Here's a new Hillary-Clinton-approved open thread. Thank you in advance from me, Hillary and the team at Women's Hour for any comments you care to submit. Cheers!
Woman's Hour has issued the following statement of explanation: "Whilst we consider ourselves in the vanguard of the feminist movement in the UK, and have laboured long and hard to raise female consciousness, we wish to make it absolutely crystal clear that we will under no circumstances ask Hillary Clinton any hard questions about her threats to pursue those women who accused her husband of serious assaults."
Radio 4's Today programme should carry a warning: "Listening to more than five minutes of the Today programme every day can seriously damage your mental health and lead to early onset dementia."
Had to endure this morning a Guardian style "discussion" (aka as a clusterf*** by those of an unkind disposition) about the returnees from the IS Caliphate.
It was really shocking. Here are the takeaway points:
1. Over 400 out of 850 UK-origin IS fighters have already returned. (It would appear that no or virtually no arrests and prosecutions have taken place). This was considered by the BBC interviewer and his demented interviewees to be a good thing.
2. Apparently the vast majority went to IS territory out of naive idealism. Really? Well I suppose it's how you define naive idealism, but no one going to IS territory could after the first few days be under any illusion about the fact that IS carried out mass decapitations of POWs, threw gays off tall buildings, carried out crucifixions and kidnapped innocent people engaged in charity work. That was the true nature of the "idealism" and the vast majority were attracted by those features, being marks of true Sharia.
3. The returnees were referred to WW2 style as returning "home". FFS!!! They deliberataly chose the IS Caliphate as their home...they wanted to see the Calphate expand to take over the whole world. They did not and do not consider the UK their "home" in any meaningful sense. Why use this emotive word "home" unless a deliberate attempt was being made to mind-bend the audience. They could equally have said "return to the UK" or some such or "return to their former places of residence". But no, "home" it was.
4. Reference was made as to whether they would be viewed as returning heroes...unbelievable! Well we all know the answer to that. They will be but within only one particular community, the Islamic community (albeit possibly or not - who really knows? - a minority of that community). Was that community named? Of course not, leaving the impression that large sections of the normal populace were ready to get out the bunting.
5. It was claimed that many perhaps most of the IS migrants would distinguish between "domestic" (nice euphemism for Manchester-arena style attacks)acts of terrorism and acts of violence in IS held territory, which would mean they weren't a threat on return to the UK. Can anyone really believe this? IS have a completely conventional Sharia understanding of the world - we are in the "land of war" since we are not in the land of Islam. It is hugely naive to think any IS ideologue would see things differently - they would clearly welcome acts of domestic terrorism.
6. It is clear from the discussion that a political, I repeat POLITICAL, decision has been taken not to prosecute any of these people (even though plenty of those trying to get to IS territory HAVE been prosecuted).
Regarding no. 5 it seems to me that we have here another gargantuan piece of legal manipulation by those in power, comparable with the horrendous decision not to prosecute the grooming gangs in all our major cities, preying on thousands of children and vulnerable young women.This is really shocking - that because the authorities fear the IS returnees becoming heroes, or making IS propaganda from the witness box, they are nearly all going to be allowed to go free despite having fought for the Caliphate against British forces and with a view to destroying our constitution and legal system.
I meant "after the first few days of the Caliphate's existence" rather than "after the first few days of arriving in the Caliphate"...ie what IS were doing was plastered all over the media, so there can be no question of "naive idealism" unless we are redefining naive idealism to mean approving of mass murder of POWs, crucifixion, amputations, persecution of religious minorities, slavery etc etc.
Also regarding 1, I meant they appeared to consider it a good thing in the sense they were not saying it would be far better had they been slaughtered in place in the Caliphate or they were taking such a rosy view of what these people would be getting up once back here that it appeared almost like they were welcoming them back, having now learnt how unpleasant life under the Caliphate was.
"Duck! Sniper!".
ReplyDeleteThe rest is spilled coffee.
Woman's Hour has issued the following statement of explanation: "Whilst we consider ourselves in the vanguard of the feminist movement in the UK, and have laboured long and hard to raise female consciousness, we wish to make it absolutely crystal clear that we will under no circumstances ask Hillary Clinton any hard questions about her threats to pursue those women who accused her husband of serious assaults."
ReplyDeleteI used to listen to WH a lot. Strange when I come to think of it now.
ReplyDeleteBut I well remember Jenni and Sue building up a head of steam that all women should vote for Hilary because, well, she's a woman!
Not so strange though, that Jenni and Sue didn't think that way for Margaret or Theresa.
They were big on Aung San Suu Kyi for a while...but not now. Nothing more fickle than the BBC PC crowd .
DeleteRadio 4's Today programme should carry a warning: "Listening to more than five minutes of the Today programme every day can seriously damage your mental health and lead to early onset dementia."
ReplyDeleteHad to endure this morning a Guardian style "discussion" (aka as a clusterf*** by those of an unkind disposition) about the returnees from the IS Caliphate.
It was really shocking. Here are the takeaway points:
1. Over 400 out of 850 UK-origin IS fighters have already returned. (It would appear that no or virtually no arrests and prosecutions have taken place). This was considered by the BBC interviewer and his demented interviewees to be a good thing.
2. Apparently the vast majority went to IS territory out of naive idealism. Really? Well I suppose it's how you define naive idealism, but no one going to IS territory could after the first few days be under any illusion about the fact that IS carried out mass decapitations of POWs, threw gays off tall buildings, carried out crucifixions and kidnapped innocent people engaged in charity work. That was the true nature of the "idealism" and the vast majority were attracted by those features, being marks of true Sharia.
3. The returnees were referred to WW2 style as returning "home". FFS!!! They deliberataly chose the IS Caliphate as their home...they wanted to see the Calphate expand to take over the whole world. They did not and do not consider the UK their "home" in any meaningful sense. Why use this emotive word "home" unless a deliberate attempt was being made to mind-bend the audience. They could equally have said "return to the UK" or some such or "return to their former places of residence". But no, "home" it was.
4. Reference was made as to whether they would be viewed as returning heroes...unbelievable! Well we all know the answer to that. They will be but within only one particular community, the Islamic community (albeit possibly or not - who really knows? - a minority of that community). Was that community named? Of course not, leaving the impression that large sections of the normal populace were ready to get out the bunting.
5. It was claimed that many perhaps most of the IS migrants would distinguish between "domestic" (nice euphemism for Manchester-arena style attacks)acts of terrorism and acts of violence in IS held territory, which would mean they weren't a threat on return to the UK. Can anyone really believe this? IS have a completely conventional Sharia understanding of the world - we are in the "land of war" since we are not in the land of Islam. It is hugely naive to think any IS ideologue would see things differently - they would clearly welcome acts of domestic terrorism.
6. It is clear from the discussion that a political, I repeat POLITICAL, decision has been taken not to prosecute any of these people (even though plenty of those trying to get to IS territory HAVE been prosecuted).
Regarding no. 5 it seems to me that we have here another gargantuan piece of legal manipulation by those in power, comparable with the horrendous decision not to prosecute the grooming gangs in all our major cities, preying on thousands of children and vulnerable young women.This is really shocking - that because the authorities fear the IS returnees becoming heroes, or making IS propaganda from the witness box, they are nearly all going to be allowed to go free despite having fought for the Caliphate against British forces and with a view to destroying our constitution and legal system.
This decision will come back to haunt them.
I meant "after the first few days of the Caliphate's existence" rather than "after the first few days of arriving in the Caliphate"...ie what IS were doing was plastered all over the media, so there can be no question of "naive idealism" unless we are redefining naive idealism to mean approving of mass murder of POWs, crucifixion, amputations, persecution of religious minorities, slavery etc etc.
DeleteAlso regarding 1, I meant they appeared to consider it a good thing in the sense they were not saying it would be far better had they been slaughtered in place in the Caliphate or they were taking such a rosy view of what these people would be getting up once back here that it appeared almost like they were welcoming them back, having now learnt how unpleasant life under the Caliphate was.