Every now and again you come across an article that elicits the response ‘nail, head, hit’ and this one from Al Jahom’s Final Word blog, is one of those such pieces.
AJ is correct that this was the wrong target at the wrong time but he’s also correct to ask would it make a difference to how people view the driver in this incident if it turned out that he’d lost a close friend or relative in one of the recent Islamic atrocities? Al Jahom says it would make a difference if the driver had lost people to Islamic savagery and I’m inclined to agree with them. If I’d lost a close relative or friend or partner to the sort of Islamic savagery that we’ve seen in Britain of late then although I probably would not choose to do what this guy in Finsbury Park did, but probably would channel my grief and anger into a political route. I would certainly be in no mood to take on board the insulting and patronising ‘keep calm and carry on’ message as put out by government after almost ever incidence of Islamic savagery.
Al Jahom said:]
With the benefit of hindsight, it was inevitable, wasn’t it? White man drives van into Muslims outside Finsbury Park Mosque.
I mean.. are we really surprised after everything that has happened in the last few months?
- Westminster attack by an Islamist – 5 dead, 50 injured
- Manchester attack by an Islamist – 23 killed, 119 injured
- London Bridge attack by Islamists – 8 killed, 48 injured
This is to say nothing of the events across Europe in recent times, particularly France and Germany. The horror stories from the Bataclan are breath-taking.
But of course, the usual suspects are all up in arms, like this attack is more serious that any of the foregoing. Like the 1 dead and 10 injured here are somehow more precious and important than the 36 dead and 217 injured by Islamists in England in 2017.
Conveniently, plod is on the news saying “this is being treated as a terrorist attack”. That’s the nub of the whole charade. Now people can smugly say “well it’s not just Muslims who carry out these attacks”.. as if that makes any of it okay. Sadiq Khan (Mayor of London) is now on the news using language that draws equivalence between this attack and the Islamist attacks, opining that this individual “was allowed to be radicalised” etc etc.
But if this man was radicalised, it wasn’t by a rogue Vicar at a church. It was by the mealy-mouthed response to events from politicians who have allowed British people (and our visitors) to be slain by a medieval death cult, which the government and its agencies have allowed to enter the country and to incubate this death cult in our midst. It was by the righteous lefties and the celebs and the multiculti-happyclappy Primrose Hill mob who hate the white working class as much as they love vibrant and diverse savages. It was those who have allowed large swathes of British towns and cities to become foreign enclaves, where white people cannot go, and English isn’t spoken.
This was a reprisal against Muslims for Islamic terrorism perpetrated against the British people. But as inevitable as it may have been, it was also woefully misdirected.
As I said previously the angry response should be to the mealy-mouthed apologists in our own camp.
As an aside, I don’t suppose it’d make any different if we were to learn that this man in police custody had personally lost a loved one in one of these 2017 Islamist attacks, would it? I think it would to me.
Read the source here:
https://aljahom.wordpress.com/2017/06/19/nothing-to-do-with-white-van-man/
‘Sadly inevitable’ is probably the best way to view this incident. Maybe if the political classes had had a more robust attitude to Islam and had prioritised the safety and security of non Muslim Britons instead of having their priorities the other way round, then this tragedy would not have happened. Al Jahom really sums up the anger at what has happened in the UK with regards the ideology of Islam and they are correct in stating that the primary enemy isn’t random Muslims coming out of a mosque, but the politicians who have caused this total mess that we the subject, but not they the remote political class, have to live with and suffer from.
“Conveniently, plod is on the news saying “this is being treated as a terrorist attack”. So soon ? But I could have sworn that there was a set routine for these things ? You know, the “We have no idea why he did it.” response, or the “He was clearly mentally-ill / paranoid / delusional / disavantaged / victim of discrimination / Norwegian” etc press-release, or the “This has nothing to do with Islam.” statement, or even Theresa May’s famous “This is the religion of a great pervert.” story-line.
Hundreds and hundreds of incidents across Europe, and they never know what it’s all about, but suddenly – today, they do ! – whatever could be the difference between them ?
For anybody who isn’t quite sure, I’ll tell you; all the other attacks were carried out by muslim fanatics who wished to advance the imposition of Sharia Law in the West through violence. This is known as “terrorism”. The attack in Finsbury Park was carried out by a man who was sick to the back teeth with terrorism and the abject cowardice and grovelling of our “leaders”, and so carried out a revenge attack with no political agenda at all.
So there you have it – if an attack is plainly a typical Islamic terrorist attack then it isn’t, but if an attack made by a white European driven to desperation plainly isn’t, then it is.
“This is being treated as a terrorist attack”, but did the attacker proclaim anything suggestive of intention to attack the UK and change its political system? If so, this has not been reported. So what makes it a “terror attack”? Given the modus operandi similar to some actual terrorist attacks, understandably counter-terror police are investigating this; but to presume it is a “terror attack” rather than a planned serious “hate crime” at this stage smacks, I am sorry to say, of a desire to fool the public and pretend once more that Islamism and jihad has nothing to do with Islam, that there is no traditional Islamic political system that urges supremacy, and to appease Islamic supremacists by saying, “Look, we aren’t biased; we call non-Muslims terrorists too.” I wonder…is the label “terror attack” to assuage guilty embarrassment among non-Muslims (officials and others) that the terrorists we have been dealing are Islamic (and fighting to impose global rule according to Islamic law, which supposedly has ‘nothing to do with Islam’), and to assuage fears of being called “Islamophobic” due to the necessary practical and empirical focus of counter-terror? Has the incident been seized and misnamed tactically to propagate an opportune vision of ‘social cohesion’ in the hope this will counter alienation among Muslims? Will Madge get back with Bill after his sleazy night in Piddletrenthide?…Errm, sorry, I forgot what I was writing about…