:: Saturday, 23 July 2005 ::
He lay down, facing up, on his bomb-packed rucksack, arms spread like Jeebus?
Check this eyewitness account of one of the four failed London bomb-bastards.
Incredibile. This is pure spazz territory, death cultism going on here, not studied political activism with a violent bent.
He lay down on top of his bomb. Like a freakin' sacrifice.
Urgh. Why couldn't he go through his pathetic weirdo ritual in the privacy of a paddcok in the middle on nowhere?
Because the man is a deathcultist. He likes death. He acts the martyr but is atchally the murderer.
Just a filthy deathcultist.
Tim Worstall is concerned about the 5 shots to the head of as-it-turns-out-non-bomber. He makes a fair point and his comments section is lively and worth a read.
For mine, it is a matter of practical reality that the coppers cannot shoot everyone 5 times in the head. They can, as matter of practical reality, shoot the ones who look suspicious and run away when asked to stop and chat. Cos most folks in London, when bombs have gone off and have been primed to go off albeit unsuccessfully, are not going to attract police attention and most people would not dream of running away from the police in response to the police asking them to stop and talk.
The question then is a real lightning bolt straight to the heart question: Should the coppers shoot to kill folks who run away?
I am thinking yes.
But before youse get all 'fascist' on me, I do not mean that coppers should not have to explain themselves. They should. Just as they ever have had to. If their actions were not warranted to avert real and actual danger, or reasonably believed danger that turns out not to be actual danger, then they should be punished. Firings, compensation payments to victims and survivors. The usual, the lot. We already do that, and none of that should change.
But is not a simple equation and Tim's trepidation is entirey fair and rightminded.
Lord, did you ever buhleev you would be living in a period of history where such profound questions about liberty were being writ large across the news everyday? I always reckoned the past held all the profound stuff, you know? Rinascimento...the 1950's etcetera.
Check out this short piece from Perry at Samizdata. And this one too. This is profound stuff. Bottom line, are these mad wogs worth Tim Worstall's concern? Does not get much more profound than that. And it does not get much more depressing than the two "moderate Mulsims" quoted in the piece blogged by Perry, either.
Read it carefully and see how these two senior Muslim men, just will not accept that their constituency - their kin, their Muslim brothers - are 100% responsible for how they react to British foreign policy. To anything at all.
The policy does not make a man pick a bomb-filled rucksack and get on a train. The man does that. Himself. He is not compelled. He could sotp.
Where others are satisfied to vote, or march or write angry letters, these mad Muslims get violent. They could choose not to. But they don't.
They don't. They choose to act violently.
So whose fault is that.
I wish with all my heart these wogs would pick up their game.
If the Sicilians could do it with the appalling mafia, home grown and virulent in their midst, by demonstrating loudly "Basta" (Enough), women and children deliberately and bravely surrounding Palermo's Mayor as they marched - he was the next target after the roadside megabomb that killed Judge Falcone and his crew - if the Sicilians could strip off the turgid rancid cloth of mafiadom, horribe habit of violence and omerta that had swathed them for centuries, then English-based Muslims should be able to muster up the energy and the principle as well to march en masse.
The Sicilians never marched under banners that read "Basta, but of course the mafia began as a response to the oppression of the Bourbons so you must understand the root causes, and plus they do spend money and give jobs and stuff.....so, you know, they should be appeased and treated politically, blah blah, Basta but".
:: WB 1:43 am [link+] ::