It’s a protracted insurgency. It’s war, regardless of how much people want to deny it:
Britons trying to remain optimistic note that they survived and eventually defeated Irish nationalist terrorism not all that long ago. But this is a flawed analogy. In the first place, at any given time during the Troubles, the number of active Provisional Irish Republican Army terrorists seldom exceeded a hundred. Moreover, the PIRA was a “normal” terrorist group with rational political motives, not a religiously-motivated death cult, and it generally eschewed killing civilians for its own sake. Indeed, atrocities like the 1987 Enniskillen attack, which murdered 10 innocents, proved a black mark for the group, even among staunch republicans. Therefore, comparing the PIRA to ISIS and its murderous Western wannabes isn’t much help to practical counterterrorism.
That said, if Britain doesn’t soon devise tough countermeasures to its vast domestic jihadism problem, many of its cities may come to resemble Northern Ireland a generation ago, with armed soldiers in battle gear patrolling the streets as “aid to civil power” while enforcing frequent security checks on average citizens with the aim of stopping terrorists.
In their historically recent unwillingness to allow Britons to defend themselves (appalling, considering that we inherited our notions about the Second Amendment from ancient English Common Law), the contradictions of their multi-culturalism will become untenable.
[Update a few minutes later]
Counterterrorism lessons from America’s Civil War:
Destroying ISIS, al-Qaeda and other Muslim terror groups is not particularly difficult, far less difficult than Sherman or Sheridan’s task during the Civil War. It simply requires doing some disgusting things. Western intelligence doesn’t have to infiltrate terror groups, tap phones, mine social media postings and so forth (although these doubtless are worth doing). Muslim communities in the West will inform on the terrorists. They will tell police when someone has packed up and gone to Syria, and when he has returned. They will tell police who is talking about killing westerners, who has a suspicious amount of cash, who is listening to broadcasts from Salafist preachers.
They will tell western security services everything they need to know, provided that western security services ask in the right way. I mean in Phil Sheridan’s way. Like the victorious Union generals of the Civil War, the West does not have to be particularly clever. It simply needs to understand what kind of war is is fighting.
Yes, ultimately, the only way to victory is to make them fear us. As Mark Steyn has said, the question is not “Why do they hate us,” but “Why do they despise us”? It is because they have no respect for us, and given the behavior of the “elites,” it’s hard to blame them.
[Early-afternoon update]
In the face of terror, Londoners told to “Run, Hide, Tell.”
Contrast this with the London of eight decades ago.
“It’s a protracted insurgency.”
What a complete load of guff, an insurgency is an active revolt or uprising, what Britain has had is a few flaky individuals mostly without support even from their own families (we keep hearing that family members had reported the perpetrators as a threat prior to their terrorist acts), there’s been no coordination or large groups, no mass demands or widespread civil unrest against the state.
“Contrast this with the London of eight decades ago.”
Contrary to what you evidently believe, when the air raid sirens went off during the blitz British civilians did not ignore the threat, but rather they ran and hid in bomb shelters.
Rand, you’re obviously losing touch with reality.
Out of here.
Lazy Google searches will enable you to respond like you did. A real dictionary, such as Merriam-Webster, defines insurgency as “a condition of revolt against a government that is less than an organized revolution and that is not recognized as belligerency”
That puts the article in the appropriate context. I do agree with your last sentence, though
And to ensure you don’t misunderstand, I don’t agree with your last paragraph, only the last sentence
Nothing to see here! Ignore the rhetoric coming from Islamists! Just a couple of flakes!
Except that there are a few thousand of them under investigation in the UK.
No widespread civil unrest against the the state did you say?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/745056/Muslim-protest-demands-Islamic-caliphate-Allahu-Akbar-Belgrave-Square-London-Syria
There’s more, much more. Polls of Muslims in Britain indicate that a substantial fraction would not inform on terrorists and think suicide bombing is a legitimate tactic to achieve their goals. There is an even easier way than Rand’s to end the terrorist bombings, institute sharia law and convert to Islam.
Past time to prosecute as accessories those who refuse to report terrorists.
Spengler is quite right. Even a much less draconian approach than that taken by Sheridan and Sherman can show results, but their examples should always be kept in reserve for particularly intractable cases. That’s the reason Israel destroys the houses of the families of terrorists – it discourages terrorism.
England has a lot of radical imams “preaching” in radical mosques. The U.K. knows who and where these people are. It needs to round them up and expel them from the country. As most seem to be foreign-born that shouldn’t be a problem. After that, the mosques themselves should be closed and razed to the ground. The rubble of demolition should be left in place for a year and a day, then removed and replaced with something – anything – non-Islamic.
If such measures prove insufficient to stop the jihadis, the next step is to go the Israeli route and destroy the housing of family members of terrorists. If said family lives in an apartment building, the whole building comes down.
If there are still attacks, whole blocks or even whole districts can be subjected to the Gen. Sherman urban renewal plan. Mass deportations can be implemented. There are ways to end this murderous nonsense.
The French and the Germans would be well advised to follow suit.
So would we, for that matter.
That’s what I said after 9/11. I don’t care if they hate us, but I damn well want them to fear us.
The UK, for a very long time, has followed a doctrine of appeasement and accommodation (perhaps because it worked out oh so well for them at Munich?). Their terrorist problem is a self-inflicted wound.
My family is from the UK, and I go there frequently. I’ve seen firsthand the rise of islamic areas in the major cities, and even some not so major ones. As a result, I consider terrorism to be a secondary problem; the primary problem is a very large population of Muslim immigrants who are largely not assimilating, a large fraction of whom adhere to their backwards barbaric ways, which encompass everything from their degenerate treatment of women (including small children – Rotherham, anyone?) and other outright fascist beliefs (such as Sharia law).
A walk, or even a drive, through any major UK city’s Muslim areas illustrates the problem; you’ll see that islamic clothing is far more prevalent there there than you will in Cairo or Damascus. I don’t agree with those who want to ban it though… it’d be far more useful as an identifier of those who need deporting (wearing it is a clear sign that they aren’t assimilating, so it’s high time they were tossed out).
An interesting aside is that those who favor allowing islamic immigration usually can’t cite an actual reason for it. They may, and often do, cite “diversity” and “multiculturalism” yet are unable to say what, exactly, the benefits of those are. That, to me, speaks volumes of the inherent fraud of their position.
It’s also worth noting that a majority in the UK do think that global warming is a major problem, and we must do something for the sake of future generations. Many who hold that view dismiss terror as a non-issue, because it’s “homegrown”; IE, second generation. Yet, they are just fine with the ongoing migrant flood, which is, even in their own world view, condemning future generations to vastly more terror.
However, I’m heartened to see that, for the first time I’m aware, citizens of the UK under attack fought back against the terrorists (using chairs, even a car). That gives me hope that, at last, they may haul down the yellow flag they’ve abided by for so long, and actually start fixing the problem before its too late. For the sake of my family and the land of my ancestors, I hope so.
ISIS clearly don’t understand the English, and confuse tolerance for cowardice.
I’ve continued to read a few British forums and blogs since I left. These aren’t extremists, they’re mostly moderates, conservatives and libertarians. But, in the last few days, they’ve started posting quite seriously about how they’re just going to have to deport all the Muslims.
The English have begun to hate. And, as Kipling pointed out many years ago, you never want the English to hate you. These are a people who, only a few decades ago, thought nothing of incinerating entire cities and everyone inside them. God knows what’ll happen this time when they finally break and say ‘enough is enough’.
CJ well dose England really have a Choice on Islamic Immigration. Their Birth Rates aren’t great not as bad as Germany though. They need immigrants for labor and cheap labor source of immigration is northern Africa and Middle East. It less multiculturalism more self preservation that not working out.. The drastic hit in birth rates of 1970s really taking the toll on the 1st world nations.
Engineer, it’s helpful to look at the actual economic numbers. Specifically, the cost of a generational disparity (a higher than normal age distribution in the retirement years, because retirees tend to be net consumers of social benifits) which is the sole problem with declining birth rates, vs. the cost of Islamic immigration (Islamic immigrants, too, are net consumers of social befits, and that’s before they reach retirment age). This includes all social benefits they do and will receive, increased infrastructure, increased law enforcement costs, etc).
The latter, by any measure, is the greater sum, which means that the economic excuse for islamic immigration is invalid.
Seems to me there are a few things a nation could do that would help immediately:
1) Find all who have overstayed their visa and deport them immediately.
2) Continue to track visa end dates and deport people who haven’t left within a week.
3) If a non-citizen leaves the country, they cannot come back. This is especially true if they go back to the country from which they say they fled (Tsarnaev’s) or a hotbed of terrorism training (Libya ,Syria Pakistan etc as one of the recent London terrorists did).
but even if they go to France or Germany or Lichtenstein they cannot come back.
4) Attend mosque services and listen for firebrand clergy. You cannot arrest them for their sermons but you will know which mosques foment violence.
“Moreover, the PIRA was a “normal” terrorist group with rational political motives, not a religiously-motivated death cult”
Oh he’s quite wrong here. Al-Qaeda, or whatever they call themselves today, want to recreate a Global Islamic Caliphate.
i.e. their objectives are quite rational. Their methods are despicable but the objectives are quite rational.
“Contrast this with the London of eight decades ago.”
As i said somewhere on Facebook, the UK has gone from Sir Winston to Sir Robin.