Britain and the EU Should Face Up to the Reality of Islamic Terrorism

THE REAL NEWS TODAY IS THAT EUROPE AND THE UK HAVE A VERY SLOW LEARNING CURVE ABOUT TERRORISTS. • • • And so does the US mainstream media. Fox Nation published an article by Tom Blumer on Monday that reviewed the hand-wringing antics of MSNBC's Richard Lui, who, said Blumer : "appears to be testing the limits of irresponsible media coverage of terrorist incidents. Up until now, the press has fretted in the aftermath of such attacks about possible retaliations or 'backlash' against Moslems or others not involved in them, even though such misguided revenge-seeking has rarely occurred. Saturday evening, Lui worried about police 'overreacting' shortly after terror attacks in London which, as of the time of this post, had taken the lives of seven innocents [we now know 8 people lost their lives as another victim was pulled out of the Thames] and injured 48 others, including 21 critically." • The startling fact that any Western "journalist" could actually worry about police "overreacting" -- especially in London where few of them have few guns -- is farcical. All of us watched live on TV the carnage and mayhem that occurred on Saturday night, but all Lui could do was wonder whether in post-attack attempts to restore order, "there's a risk of overreaction, of deploying...too much force." Lui's question Saturday evening to a guest law enforcement analyst came ten minutes after London's Metropolitan Police "declared" that the attacks were "terrorist incidents." The startled NBC News law enforcement analyst, Jim Cavanaugh, answered through his amazement : "Well, you know, in the city, the experience and the attacks, when there’s multiple attacks, really I don’t think the response could be too large, to get enough officers and investigators there to quickly quell and then find out what’s going on." • We have to wonder if Liu uderstood what was happening, if he can relate to the fact of islamic terrorists stabbing innocent people, slitting their throats, and running them down with a large van. Maybe Richard Liu could use a few days of experience on the streets in Baghdad or Mosul -- where this morning a horrific aerial video showed the bodies and body parts of 160 Moslems shot and hacked to death by ISIS fighters determined, it seems, to kill anyone who might tell the tale of life in Mosul under the Caliphate. • We also would like to ask Lui to enumerate the "dangers" of "overreacting" or "applying too much force" just after such a horrible attack -- would he have preferred fewer police vehicles and no flashing blue lights, or would he have wanted the police not to search those in the immediate area to be sure terrorists hadn't tried to fade into the dazed crowd. Or, as Blumer suggested, has Lui suddenly become a fiscal conservative worried about police overtime bankrupting the City of London? • Killing terrorists is the job police are trained for and expected to do. Considering that some patrons in the bars and restaurants the terrorists invaded actually hurled chairs, tables, bottles and glasses at the terrorists, we might well ask where were the police -- were they actually "under-reacting"??? • The Daily Caller repeated the fast online timeline of the UK Guardian to report that : "Eyewitnesses Say Community Police Fled From Scene Of Terror Stabbings At Borough Market." That should not necessarily be taken as a negative comment about London community police -- they are generally unarmed, carrying only mace, handcuffs, batons and, on occasion, a stun gun, and those who fled may have expected immediate full-force backup by police with guns. Whatever the reason, the result was, according to the Guardian, that "Citizens had to throw chairs at the jihadists" to defend themselves and try to save others. • • • LONDON MAYOR SADIQ KHAN'S SOLUTION. Mayor Khan has not said anything about keeping islamic terrorists out of London -- but he would like to ban President Trump. How's that for forceful anti-terrorist leadership? Khan said : "I don’t think we should roll out the red carpet to the President of the USA in the circumstances where his policies go against everything we stand for." Mayor Khan is a sunni Moslem, so we might ask if by "we" he was speaking as the Mayor of London, or as a prominent British Moslem? But, one thing is certain. The aggressive anti-terrorist stance of President Trump is looking more and more rational. How long will the British have to wait for their government to stop being politically correct and seriously undertake to stop the flow of blood of its citizens at the hands of radical islamist jihadists who want to destroy them and their society. • As American Thinker stated : "For what it's worth, genuine tolerance is indeed a modern pluralistic political virtue, and a necessary one. But when Milton and Locke were making their cases for religious tolerance, their precise intention was to quell or moderate religious fanaticism, not to aggrandize and protect it. Tolerance, as a social good, means specifically the refusal to accept violent hatred spewed in the name of faith....[But] England's government, and by implication the majority of its voting public, has shifted to a very different, almost diametrically opposed, understanding of tolerance, according to which tolerance means 'learning to live with' a certain amount of violent religious fanaticism in one's midst, in the names of progressivism, multiculturalism, and kumbaya. And so, even after his own city has been assailed by sincere and fanatical representatives of his own faith, Mayor Khan's instinct is not to condemn the fanatical strain of his faith, or to express shame on behalf of the moderate practitioners of his faith, but rather to demand that the American president be officially branded intolerant for his condemnation of the killers and their religious ilk." • • • BRITISH POLICE SHOULD BE ARMED. Mayor Khan and the British government should start by giving all their police firearms. To keep the police unarmed in the dangerous environment in which they operate today is a disservice both to the police themselves and to the British citizens they are trying to protect from violent islamic terrorists. • A New York Post article on the London Bridge terrorist attack points to the results of an unarmed police force and a disarmed populace : "A rookie London transit cop was stabbed in the face while bravely fighting off the London Bridge terrorists with only his baton -- and a baker beat back one of the fiends with a bread basket, authorities and the chef said Sunday. Such heroic acts in the face of mortal danger 'were among several to emerge Sunday in the wake of the deadly onslaught.' " The Post noted that sun.co.uk adds the poignant account of a barman "launching bar stools, bottles and glasses" at knife-wielding assailants in the midst of the carnage. So, said the Post : "the terrorists are armed with all manner of bombs and guns; box-cutters; and, in recent attacks, trucks and knives. London police, including the severely wounded rookie transit cop, are armed with, for the most part, batons and bravery. British citizens are armed with...bread baskets." • Last year when Brits watched terrorists strike France, Germany and Belgium, the London police chief warned it was a case of "when, not if" the UK joined that list. But, still, today, more than 90% of London's police officers carry out their daily duties without a gun. The Metropolitan Police was founded in 1829 on the principle of "policing by consent" rather than by force. This attitude is explained by one British police commissioner : "The British policing way...is that we're part of the public. A firearm...puts a barrier between people and the police." • We may well ask if either the London police or Londoners believe that this attitude should apply to police vs. terrorists. • • • BRITISH CITIZENS SHOULD BE ABLE TO OWN ARMS. The Post noted that the day before Saturday's London terrorism attack, the NRA posted an article about gun ownership in Essex County, England, which is adjacent to the greater London area. Recently, the UK's Basildon Standard reported that Essex County has roughly 69,000 registered firearms that are owned by approximately 22,000 certified gun owners. Essex is home to 1.74 million residents. Given these figures, approximately 1.26% of Essex's population owns firearms. The Standard's article questions whether those 69,000 firearms are "far too many" and quotes a local resident who says : "For me, any amount of guns above zero is too many." For the Post, stringent gun laws in the UK, including a ban on privately owned handguns, among other things, apparently aren't enough for some UK authorities : "Therein lies a lesson for gun owners in the US, with the NRA article observing that the British government's 'ceaseless calls for further gun control [are] instructive, as it demonstrates that there is no point at which gun control supporters will conclude their attack on gun ownership.' The American approach to self-defense is the antithesis to that of the UK, with Paul Bedard at washingtonexaminer.com observing that recent terror attacks 'are pushing gun sales into record territory just months after predictions that the election of a pro-gun president would end the rush.' " Bedard quotes a North Carolina gun store source : "We are continuing to see brisk sales of self-defense and concealed carry firearms. We're also continuing to see new gun buyers....People are nervous about their safety, and rightly so. It's a dangerous world we live in and American citizens know that we're not immune to terrorist attacks. They're taking the necessary steps to defend themselves. Frankly, the most recent terrorist attack in London underscores the importance of an armed populace." Megan G. Oprea, writing at thefederalist.com on "politicians downplaying terrorism," says our politicians "know that their weak platitudes can't stop terrorism, and so do the people." • • • DEAR READERS, and that's why Americans don't rely on bread baskets for self-defense. If Britain would follow President Trump's advice and make an effort to keep terrorists out of the UK, they would be a lot safer. Consider Hungary and Poland. The European Union has called on Poland to accept more than 6,000 asylum seekers or face economic sanctions. Citing security concerns, Szydlo said Poland “will not participate in the Brussels elites’ folly.” Polish Interior Minister Mariusz Blaszczak considers the threat of migrants “much worse” than the threat of EU sanctions and has said that such waves of mass migration only harm the “security of Poland and the Poles.” • Hungarian Prime Minster Viktor Orban has called migrants “a poison” and believes that “every single migrant poses a public security and terror risk.” Orban recently slammed the EU in a speech in Malta, warning that Europe’s “Christian identity” is threatened by runaway immigration. “Migration turned out to be the Trojan horse of terrorism,” he said. Last summer, Hungary decided to introduce a strict limit on the number of refugees allowed into the country. The country also further reinforced patrols and defensive measures on its border. Only 10 migrants can enter Hungary on a given weekday. Hungarian President János Áder signed a bill recently that will allow asylum seekers to be restricted to detention centers and gives police authority to return them from anywhere in the country to neighboring Serbia. • Poland and Hungary are two of the most restrictive countries in Europe when it comes to accepting overwhelmingly Moslem migrants -- and neither have seen a major terror attack in years. Britain and the rest of the EU should take note.