.

            It will be the same in Syria, and probably Libya, Afghanistan, Pakistan whatever they try to sort out there.

            Islamic terrorist attacks in the West might well be accompanied by cries of Allahu fecking Akbar, but the attackers almost invariably seem to post or state that their attacks are actually in retaliation for attacks against Muslims in Islamic countries by the West. Islam just fuels & justifies their self-martyrdom.

            Insurgents need bugger all to wreak havoc on occupying forces & local forces or politicians supporting them. Islamic suicide attackers in the West, ditto.

            Muslims who don’t want to be ruled by ISIS or Islamic theocracies need to rise up themselves and kill or overthrow them. Then, they can carry on doing it to themselves if they must until some sort of equilibrium is reached. The only other way to stop all this mayhem is for the West to invade, occupy, and rule these countries. Like Germany & Japan. But in those cases they totally destroyed the supremacist ideologies. And that’s not going to happen in islamic countries.

            Reply
  8. Blazer

     /  24th March 2017

    well Kit,do you think the U.S.A has 800 odd bases all around the world to contain terrorism or to promote…’the business of America …is doing business’…..?U.S has invaded 37 countries since WW2.

    Reply
    • Corky

       /  24th March 2017

      Enjoy your lifestyle , Blazer?

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  24th March 2017

        not unhappy with my life,thanks for asking.

        Reply
        • Corky

           /  24th March 2017

          Fine, thanks to Uncle Sam.

          Reply
          • What if … ?

            Reply
            • Corky

               /  24th March 2017

              What?The suspense is killing me.

            • “Counterfactual history is always a bitter-sweet exercise … it frees us from the shackles of what actually happens … and allows our imaginations to range freely along the paths history MIGHT have followed if events had taken even a slightly different course” (Chris Trotter) …

              We might have been better without Uncle Sam Corky …?

              We might have been better off if Britain had not entered World War I for the purpose of smashing their greatest industrial rival, Germany? Or even if they had …. What if we hadn’t?

            • Corky

               /  24th March 2017

              ‘We might have been better without Uncle Sam Corky …?’

              Really…would you rather have had Comrade Chen or Comrade Ivan as the world policeman over the last 60 years? Putins latest victim gives you your answer.

              We owe Britain a debt of gratitude. Maori especially.

            • There may have been better alternatives than the Cold War, Palestine, the Malay Emergencies, Indian partition, Korea, the Vietnam war et al Corky … Yes …

              The old “Comrade Chen, Comrade Ivan” trick eh? … It’s a lot like “Stone Age Culture” … I mean who’s to say those Cadres would have become the world’s policemen …? Who know’s what might have happened … ?

              You don’t think the highest casualty and death rates per capita in not one but TWO World Wars (excepting the USSR in the second) is repayment enough to Britain Corky … Blood for butter …

              The same Britain who cut us loose back when to join the EU …

  9. Alan Wilkinson

     /  24th March 2017

    We should avoid ostracising innocent people to avoid the risk of provoking one into a violent attack in reaction.

    That is exactly wrong, IMO.

    We should avoid ostracising innocent people because it is morally wrong to do so, not because we are afraid of them. To the contrary, we should pressure them to condemn and help prevent violent attacks.

    Reply
    • Blazer

       /  24th March 2017

      we could get their attention /co-operation by threatening to bomb them back to the…Stone Age….that might work…Al!

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  24th March 2017

        That is reserved for those who are very far from innocent, B. And becomes an action, not an empty threat.

        Reply
  10. The Briggs Plan so far is the only counter-terrorism campaign in modern times that has succeeded. The essence of the plan was to deny the Terrorists (CTs) access to the greater mass of people and the day to day supplies needed to live and fight. So the colonial forces separated the Chinese and Malays into “new villages” and patrolled and ambushed the routes into and out of the village area so they village inhabitants were safe from intimidation, threats and terrorist action. Within the villages the Special Branch operated assessing the motivations of the inhabitants and focussing on changes in behaviour to identify the enemy within. It was a huge disruption and extremely costly and demanded a long-term appreciation of what needed to be done and determination to see it through.
    The US tried to adapt the Briggs Plan in Vietnam but failed because they lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese.
    When we look at terrorism by Islamic extremists waging Jihad, the concept still has to be to identify the enemy within, and separate them from the ordinary people. There must be a dedicated commitment to identify the nature of the means of indoctrination being pursued by the terrorist organisation and measures put in place to identify and separate the leaders of the indoctrination process – e.g. the Mullahs who use Jihad rhetoric should be arrested and subjected to “retraining” measures, while being separated from their congregation. Some may never accept retraining, but they have been neutralised!
    Now do we have the endurance to put up with this systematic approach? What would life be like for the majority always looking behind them for the enemy within?

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  24th March 2017

      What would life be like for the majority always looking behind them for the enemy within?

      The Brits are well used to that, BJ. The problem is the size of their immigrant communities now. But there is no alternative.

      Reply
    • Your Malay example could be read as a litany of colonial oppression Beejay …

      ” … cutting them [Malay communists] off from their sources of support amongst the population” was what … a reiteration of the ‘democracy’ and freedom Britain had imposed upon the population?

      Like a lot of Western actions its based on two assumptions 1) Our way is best for them, and 2) Their resources are ours as a result …

      In such cases, “the enemy within” is us …

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  24th March 2017

        Utter nonsense.

        Reply
        • They, the so-called ‘terrorists’, apparently had support amongst the population …

          What Beejay’s describing was actually the final death throes of “Britannia Rules the Waves” … after Britannia had been fatally mauled in a cataclysmic SECOND World War.

          Think of it this way for a moment, if you are able? Even after the generally horrendous experience of Japanese occupation, the countries of SE Asia still wanted independence from British rule …

          This really SAYS SOMETHING about British rule! You can tell me otherwise for the rest of your life and you won’t convince me it doesn’t …

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  24th March 2017

            What really says a lot about British rule is the relative success of the Commonwealth countries compared with those colonised by others or not colonised at all.

            Reply
            • Relative success of Commonwealth countries according to the British definition of “relative” and “success” … Life’s all-good in the echo chamber …

              The success of Rourke’s Drift? Of the Boer War! The success of World War ONE! And then World War TWO!! The successful oppression of the Aboriginal peoples’ of Australia? Of the North American Indian peoples’ of Canada? Of the hapu iwi Maori peoples’ of Aotearoa New Zealand!

              I reckon its like a fairly typical violent relationship … relatively speaking … It can’t really be healed until the perpetrator says, “I’m the problem here” …

            • Blazer

               /  24th March 2017

              what measure of success are you using?

            • Blazer

               /  24th March 2017

              less family violence in all those non Commonwealth countries than in…NZ…Al.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th March 2017

              @Griff, to PZ’s deep but unexpressed chagrin there are just two countries with a continuous blue shading across all three indexes of the table in your first link: New Zealand and Switzerland.

              That our way is indeed best is a discovery to wound his white-guilty heart.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th March 2017

              @B, your very own alt fact.

      • Yes PZ, but I saw it through the less prejudiced lens of living there after the end of the Emergency for 6 years and got a far different view of how the Malaysian people regarded the British contribution to their development as a multi-cultural society. To be colonised by the British was much more rewarding than, say the Dutch or the Portuguese.

        Reply
        • I’m sure the present-day inhabitants of several South American and Gulf of Mexico countries share your’s and some Malaysian peoples’ views Beejay … South American countries where the indigenous peoples’ have been either completely or all-but exterminated …

          This hardly exonerates the British …

          On one of Griff’s List of Freedom’s indices charts Malaysia scores “partly free” economically, “mostly free” press and overall “difficult situation” …

          That’s judged by our Western standards …

          I wonder what they’d score by Malaysian Indigenous activist standards?

          Reply
          • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_freedom_indices#List_by_country

            Sorry, Malaysia “Freedom in the World” = partly free
            Economic = mostly free
            Press freedom = difficult situation

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th March 2017

              Can you find a Muslim country that is better?

          • The British colonies in the America’s were in the US and the Honduras/West Indies, not South America. Malaysia’s problems are racist in origin -Malay versus Indian, Chinese and religious-Islam. I do not know of Griff’s credentials but the comments you quote are debatable opinion. My comments were based on my discussions with PM Tun Razak and Mahathir Mohammed as a student at MTAT in 1974 and 50 Malaysian Officers over a year. You can believe what you do, I will believe what I Know.

            Reply
            • A cursory look at Wiki’s History of Malaysia indicates the country has been fucked-over by every form of colonisation imaginable Beejay, including Portugese (who were among the worst anywhere) …

              Post-WW2 Malaysian history under British rule is like a drunkard stumbling from pillar to post … Its a unmitigated mess …

              Their most successful polity by far seems to be “The Kingdom of Langkasuka [which] arose around the second century in the northern area of the Malay Peninsula, lasting until about the 15th century”

              “Under Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad there was a period of rapid economic growth and urbanisation beginning in the 1980s. The economy shifted from being agriculturally based to one based on manufacturing and industry.

              However, in the late 1990s the Asian financial crisis almost caused the collapse of the currency and the stock and property markets.”

              I don’t think serving army officers are ever likely to give you a very ‘panoramic’ or open-minded view of their own nation Beejay …

            • That is the sort of personal attack that one expects from you PZ. Churchill, Eisenhower, etc etc were all Army Officers who had a far greater appreciation of History and Geography as you will ever have. Amongst one of my tasks as a student at MTAT was an investigation into the social and economic security effects of the development programme in Pahang Tenggara in 1974 during which time I travelled by canoe up the Pahang River and interviewed Orang Asli i the highlands about their perceptions of the planned creation of a city for 70,000 people in Pahang as part of the second 20 year development programme for Malaysia. But then, I wouldn’t have a clue about the development of Malaysia, because I was only a mere serving officer in the Army. I will let others decide on who has the credibility. I was really impressed by your wiki source on history of Malaysia, wow!

          • Griff

             /  24th March 2017

            I wonder what they’d score by Malaysian Indigenous activist standards?

            Two points
            The only reason such activist can continue is freedom
            Much more important is what the score for the average resident not a group of malcontents.

            Same here in New Zealand .

            I don’t see Maori activist rushing to like pre European Maori did.
            If they did they really would not like it .

            You can not enjoy the benefit of modern society without taking on modern society’s norms .
            Most who complain about western civilization have a rose tinted view of what it was like before they were exposed to it .

            Reply
            • @ Griff – “The only reason such activism can continue is freedom”

              Yes, but British freedom isn’t the only kind of freedom …

              The “return to pre-European Maori” or ‘Stone Age Culture’ argument is utterly puerile. It isn’t what anyone is seeking and it isn’t the touchstone by which modern culture is measured by anyone … Maori not only have cars and smartphones, they have mobility and smarts …

              It’s like parrying with a broken sword … and says more about the defender than their defence does … a resort to the very “what if” I think you’re criticising me for suggesting …

              “You can not enjoy the benefit of modern society without taking on modern society’s norms.”

              That would be fine if there was only ONE form of modern society with one set of norms, but in reality there’s many, and many possibilities, and they’re different by various degrees … a good example is the Left-Right, Socialist-Capitalist non-linear ‘landscape’ this very blog and our politics operates within and amongst …

          • Blazer

             /  24th March 2017

            @Al…..Brunei.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  24th March 2017

              Good try, B. Another ex Brit colony and immediate wealthy neighbour to Malaysia. No doubt also well served by the success of the anti-communist Malayan campaign BJ referenced.

              Brunei is an energy-rich sultanate on the northern coast of Borneo in Southeast Asia. Brunei boasts a well-educated, largely English-speaking population; excellent infrastructure; and a stable government intent on attracting foreign investment. Crude oil and natural gas production account for approximately 65% of GDP and 95% of exports, with Japan as the primary export market.

              Per capita GDP is among the highest in the world, and substantial income from overseas investment supplements income from domestic hydrocarbon production. Bruneian citizens do not pay personal income taxes, and the government provides free medical services and free education through the university level.

              And the freedom indexes score worse than Malaysia:
              “Freedom in the World” = not free
              Economic = moderately free
              Press freedom = difficult situation

            • Gezza

               /  24th March 2017

              My sister and hubby have just returned from a 3 year work contract in Brunei. They came home a year early. The Sultan has been implementing Sharia law in stages.

              “Sharia courts decide personal status cases or cases relating to religious offences. Sultan Hassanal Bolkiah declared in 2011 his wish to establish Islamic criminal law as soon as possible. A new penal code enacted in May 2014 will eventually prescribe sharia punishments, including the severing of limbs for property crimes and death by stoning for adultery and homosexuality.” (Wiki)

              Although in their time there the work for him – she is not permitted to work – was lucrative, experiencing a different culture was interesting, & it was a good base from which to travel on tourist visits to neighbouring countries – everything, they said, involving the locals – in bureaucracy, business, or service is a nightmare of laziness, lost documents, mindless buck-passing, general incompetence, & a guranteed failure to do anything promised on time – however short or long a time frame is provided.

              Typically, they are currently trying to find out where their shipping container of household effects is. It hasn’t arrived at Napier where it was supposed to be sent. 😳 They are getting the run around from the shipping company in Brunei. It could be Auckland or Anchorage for all anyone seems to know 😡 .

              Burglaries & petty crime were rife, even in expat communities like theirs. They were burgled as they slept, both their laptops were taken, among other effects. Migrant labourer-level workers (mainly from Asian countries) were, they reckon appallingly low paid & generally badly treated, especially by their recruiting agents. It was the right time to get out, they said.

            • Corky

               /  24th March 2017

              Did they have the pleasure and misfortune of visiting the Sultans yacht?

            • Blazer

               /  24th March 2017

              @G..is Prince Jeffri still around…he was a right royal playboy a while back,with a luxury craft he called ‘Tits’,with the tenders,Nipple 1 and…Nipple 2.

            • Corky

               /  24th March 2017

              Forget my former comment. I am getting Sultans mixed up.

            • Gezza

               /  24th March 2017

              @ Blazer. I wouldn’t know, but I did come across an article somewhere pointing out that the hedonism of the Royals didn’t square with the rigours of the Sharia Codes the Sultan is introducing. Apparently the 3rd, hand chopping & stoning, phase has been delayed until 2018 because they haven’t managed to set up all the Sharia Courts yet.

            • Blazer

               /  24th March 2017

              yes the Sultan became very cross with the hedonistic lifestyle of Prince Jefri and really reined him in apparantly.The enforcement of more draconian measures is a reaction..I suppose.Stopped off there a few times,pretty boring.

  11. Blazer

     /  24th March 2017

    but failed because they lost the battle for the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese.’,and the Iraquis,Afghanis,etc,etc,etc.

    Reply
  12. The problem with the issue of terrorism is that the problem is not terrorism: The problem is Islam. Terrorism, as the fans of relative danger forever inform us, is not actually a measurable problem at all. The Muslim Mayor of London tells us it is simply something one has to put up with in a city, like traffic fumes and late buses.

    The purpose of terrorism is not to “stir up hatred and fear”, it is to delude fools into believing that its purpose is just to stir up hatred and fear. Its true purpose is that of the organ-grinder’s monkey – to divert attention from what the organ-grinder is doing. The organ-grinder is Islam, and it is stealthily taking control of Europe by replacing the population, destroying free speech, draining the welfare pot, changing the laws, and terrifying the locals into silence and submission. It uses terrorism to convince fools that only a tiny number of its most extremist adherents are to be feared; and it uses Lefties to convince fools that it is a Great Religion of Peace that only ‘hateful’ Right-Wing Bigots would be ‘hateful’ enough to criticise.

    Islam is not a religion; it is an aggressive gestalt, like an African Killer Bee Hive or a colony of Army Ants. Its component Muslims are bred and programmed solely to serve the Islamic colony, whose driven purpose is to cover the Earth by killing or consuming everything in its path. Without that simple understanding, any attempt to grasp the threat it poses is doomed to failure.

    My researches show that violent, inbred, hate-addled, low-IQ Islam is probably the greatest threat to face Europe since the Black Death; and all the craven authorities can do is babble inanities about not upsetting its brainwashed hordes for fear of them getting upset. When a savage and backward Islamic Caliphate stretches its sadistic talons from the Arabian Sea to the English Channel, history – the part that escapes Muslim re-writing – will not look kindly on the ‘Leaders’ that presided over the destruction of arguably the greatest, most liberal civilisation that Planet Earth has ever seen.

    PS: “If a P addict murders someone we don’t blame all pot smokers”
    No, but we can certainly blame P. I think you just blew your whole case right there. And pointed out the solution – ban Islam, destroy its dealing dens, and deport its peddlers. That will save both the next generation of European Muslims and the next Century of European Civilisation from being poisoned with Islam; which, in Churchill’s words, “is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog.”

    Reply
    • @ Sailor, “… in Churchill’s words, “is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog.”

      The same might be said for ‘oil fever’ and money-grubbing avarice, power lust, rampant conspicuous consumption and chronic pollution of ‘own environment’ …?

      But, as I said before, let’s do without all those things … oil especially … and see where we fall on the Economic Freedom indices scale …?

      Reply
      • The things you mention are certainly not very edifying, but “as dangerous … as rabies in a dog”? I don’t think so. However, your suggestion that we do without oil would certainly dramatically reduce the financing of Muslim Terrorism, and also the embarrassingly pretentious images of nouveau riche Arab Sheiks boarding their private planes up golden staircases, while downtrodden serfs load 500 tons of luggage for a weekend away, terrified of losing their heads if they forget something. So I’m with you on that one, although I think the bad effects on the Economic Freedom scale would pale into insignificance against the good effects on Muslim Terrorism.

        Reply
        • Oh yes Sailor, without a doubt as dangerous as rabies in a dog …

          We hear about terrorist casualties but what about corporate casualties …?

          I have no doubt people are ‘taken out’ daily around the world for corporate and/or criminal financial gain … some no doubt included in the daily ‘drone strike’ statistics …?

          Heck, regardless of which conspiracy theory you ascribe to, corporate and criminal forces in the USA ‘took out’ their own President, John F Kennedy …

          Reply
    • Kevin

       /  24th March 2017

      PS: “If a P addict murders someone we don’t blame all pot smokers”
      No, but we can certainly blame P. I think you just blew your whole case right there. And pointed out the solution – ban Islam, destroy its dealing dens, and deport its peddlers. That will save both the next generation of European Muslims and the next Century of European Civilisation from being poisoned with Islam; which, in Churchill’s words, “is as dangerous in a man as rabies in a dog.”

      A little bit of topic but don’t you find it strange that if someone crashes a car while driving drunk we blame the person and not alcohol? We don’t do that for any other recreational drug.

      I wouldn’t blame P. I’d blame the person for taking it and putting himself in the position where he ended up committing murder. It’s not uncommon for people to take drugs so that they will do things they wouldn’t normally do if they weren’t under the influence – ie. “dutch courage”.

      So I wouldn’t ban Islam. What I would do is neuter it so that it was no longer a political force.

      Reply
      • Fair point. I was really noting that while one cannot claim that someone smoking pot in the next village caused the murder, one can certainly say that P did, by messing up the man’s brain. Which is not the same as saying the P was to blame. You are right to say that the addict was.

        Having said that, if parents wean a child onto dangerous drugs at a very early age, it seems harsh to blame the child.

        Reply
        • Kevin

           /  24th March 2017

          Or if a 15 year old who has been raped since he was 6 rapes an 8 year old girl who do you blame?

          Reply
          • Those who brought him up, without question. Many times I have seen something like that in the news, felt disgust over the criminal’s action, then read his history, seen his empty eyes, and almost wept for the poor sod. He never had a chance.

            Reply
    • Excellent post. How we convince PG, and those targeted here by Dick Lamm, former governor of Colorado, of the vulnerability of the West to its enemies both within and without?

      http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/lamm.asp

      Reply
      • Thank you. That link made for interesting reading. It was a useful reminder to me of the value of inverting a situation in order to see it more clearly. Presenting a powerful argument effectively FOR what he is actually against threw its dangers into particularly stark relief.

        It clarified for me the huge irony of the Left’s obsession with diversity not being extended to that of thought. Present a different colour or creed to a Liberal and you are lauded to the heavens, however foul your character. Present a different thought and you will be reviled, rejected, socially destroyed, sacked from your job and likely imprisoned for a ‘Hate Crime’.

        I’m not sure whether George Orwell would laugh or cry in his grave at this exposure of what a fundamentally deceitful, ignorant, illiberal and infantile sham the whole Lefty-Liberal construct really is. One does not have to be a great philosopher to grasp that the touchstone of a truly civilised and progressive society is the embracing of free thought and free speech. Without them, all you have is a mindless, brutal and regressive dictatorship, however stridently it proclaims itself to be liberal.

        It is this inherent blind, arrogant stupidity of the Left that is enabling the cancer of Islam to relentlessly eat into and destroy the great liberal (original, real meaning) civilisation that millions of our forebears gave their lives to bequeath us. The smug Left is like a foolish little boy squandering his inheritance on whores and highs as he dies of cancer, too stupid and childishly petulant to invest it in a surgeon.

        Reply
        • One could also say that the right (whoever preaches against all Muslims) is creating a mess that they then cry about. Or cry wolf about.

          Reply
        • I’ll repeat there is no sign of any serious problem in New Zealand from any immigrant group. Warnings of impending disaster are based on what? Nothing logical that I can see.

          Reply
          • In a couple of words its ‘lies’ and ‘violence’, but you need to know more than just that. So there’s the West’s cultural repudiation, Islamic doctrine, the behaviour of its terrorists, statements of its moderates, the kept promises of the Muslim Brotherhood, the course of Islamic history, waqf, oil-funded dawa, the ‘Islamophobia studies’ industry, muruna, taqiyya, kitman, tawriya, taysir, taharrush gamea, Al Qaeda’s plans and successes, takfirism, retributive subsidiarity, vicinal arrogation, cognitive capture of both the Left and Islam, 7th century moral rules, apostates’, blasphemers’ and homosexuals’ executions, treatment of women, resentment of the perfect religion being so backward, non-assimilation, the ‘perfect model of behaviour’ being a deceitful child-molesting decapitating caravan-raider, emphasis on the after-life, Islamic chauvinism, its moral rigidity, its massive terrorist business, and its goal.

            This is just a starter, since understanding the logic of the Islamic Weltanschauung may not be easy for some.

            Reply
            • I don’t think any of that applies to any extent of concern in New Zealand.

              I think we should show how people of different ethnicities and cultures and religions and political persuasions can co-exist effective. That’s what every successful civilisation has to be able to do.

              Trying to be worse than some perceived threat to eliminate or convert a billion people is just plain nuts. You can quote all you like, but the reality is that communities and peoples of a country have to be able to live together with differences or they are stuffed.

              You seem to want the levels on intolerance seen in some Muslim countries here. That doesn’t make sense.

            • PG: “I don’t think any of that applies to any extent of concern in New Zealand.”

              Which reminds me of some of the things I left out – the nature of Muslims’ quorum-sensing communitarianism, that is, when their attitude changes from Meccan to Medinan as it has in Europe. Also, Islam has no time limits, operating on a millennial scale. The short-term thinking you exhibit is fine for civilised states which changes their leadership, and thus its socio-political direction, periodically, but it’s just not there in Islam which thinks back to creation and forward to the apocalypse and on to eternal paradise.

              “…the reality is that communities and peoples of a country have to be able to live together with differences or they are stuffed.”

              Well, that sums up the Islamic world pretty well, Pete. When Huntington said, “Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards”, you see the reason why so much of the Islamic world is indeed stuffed. Because when an ideology has Islam’s certainty that it has the perfect system for governance, especially when it doesn’t have Judeo-Christian scruples like the USSR did, it is compelled to impose this by any means necessary, since they justify the ends.

              “…the levels on intolerance seen in some Muslim countries” are due solely to their ‘perfect’ religion. It is its importation into NZ that will raise levels of intolerance here, because that is what Islam, and Muslim immigrants, inevitably bring with them, just as they have in Europe.

              Pete, if you didn’t exist, we’d have to invent you. The more Islamically-aware of us posters need you as an Aunt Sally. For us, you represent the widespread ignorance of Islam that pervades media and leads to the poorly thought out chatter of opinion makers. Having said that, NZ’s low limits on refugee immigration by global standards, and the decline per census in Muslim immigration since its peak period ’86 – ’91, gives me a slender hope that there is a cohort in power that recognises the danger Islam presents to the civilised world.

            • Oh get stuffed KitSlater. You’re talking up divisions and intolerance for problems that aren’t an issue in New Zealand. We don’t have a Muslim problem here, we have far greater societal issues to deal with.

              Driving up intolerance and hate is not what Kiwis are known for in general.

              Sure there are potential issues we should be aware of but banging on about narrow obsessions with problems we don’t have is just stupid.

          • “there is no sign of any serious problem in New Zealand from any immigrant group”

            The Muslims would not agree with you. A few years ago they trained up a specialist team of Imams – at vast Saudi Arabian expense in the highest-ranking Islamic ‘University’ on the planet – and sent them here specially to combat Muslim Extremism. Given your valid assertion about no sign of extremism, I think you would have to see fairies at the bottom of the garden to believe they have been sent here to fight it.

            Those Imams are here to foment it; you don’t have to be paranoid to figure that out. They went immediately to ground without comment and, to my knowledge, have not been heard from since. I wonder what they are doing? Preaching love, forgiveness and tolerance for all faiths and unbelievers? Ask the TAB for the odds of that.

            Any cancer surgeon will tell you that if you catch the signs early enough you can cut out and eradicate it. If you don’t, you are doomed. I have little doubt that the Europeans are doomed, precisely because they have allowed this thing to fester for so long. They now have no chance of preventing the total subjugation of Europe by Islam without a massive Civil War that will make Syria look like a kindergarten bun-fight.

            I hope we in NZ can learn from those European buffoons and stamp immediately on the slightest hint of trouble; long before we reach the point – as the Swedes have – at which we cannot build a police station in certain areas of the Capital because no contractor will risk the lives of his men by sending them to work there.

            Which part of “Kill the infidels wherever you find them” do people not understand?

            Reply
            • What part of ‘most Muslims don’t do that and none in New Zealand seem to do it” do people not understand?

            • “most Muslims don’t do that and none in New Zealand seem to do it”

              I can’t seem to find that quotation in the Koran. Can you help, Kit?

            • Don’t be stupid. You’re trying to apply a generalised claim to a billion and a half people. That’s just nonsense.

              I could quote things from the Bible but that doesn’t mean every Christian believes it or would do it.

            • “I could quote things from the Bible but that doesn’t mean every Christian believes it or would do it.”

              That’s because, Pete, the Bible is descriptive. The Koran is prescriptive. The Bible was inspired by God but written by men (or in part by a woman if you believe the J story). The Koran is Allah’s actual words, so his prescriptions carry a great deal more weight for those who take it seriously.

              “That doesn’t appear to have any relevance to New Zealand.”

              Islam is global and eternal, Pete.

              “I guess you’re referring to this Zudhi Jasser:”

              That’s the one, Pete. The beacon of hope for every non-Muslim who thinks Islam can be reformed.

              Ayaan Hirsi Ali’s coming to Auckland next month. Book yourself a seat, you’ll learn heaps.

            • “The Bible was inspired by God but written by men”

              Yeah, right. So you have a problem there for a start.

            • As it happens, thesailor, I can. It comes from the revised standard version of the Modern Moderate Muslim Reform Movement’s sacred text, the one they quote ad nauseam to convince us that Islam means peace throughout the world. Dr Zuhdi Jasser, he of The Third Jihad and something PG really, really, ought to watch, sent out a draft called Declaration of Muslim Reform, rejecting Muhammad’s Islam in favour of Western, Judeo-Christian values. Oops!

              Quote: “We spent significant resources on this outreach over a period of ten months. We reached out through snail mail, e-mail, and telephone to over 3,000 mosques and over 500 known public American Muslims. We received only 40-plus rather dismissive responses from our outreach, and sadly less than ten of them were positive. In fact, one mosque in South Carolina left us a vicious voice mail threatening our staff if we contacted them again.” Positive response rate = 0.26 per cent. Not surprising, really since in terms of Islamic doctrine, it was rife with blasphemy.

              Funny thing about Islam’s modern sacred text, though, is that the words disappear as soon as one reads them, to be replaced with sentences like “Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of Allah.”

            • That doesn’t appear to have any relevance to New Zealand.

            • I guess you’re referring to this Zudhi Jasser:

              “Jasser has lately become the right’s go-to guy when it comes to providing cover for policies or positions that many Muslim Americans contend are discriminatory. When controversy over the so-called Ground Zero mosque erupted, Jasser, a frequent guest on Fox News, accused the builders of trying to ‘diminish what happened’ on September 11, 2001. He has supported statewide bans on Shariah law in American courts and has helped bolster conservative warnings that American Muslims seek to replace the Constitution with a harsh interpretation of Islamic law. Many American Muslim groups, meanwhile, view Jasser as a reliable apologist for Republicans and anti-Muslim figures—one with little grassroots support in the American Muslim community.”

            • “Kill the infidels wherever you find them”

              How many people in New Zealand believe that or have done that?

            • Gezza

               /  25th March 2017

              Be quite good to see a few quotes from you from the New Testament to support that statement PG. 😳

              As you obviously already know, all of these Abrahamic religions’ 3 Gods as described in their Holy Scriptures don’t actually exist, so I don’t mind if you find a few for closer scrutiny.

            • Gezza

               /  25th March 2017

              Oh, sorry, I see things are movinq quickly here.

              My comment above relates to this one of yours:

              “I could quote things from the Bible but that doesn’t mean every Christian believes it or would do it.”

              Be good to some quotes.

            • Gezza

               /  25th March 2017

              * see some quotes (soz, eating dinner while typing)

            • Bit of a problem replying when these comments get nested too deeply, so for PG’s comment: ““Kill the infidels wherever you find them”
              How many people in New Zealand believe that or have done that?”

              here is a somewhat oblique but somewhat relevant response:
              — A certain Imam, when asked how Islam justified death for apostasy, replied thus: “If we didn’t threaten to kill them, they would all leave and there would be no Islam”.

              So there, Kit, is the simple solution to the whole thing – bribe some sex-crazed senior Muslim with a convincing promise of 73 virgins instead of the measly 72 accorded the lower grades, to remove that clause from their Book of Rules. Spread it about on Facebook, and a week later – No Islam.

              As we seem to be trading quotes may I finish with this, from Kemal Ataturk: “Islam, this absurd theology of an immoral Bedouin, is a rotting corpse which poisons our lives.” And I believe he knew a bit about it.

  13. Blazer

     /  24th March 2017

    ‘My researches show ‘…..unbiased,objective…are they?

    Reply
    • No. They are MY researches.

      Reply
      • Just to clarify – Make of them what you will. Compare them with others, and your own. They are the opinions I have derived from what I have researched.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  24th March 2017

          you are very one eyed imo….its always…cause and ..effect.

          Reply
          • I’m not quite sure what point you are making. A Quantum Physicist would certainly not agree that “its always…cause and ..effect.” And without wishing to be rude, I don’t think an English teacher would either.

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  24th March 2017

              I’m pretty sure both of those would agree with …me.Try Newton’s 3rd law…as a starter.

  14. I tend to agree with PG’s assessment that rabid extremist Islam has not (yet) made any impact on New Zealand. I have previously noted that terrorist type activities does not occur in a country until a critical mass of Muslims exist in the country. Tat critical mass appears to be about 3 to 5% of the total population of a city/town/country. At hat stage we see the strident demands of Muslims to be able to apply the principles of Islam (sharia and all of that) and look to identify themselves as being separate, with different needs and mores from the prevailing culture. (Dress, food, time off for prayers etc). Western societies are naturally set up to accommodate those who are different but do not realise it is a duty of a Muslim to convert a non-believer through the process of Daqwah else they be labelled as an enemy of Islam and should be subject to jihad. I am okay with the level and extent of Muslim penetration of New Zealand society as it is at present and note that we all can learn from our Islamic citizens so we get a better appreciation of Islam as a global force for change. However, I remind everyone that in order to become a citizen of New Zealand, all persons swear an oath to follow and respect the laws of New Zealand. This precludes, in my view, continued adherence to sharia law, if you want to be a New Zealander. Try and Google “New Zealand Oath of Citizenship” if you doubt me.

    Reply
    • “at critical mass appears to be about 3 to 5% of the total population of a city/town/country.”

      What’s that based on? I see numbers like that often quoted but I don’t know if the are soundly based or not.

      There must be many differences in different countries.

      Fiji has more than 5% Muslims but doesn’t seem to have the same sort of problems Yemen, Syria or Afghanistan have.

      Reply
      • I think the figures are based on an understanding of how the mind of a bully works. And I believe the Fijian Muslims are Indians, not Arabs.

        Reply
      • Corky

         /  25th March 2017

        I posted the link. Each countries Muslim population was indexed against Muslim hate crimes and insurgence. The link was definitely there to show the magic 5% mark being when the general population wake up and are forced to face facts. I will try to find said site again.

        Reply
      • It is actually an observation related to population of Western European Muslim populations and the first signs of fundamental Islamic activity. As for as I can find, there is only anecdotal evidence (if that is possible!) for the figure. 7% of Fijians are Muslims and originate from India that indicates a much more moderate approach to Islam. I guess it is safer to say “Anecdotal claims exist for an increase in extremist Islamic activity in West European countries once the Muslim migrant population exceeds 3-5% of the population.” and leave it at that!

        Reply
    • Unlike the addled cretins running the EU, the NZ authorities very sensibly set certain standards for migrants (I am one myself). The abjectly unemployable, illiterate Muslim youths with IQs in the 70s that are flooding into Europe in the hundreds of thousands with their hands out for welfare and screaming for Sharia Law will not, thank goodness, be welcomed here. Even the EU authorities admit that less than 10% are refugees by the UN definition. Read what Libya’s Gaddaffi said would happen if he was deposed, then join the dots.

      It should be noted that the problem is not Muslims per se, it is Islam. I think you are not only noble, but quite rational in being “okay with the level and extent of Muslim penetration of New Zealand society as it is at present”, but we need to be constantly on guard. Note my earlier comment about the specially-trained task force of Imams sent here a few years ago.

      Reply
      • Sailor, welcome aboard! I agree with your warning about being alert to the presence of the Saudi Arabia paid for Imams in NZ. The particular interpretation of Islam and sharia they bring has already concerned our moderate Muslims enough for public statements of concern some time ago by senior NZ Muslims. I personally agree that it is not being Muslim that is the problem but sharia and daqwah interpreted by fundamentalist extremists is the problem.

        Reply
        • The elephant in the Muslim room – Saudi Arabia. The country we are trying to finalise a trade deal with. The country that the US seemed to ignore after 911 despite most of the attackers coming from there.

          Reply
          • Nelly Smickers

             /  26th March 2017

            Talking of the *Saudi Trade Deal* PG…..remember *this* little cracker from *The Nation*, July 2 last year, when *JK* was being interviewed by Paddy Gower ❓

            PG: “…have you ever thought about restarting live sheep exports to Saudi Arabia? Just restarting. Not the breeding; the actual exports of them .”

            JK: “No, because I think, in the end, I don’t think that’s really where New Zealander’s want to go. We do export cattle and we do export sheep for breeding purposes, but not live_”

            XD XD .You’d have to wonder want use dead sheep would be for breeding ❗

            Reply
          • Yes Pete they (Saudis are the core of the problem. In the 18th Century the founder of the Wahabbi movement Moh’d Al Wahabbi ade an agreement with the house of Saud that allowed the descendants of the family of Wahab to control the religious aspects of Islam and for the Al Saud family to rule over the political and non-religious concerns of the country. The arrangement is still in place today. The child who goes to school in Saudi Arabia will find the religious curriculum in Saudi Arabia teaches you that people are basically two sides: Salafis [Wahhabis], who are the winners, the chosen ones, who will go to heaven, and the rest. The rest are Muslims and Christians and Jews and others. They are either kafirs, who are deniers of God, or mushrak, putting gods next to God, or enervators, that’s the lightest one. The enervators of religion who are they call the Sunni Muslims who … for instance, celebrate Prophet Mohammed’s birthday, and do some stuff that is not accepted by Salafis.

            And all of these people are not accepted by Salafi as Muslims. As I said, “claimant to Islam.” And all of these people are supposed to be hated, to be persecuted, even killed. And we have several clergy — not one Salafi clergy — who have said that against the Shi’a and against the other Muslims. And they have done it in Algeria, in Afghanistan. This is the same ideology. They just have the same opportunity. They did it in Algeria and Afghanistan, and now New York, and Melbourne and Sydney …. and where else?

            Reply
        • I do think we need to be aware of a fundamental problem with moderate Muslims that I mentioned further up the thread, and Kit also mentioned earlier. They all live in permanent fear of being sadistically butchered if they show the slightest hint of tolerating Western values, and have also been brainwashed all their lives in the mosques into hating Westerners.

          It is an awful burden to overcome, and it is an irony that the destruction of Islam would free these people to live infinitely more fulfilling, independent lives. They are, in a way, perhaps the greatest of all Islam’s victims.

          Reply
          • That’s nonsense. All Muslims in New Zealand not just tolerate Western values, they to a large extent live them.

            Reply
            • They all appear to tolerate Western values until their population reaches 3%. That should tell us something.

            • There’s that 3% again. That’s also nonsense, there are too many variables to have some mythical magic number.

              There’s over 6% Muslims in Fiji, they seem to co-exist ok.

          • Blazer

             /  26th March 2017

            ‘They all appear to tolerate Western values until their population reaches 3%’…what evidence can you provide to prove this…or is it your own’..research?

            Reply
            • I believe scientists call it empirical.

              Auckland’s Muslim population must be approaching the Magic Number, given that an NZ Herald survey in 2015 claimed 2.4%. As the uprisings seem to start, in a very small way, shortly after 1% I would be very surprised if there have been no incidents in Auckland by now.

        • I think we also need to be wary of ascribing the problem to just a tiny minority of extremists. If that minority controls the rest then the problem we face is all of them, however peaceful they may individually seem.

          Reply
          • There’s no way a tiny minority controls a billion and a half people spread all over the world. That’s conspiracy theory territory.

            Reply
            • No it isn’t. It is the standard behaviour seen in any gestalt/collective, which is precisely what Islam is. Without grasping that, you will never understand Islam or the danger it poses to Humanity.

              Study a beehive (comprising mostly peaceful domestics and nurses) and you will find perhaps 80,000 tiny insects, all of literally a single mind. Crush just one in an Africanised Honeybee colony and you will be dead before you reach the gate. There will be no committee meeting, democratic debate or academic study; just the instant defence of the colony.

              There is no leader or politburo, no hierarchy; every bee is programmed solely to serve the colony. Muslims are the same. That is why they so cruelly and unfeelingly pour petrol over their daughters and acid over their wives – the very ones the West treats with the greatest reverence – if those poor souls are perceived to be failing to serve the Islamic Gestalt.

              Islam is, by orders of magnitude, the greatest threat to human civilisation since the last time it was. It is Humanity’s cancer. And it was not driven back into remission then by wringing hands, mawkish sentiment or ignorant apologias.

  15. Blazer

     /  26th March 2017

    with Murray on the job,we can expect progress in …election year.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s