US warns of new attacks on London
AMERICAN intelligence chiefs have warned that Al-Qaeda terrorists are plotting to drive hijacked fuel tankers into petrol stations in an effort to cause mass casualties in London and US cities in the next few weeks. The warning came as it emerged that the British Department for Transport had for the first time issued guidelines ordering a tightening of security around the UK road tanker fleet. The document goes on to suggest that the proposed methods will involve suicide drivers: “Some of the vehicles used will be hijacked. The type of vehicle may be anything from gasoline tanker trucks to trucks hauling oxygen and gas cylinders. Water trucks filled with gasoline or other highly combustible material may also be used. The detonation of the vehicles will be carried out by driving them into gas stations or ramming explosive-laden vehicles into the trucks carrying the fuel.”
posted by Unknown @ 11:59 AM
8 Comments:
Such "warnings" have to be publicized, on the remote chance that they are accurate. But I hope security officials realize that they are very probably disinformation.
Psychological warfare is as old as history, and there is no reason to think that Islamoterrorists haven't a clue. By intermittently raising the perceived threat level, they could well hope that both security agencies and the public would eventually discount whatever real evidence is discovered. Or that any meaningful "chatter" before an attack would blend into the background of deliberately planted false clues.
The larger issue is this: we need to stop depending on intercepting particular threats and drastically reduce potential sources of terrorist attacks by being very particular about who we allow to enter, and stay in, Western countries.
Since I have now in several posts raised the issue of deporting Muslims from countries that are still predominantly non-Muslim, I hope you will indulge me if I add a few more thoughts about this admittedly radical idea. It may seem far-fetched for the moment, but despite the efforts of governments to suppress any discussion of it (I suppose I could be arrested in Britain, Sweden and many other places under "hate crime" laws for even bringing up the subject) you will be hearing more and more people raising the possibility of deportation with each new terrorist act in the future.
Such an action cannot be taken lightly. I hope it goes without saying that deportation would be an extreme move, with no precedent in democratic societies. That does not mean it's wrong; it means that it should be considered only as a response to a clear and present danger. Countries do things in wartime that they would not do otherwise. If you do not believe that Islamism is a clear and present danger, very well, you should oppose deportation. Events to come may change your mind about the degree of danger.
Deportation is not just a response to terrorist atrocities. It is a defense against an even worse threat.If every jidhadist were to lay down his armaments tomorrow, it would not end the threat of domination by Islam and the subjection of native populations to sharia law and dhimmitude. It would just postpone the prospect by a generation or two.
That's because of demographics. One thing almost all the varieties of Islamic cultures have in common is an extremely high birth rate. Women in fundamentalist Muslim societies are accorded no status and given no role to play in society other than serial pregnancy. To take over a country in which the traditional population is reproducing at replacement rate or less (which includes most of Europe), it isn't necessary for Muslims to win through violence or terror: all they have to do is bide their time until they outnumber the "infidels." They can then "democratically" vote in sharia law.
Lots of people are urging that non-Islamic people step up a pediatric arms race. That's crazy. Western women, with their hard-earned freedom, do not want and should not be forced to become baby dispensers. Nor can the social and environmental problems that would be the outcome of a procreation contest be acceptable. Do we want France and Sweden and the Netherlands and such to be as overpopulated as India?
"But it's not fair to moderate Muslims!" I am tempted to quote the wisecrack about jihadists giving a bad name to the other 2 percent of Muslims. But this is a serious objection, so I will try to give a serious answer. Which is that so-called moderate Muslims may be the biggest part of the problem. Whereas actual suicide bombers and terror-strike planners undoubtedly are a small percentage of the Muslim world, it is the moderates who are the enablers. Their silence gives consent. They give the terrorists money and refuge. They may not agree with the means, but they agree with the end -- worldwide Muslim domination.
Would wholesale deportation be unfair to some Muslims who genuinely want to reform their religion? Yes. But their hopes for reform will hardly be realized if their militant brethren are allowed to undermine and win control of Western countries. And deporting Muslims to other countries where they will live with others of their persuasion is hardly even on the same scale with the beheadings and persecution that militant Muslims subject "infidels" to when they have the power.
No solution is perfect or without cost. But changing laws and policies to allow for mass deportation of Muslims who are (temporarily) a minority seems to me much more likely to be successful, and more humane, than to wait for civil wars. And a good deal more responsible than to allow the rule of law by the people, the separation of church and state, and all the rest of the Western world's heritage to be buried under the Crescent of the East.
This is a very pertinent discussion. I think one of the things we have to emphasize about deportation is the obvious point that deportation is not the death penalty and it is not permanent internment. The individual so deported can carry on in their country of origin.
The problem with the deportation issue is that we are only taking babys steps at this time. After all that has gone on in London in the last month, PM Blair can only manage to deport (subject to court appeals) 10 Islamofascists--the worst of the worst. I guess this is a start.
I think the best approach is to advocate deporting radical islamists. That is anyone determined to be a radical islamist should leave. Determining who is actually a radical islamist (and I guess defining what one is) will become a very important issue. I have found the best way to advocate this position is to simply ask an opponent of the concept why they would want to allow known radical islamist freedom of movement in the USA, given the risk. It is hard to defend the other side--keeping a known islamofascist in the country.
DP111
I understand what you are saying regarding public school enrollments, however many Muslims send their kids to private islamic schools.
DP 111 and rick darby,
Further thoughts. The exact policies and procedures for deporting the Islamofascists will come once the motivation is there. Not the other way around.
We just had a case study in London. For years, there were calls to deport the Radical Islamic Clerics. Nothing. Then the bombings occur and PM Blair gets motivatied, the rules are changed and so on.
I am waiting for some politician in the USA to make deporting the radical islamists a winning issue. I don't think it is that hard to do.
Robert is a Fascist who supports the Nazis. Thanks for pointing that out. Your hatred for Jews makes more sense now. You should then be happy that another Fascist ideology, Islam, is growing in Europe, shouldn't you?
Robert conveniently leaves out the second definition of fascism from his source, Merriam-Webster online (a common tactic of Islamic apologists (e.g. CAIR, MESA):
"a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control."
To paraphrase Robert, it is obvious that Islam has a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control.
PD111:
Thank you for your thoughtful comments about my posting. I quite agree with you, as I thought I made clear, that the biggest concern is not the most dramatic one -- Suicide Club jihadists who disassemble themselves and everyone in their surroundings -- but rather that Muslims will take over in some countries and gain too much influence in others by sheer force of numbers. Births are a more powerful weapon than deaths. We must not allow any group to win power just by outbreeding everyone else; and as far as I'm concerned, that goes double for Muslims who want to live by medieval rules and insist that everyone else does the same.
Let me discuss some of your observations.
You say of mass expulsion: "not possible, as it is ethically and morally wrong. Violates international law." Under ordinary circumstances and in relation to most social and ethnic groups, such a step would be, as you say, morally and ethically wrong. Does it remain so in connection with a group whose values are almost completely at odds with the moral and ethical basis of Western society? One that is practically certain, if not contained, to impose its religious and ideological practices, just by remaining in place and sponsoring its own population explosion?
As for international law, while it is usually a good thing and should be respected, it should not be allowed to lead us over a cliff.
Population exchange, as you note, is probably not feasible. Who would we accept in exchange for tens of millions of Muslims?
So that leaves your suggestions for "encouraging" Muslim emigration. They are sensible suggestions and I would support every one of them, but doubt that the Muslim populations would accept any voluntarily. Politicians, being the jellyfish they are, would be loath to pass or enforce any such legislation. Even if by some extraordinary chance your ideas were made into law, the issues would be tied up in the courts for years. Meanhile the Muslim proportion of the population would be growing exponentially.
Now it is true, of course, that deportation would stand even less of a chance of being legally enacted as things stand now. I have raised the issue only because it is time to start the debate, because I believe that one way or another -- whether following further and more devastating terrorist attacks, or a growing number of rapes and other crimes committed by young Muslim men, as Fjordman has documented on this site -- there will come a time when the deportation idea can no longer be suppressed by governments and their kept journalists.
It's important to get the debate started now so that it won't emerge in a hysterical context later. If such a policy turns out to be the only way to save various European (or other) countries, I want it to be as humane and orderly as possible under the circumstances. It's far better than internment camps and vigilante attacks.
Yes, it will require force, but so ultimately does any law enforcement. It need not involve persecution. Is it really so cruel and outrageous to return adherents of an all-encompassing, intolerant religion to countries where they can live with others like themselves?
In any case, we have no moral obligation to sit by and allow our rule of law, acceptance of religious differences, and goodwill toward our fellow men to be used to destroy those very qualities that we hold dear.
Rick,
I think the way to approach deportation is to just be honest about the problem. Say:
"... that it looks like the two cultures--Islamic and the rest-of-us--are just incompatible. And we are afraid of the radical islamist--which is true. So we have to send the radicals out to protect ourselves and the moderate moslims."
And "It is true that we allowed large numbers of Muslims in, but we were caught up in this multi-cultural philosophy which we now see is a mistake."
"Also, you will be better off in your country of origin, you can go on being an islamofascist, and no one will bug you. You will feel more at home"
"If you have assets in our country, you can sell them, because we are not doing this for financial reasons. See, we are really nice guys, etc."
Post a Comment
<< Home