If it has four hoofs, a mane and neighs …

In the US, there’s the principle of “probable cause”. At 11 p.m. our time, re Paris 131115, this:

Brian Michael Jenkins, a terrorism expert and senior adviser to the president of RAND Corp., said the extremist group is clearly the name at the top of everyone’s list.” He said this was because the tactic used — “multiple attackers in coordinated attacks at multiple locations” — echoed recommendations published in extremist group’s online magazine.

James Woolsey, a former director of the CIA in 1993-195 and now chancellor at the Institute of World Politics, also told the BBC he suspected the Islamic State because the coordinated nature of the attacks required government-style planning.

The key is government style planning, a blind eye by authorities, the official notion that no Muslim can be touched, by definition, none detained, let alone charged. We saw that with Rotherham.

What any non-corrupt govt would do is:

1. Immediate curfew on any Muslim male between 12 and 50, pending processing.

2. Internment of any Muslim within the range of high likelihood, pending processing for deportation or incarceration.

3. Immediate deportation of known high risk offenders and all Imams, irrespective.

4. Placing of all active leftists on a watch list.

Naturally, none of that will happen. As was shown with Operation Cyclone, security services are in collusion with the Muslims, as has been the FCO over here. Senior members of govt need also to be on the list, especially Corbyn and cronies.

5 comments for “If it has four hoofs, a mane and neighs …

  1. November 14, 2015 at 7:14 am

    The legions of useful idiots are already rolling out the (probably pre-written) excuses and apologies…

  2. Errol
    November 14, 2015 at 8:53 am

    That is the sort of response the Left would demand – of everyone, then they’d permit favoured groups. Exactly as you’ve done. It is not libertarian.

    It is too late. When this tide of dross swarmed into the country, we shouldn’t have pandered to them. We should have expected them to vanish into society. To disappear completely, leaving their society behind.

    We didn’t. Now having tolerated the intolerant we are stuck with an arrogant, violent group that has never earned the freedom it uses to kill people.

    Imposing the ideology of the Left allows the Left to win. It responds to terrorism with terror – their end goal. It lets them win.

    What France should now be doing is identifying these immigrant murderers and then all of their friends, contacts, places of worship and shutting those down. Not a blanket ban, but a scalpel. Cut out the cancer – not the arm.

    • Voice of Reason
      November 14, 2015 at 8:44 pm

      Errol – my feeling agrees with yours. Blanket movements will likely only make things worse.

  3. November 14, 2015 at 9:54 am

    That is the sort of response the Left would demand – of everyone, then they’d permit favoured groups. Exactly as you’ve done. It is not libertarian.

    OK, we have an essential principle here:

    The proposal I make is most libertarian, classically so.

    1. It’s libertarian in that it prevents a bloodbath and ensures the freedom of those Muslims from death at the hands of the indigenous, the backlash. In ensuring it is done by law, not by knee jerk counter killing, is very much NOT adopting the tactics of the left, it is showing the tactics of the law-abiding. Steady as she goes.

    2. You say cut out the cancer, not the arm. Precisely what the proposal does. It takes all the tissue which is potentially cancerous to a high probability and quarantines it, then goes through bit by bit and examines it. The cancerous gets cut out, the rest returns. The body lives and goes on. Just as you say.

    To reiterate – this allows tissue to return. It does not kill off the whole body.

    3. How libertarian is it to stand by and do nothing, saying the freedom of those killers is paramount, their human rights? How about the human rights of the dead, snuffed out against their libertarian wishes? How about the freedom of the populace not to be gunned down or blown up?

    The latter surely eclipses the former. My response is rehabilitative, whereas faux libertarianism would have us marked down for more killing.

    It’s called classical liberalism – freedom until it directly harms others and more importantly in this case, shows every chance of doing so, just as cancer does. An extant danger.

    That must also include those aiding and abetting the disease, in this case the left radicals. In any libertarian debate, there MUST be the principle of extant danger. If a gunman comes at my child, I do not worry about whether I am harming his rights at that moment, his libertarian right to murder.

    That is simply insanity and a twisting of the whole idea of libertarianism. When libertarianism has no limits, it becomes licence.

  4. Voice of Reason
    November 14, 2015 at 8:49 pm

    Right now, I am dealing with two situations of mentally ill individuals, one at work, one in my private life. As I just explained to my colleague, when rational people try to deal with the deranged, they are at a disadvantage. To the paranoid, everything can be explained as ‘enemy action’, regardless of whether it is logical or consistent. Trying to understand motives and deal with them rationally is futile.

    In these acts, we are dealing with people who are not rational or sane.

Comments are closed.