London Bridge Incident - mod warning in OP

Quantum Erasure

that interpretation of his words would be grand, if his son's killer hadn't been a convicted terrorist, released half way through a 16 year sentence

donkeykong5

Bigboldworld wrote: »

Great to see the three guys chase the dirty rat down and take him to the deck, to the polish chef with the elephant tusk I salute you sir, when most would run or stand back and record on their phones these guys faced him down and probably saved a lot more lives

How come Khan only mentioned the polish man in his interview on news . The men who intervened are all heroes.

Bigboldworld

donkeykong5 wrote: »

How come Khan only mentioned the polish man in his interview on news . The men who intervened are all heroes.

I don’t know being honest, the polish guy was stabbed by your man in the hand in the venue and then pulled the tusk off the wall and went out after him onto the bridge, serious balls, the other two lads I don’t know the story but agree they all acted very bravely in tackling the lunatic. The police did the right thing, take no prisoners in situations like that

Lefty Bicek

donkeykong5 wrote: »

How come Khan only mentioned the polish man in his interview on news . The men who intervened are all heroes.

More diversity-signalling.

Pythagorean

Thought it kind of ironic that the Muslim terrorist, the Mayor of London, and the Government official in charge of Muslim deradicalization programmes all had the same surname "KHAN"

donkeykong5

Pythagorean wrote: »

Thought it kind of ironic that the Muslim terrorist, the Mayor of London, and the Government official in charge of Muslim deradicalization programmes all had the same surname "KHAN"

Many in London add a t to end of his surname.

Spanish Eyes

Why the hate? Must be the religion of Peace, sorry forgot that.

I doubt we are immune either, but hopefully we in Ireland will be ok. Could we be so sure though?

dreamers75

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Why the hate? Must be the religion of Peace, sorry forgot that.

I doubt we are immune either, but hopefully we in Ireland will be ok. Could we be so sure though?

Christianity conducted several drone stikes today (as they do everyday), I guess muslims dont have access to drones or else they would catch up with Christianity in the kill streak stakes.

Also these drone stikes create the likes of your man in london, its mad like if only someone could sonnect the dots....

Tom Mann Centuria

dreamers75 wrote: »

Christianity conducted several drone stikes today (as they do everyday), I guess muslims dont have access to drones or else they would catch up with Christianity in the kill streak stakes.

Also these drone stikes create the likes of your man in london, its mad like if only someone could sonnect the dots....

Should ask Sadiq Khan, because going by some here, he runs the UK, and is part of the government. Immigration, sentencing, probation, police numbers, prison space you name it. Khan is your man.

He also should have been, whilst in his government job, telling the Tories they had a majority, so they could have changed any law they felt needed changing in the nine years they've been in power.

Grrrrr, curse you Khan.


By the by, I'm not a fan of his. He's a careerist Blairite politician but what's being levelled against him, whilst letting the actual government off the hook, is laughable.

MeMen2_MoRi_

I'm only catching the narwhal tusk thing recently, terrorist boy picked a bad day to use a knife as a weapon haha

aziz

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Grrrrr, curse you Khan.


In my best William Shatner voice

KHAAANNNN

donkeykong5

aziz wrote: »

Tom Mann Centuria wrote: »

Grrrrr, curse you Khan.


In my best William Shatner voice

KHAAANNNN

You forgot the TTTTTT at the end,

wakka12

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

It’s really not. When you’re day to day life includes worrying whether there will be a terrorist attack, there comes a stage when you have enough. If someone’s gonna try and kill you might as well try and take them down.

Nobody with rational thoughts worries about terrorism affecting their daily life

jmayo

suicide_circus wrote: »

but what do you do with them? he was sentenced for his crime and served most of it. Internment?

If needs be then yes.

How many times have attacks been carried out by guys already known to security forces, guys who have actually already been in jail and guys even tagged ala it seems this guy and the little shyte in Normandy that hacked the head of the poor old priest.

Tagging is SFA good.
And the usual suspects around here keep telling us we can take back ISIS supporters and monitor them.
To monitor one person 24/7 takes a lot of people and we just can't afford it.
The British and the French with far superior security and technological tools can't do it, although to be fair the numbers they are dealing with are absolutely crazy.

Blind Eagle wrote: »

You could quite as easily be some far left progressive type with sort of post:

How about white-men stop slaughtering people in theatres and restaurants?

How about white men stop massacring people at Church?

Do you know what happened to that young man in the Christchurch attack? He was shot at point blank range.


It's a silly debating technique.

Whataboutery 101 I see.

Muslim <> "skin colour" no more than catholic = "skin colour".

Deleted User wrote: »

We need to have a zero-tolerance approach.

• Any foreign Muslim convicted of any crime is deported back to their home country. No second chance.
• Any radical Muslim - foreign or native - who are members of a proscribed Islamist organization, are convicted and incarcerated, in solitary confinement, for life.
• Any radical Muslim involved in a plot to kill civilians are tried for treason and killed.
• Limit immigration from countries from which radical Muslims may exist by only allowing in highly-skilled professionals, and not unskilled people vulnerable to exploitation.
• Close mosques that promote hate.
• Incarcerate Muslim leaders for a minimum of 25 years who openly call for jihad/war against the West, or covertly do it to promote a foreign jihad.

The thing is a lot of muslims would be happy to be rid of the fanatical trouble makers, but they are sh** scared.
And the thing is the media and the well meaning fooking types actually give the loons a platform.
How long was Ali Selim tolerated spewing his shyte before he finally crossed the line and got the boot.

When that Irish loony Kailid Kelly was given the soft soap treatment on RTE some muslims in Ireland were disgusted because they knew exactly what he was.
Likewise I can't see any right thinking muslim in Ireland wanting to see Smith given a platform on RTE.
But no the well meaning mutlicultural fanboys will say we need to listen to her.

Boggles wrote: »

Maybe stop exploiting and blowing the **** out of countries for their own benefit or for the craic?

Ehh who were those Nigerian girls abducted to be used as sex slaves bombing again ?
Who were the Yazidis bombing again ?
Who in the Middle East were the citizens of Stockholm bombing ?
Who were the Filipino catholics bombing ?

I am sick and tired of this shyte being pedalled that if only the West stayed out the sh**show that is the Middle East then everything would be hunky dory.

Islamist groups around the world are intent on wiping out anyone that doesn't follow their beliefs and that includes other muslims.
And most of the fookers couldn't even point out Palestine on a map.

Boggles

jmayo wrote: »

I am sick and tired of this shyte being pedalled that if only the West stayed out the sh**show that is the Middle East then everything would be hunky dory.

Calm down lad, we were talking about ISIS.

But sure Edgelord gotta Edgelord. :rolleyes:

Blind Eagle

jmayo wrote: »

Whataboutery 101 I see.

Muslim <> "skin colour" no more than catholic = "skin colour".

It's not whataboutery. It's pointing out a disingenuous posting style. The same loaded questions get peddled by far left progressive types when discussing Columbine style mass shootings in America, many of which are carried out by white people.

Asking why don't Muslims stop massacring people is stupid because the overwhelming majority don't, just as the overwhelming majority of white men don't engage in mass shootings in America, or rape women etc.

weisses

jmayo wrote: »

I am sick and tired of this shyte being pedalled that if only the West stayed out the sh**show that is the Middle East then everything would be hunky dory.

And I am sick and tired of the west (US) overthrowing ME regimes for <enter reason here> which leads to a power vacuum which in return creates the perfect situation for groups like ISIS to get a foothold. which is exactly what happened in Iraq after the illegal US invasion of 2003.

Does that solve all the issues with islamic fanatics ? No ... but it will go a long way in keeping these groups in check, or prevent them from emerging and gaining support in the first place.

nacho libre

Boggles wrote: »

Forget to feed the dog?[/QUOTe

Close. He brought in the legilsation that allowed people like Khan convicted of serious offences to be released early. He and Leveson( the guy who overturned the previous "indeterminate sentence" to one of 16 years) should be sued by the victims families.

Eric Cartman

The shoot to kill policy gas saved the day gere. Tragic two more people had to lose their lives to radical islam.


A shame ablut the guy named and his family exploiting his death to continue peddling their agenda

Marcos

jmayo wrote: »

I am sick and tired of this shyte being pedalled that if only the West stayed out the sh**show that is the Middle East then everything would be hunky dory.

Islamist groups around the world are intent on wiping out anyone that doesn't follow their beliefs and that includes other muslims.
And most of the fookers couldn't even point out Palestine on a map.

Look that's so true but for some people of a very liberal bent, including posters on here, it's never the perpetrators fault, it has to be ours i.e. the West's fault. They will continue to ignore the reality that ISIS and their fellow travellers hate the West for being, well, the West. Look at this article when they praised the scumbag that committed the pulse nightclub massacre, then state exactly why they hate us in the West.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/why-isis-hate-you-reasons-8533563

The ISIS article, which appeared in 15th edition of the terrorists' periodical Dabiq, spells out why the jihads are hell bent on destroying the West.
The poisonous 'listicle-style' feature opens by glorifying Omar Mateen's murderous rampage at Pulse gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida, last June.
It begins: "Shortly following the blessed attack on a sodomite, Crusader nightclub by the mujahid Omar Mateen, American politicians were quick to jump into the spotlight and denounce the shooting, declaring it a hate crime, an act of terrorism, and an act of senseless violence.

"A hate crime? Yes. Muslims undoubtedly hate liberalist sodomites, as does anyone else with any shred of their fitrah (inborn human nature) still intact.
"An act of terrorism? Most definitely. Muslims have been commanded to terrorize the disbelieving enemies of Allah."

But wait surely Jihadis can't be bigots, they're the real victims aren't they? :rolleyes:

The writer then goes on to list the top six reasons why the killers want to destroy the West - although there appears to be two points made several times.

1. Because you are disbelievers
"We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices."
2 . Because you are liberal
"We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you Christian disbelief and paganism separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power."
3. Because some of you are atheist
"In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator."
4. For your crimes against Islam
"We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion."
5. For your crimes against Muslims
"We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth."
6. For invading our lands
We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim."

Do you think that any of those especially 1,2 & 3 fit the worldview of most people on here?

The article concludes that while foreign policy is an issue, the main reason they are hell bent on destruction is because they don't like the West very much. It reads: "What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list.

See, they state explicitly it's the last reason why they attack people in nightlcubs, kids going to concerts etc. But why let something so inconsiderate as facts get in the way of their excusatory narrative? Of course I don't expect certain posters on here to argue their point just ignore it and hope it goes away, as they do whenever they are asked questions they don't have acceptable answers to.

Marcos

For another more detailed examination of why certain people, posters on here included, think the way they do look at this article from the independent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-does-isis-hate-us-so-much-9664506.html

When it comes to the totalitarian rebellions against liberal societies throughout history, sophisticated people have very often failed to grasp what goes on in the minds of the fanatic.

Back in the 1930s, attempts to explain fascism famously tripped up many leading intellectuals of the time. Hitler’s demands to expand the Third Reich were taken by many otherwise sophisticated people as code for something else. Was it not true, after all, that the Treaty of Versailles had imposed punitive and unreasonable conditions on Germany? As Paul Berman noted in his book, Terror and Liberalism, despite the SS repeatedly reaffirming at its death camps that "here there is no why", for much of the left there was always a "why". . . .

The real spark of fascistic violence must always and everywhere be poverty and hardship, or so it was assumed; hence the multiple attempts to conflate the repression of the Palestinians with 9/11 - despite the fact that al-Qaeda was and remains ideologically opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state.
In reality the sheer irrationality of violent Islamism should have been obvious when in the years following 9/11 young fanatics started (sometimes successfully) trying to blow up nightclubs. The British-born Islamists who plotted in 2004 to murder clubbers in the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London did not after all cite Palestine or imperialism as their Casus belli, but instead gleefully talked about murdering “those slags, dancing around”.

In other words, it was our liberalism that the would-be bombers despised, rather than our inability to be sufficiently liberal.

Yet all too often, rather than acknowledge the existence of pathological movements that reject the very premise of a free society, the default assumption among liberals has run something like this: fascist violence must be code for something else, probably despair. The fanatic is only fanatical because ‘we’ have driven him to it. If only Britain and America behaved properly, people would not hate us.

And of course, the West has certainly behaved in ways that have helped to swell the ranks of movements like Isis, just as they were atrocities committed by American armies during the previous century that provided ammunition for the communist cause. But let us be clear: the "root cause" of fascism (and what Isis is practicing us clerical fascism) is an absolute rejection of a plural and democratic society. It is our existence, rather than the subtleties of how we behave, that is intolerable to Isis, hence current attempts to exterminate "un-Islamic" religious minorities in Iraq . . .

In Iraq and Syria today, alongside the twenty-first century exists the seventh. To look for the "root cause" of Isis is to miss the point. The group represents all the subterranean barbarism that every so often is apt to crawl, blinking into the light, out from the depths of the human subconscious.

Intelligent people enjoy saying that "nothing exists in a vacuum". In reality things very often do. Some outcomes are no more than the result of people having certain thoughts and as a consequence performing certain actions. Isis would see us all drop dead in an instant. And like their European predecessors, there really is no "why".

You wonder when the attachment to the narrative that everything in the West is bad, and the pathological need to be seen to be so virtuous crosses the line into enabling? So are they genuine or do they have an ulterior motive at stake? Like calling for the overthrow of the Capitalist West so then there will be a peoples revolution and we will all join hands together and march off into the Socialist Utopia.

Or if they are genuine, and that's a big if for me, then they are just the latest incarnation of Stalins useful idiots. Either way they are unlikely to subscribe to the quote attributed to Keynes: When I find new information I change my mind; What do you do?

Come to think of it doesn't their hate for us and the West almost mirror the Jihadis? :rolleyes:

Marcos

Marcos wrote: »

You wonder when the attachment to the narrative that everything in the West is bad, and the pathological need to be seen to be so virtuous crosses the line into enabling? So are they genuine or do they have an ulterior motive at stake? Like calling for the overthrow of the Capitalist West so then there will be a peoples revolution and we will all join hands together and march off into the Socialist Utopia.

Or if they are genuine, and that's a big if for me, then they are just the latest incarnation of Stalins useful idiots. Either way they are unlikely to subscribe to the quote attributed to Keynes: When I find new information I change my mind; What do you do?

Come to think of it doesn't their hate for us and the West almost mirror the Jihadis? :rolleyes:

I also think that something else is at play.

Once true socialism failed, let's say, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and an end to the USSR, the Left had no real "opposition to the capitalist West" anymore. There was, in effect, a vacuum of power.

Except Islamic jihad could now fill that role.

It opposes the capitalist West, too, and along that front, both the Left and Islamic Jihad effectively have a common denominator. So whilst the Left would disagree with the means through which Islamic Jihad operated, at least it was fighting the same enemy.

Given that "the Capitalist West" was involved in invading Muslim countries, the merge between the sympathetic, deluded Left and Islamic jihad grew stronger even more.

I think this plays a role into why the Left has become a recent apologist, effectively, for Islamic Jihad.

ceadaoin.

Marcos wrote: »

Look that's so true but for some people of a very liberal bent, including posters on here, it's never the perpetrators fault, it has to be ours i.e. the West's fault. They will continue to ignore the reality that ISIS and their fellow travellers hate the West for being, well, the West. Look at this article when they praised the scumbag that committed the pulse nightclub massacre, then state exactly why they hate us in the West.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/why-isis-hate-you-reasons-8533563 But wait surely Jihadis can't be bigots, they're the real victims aren't they? :rolleyes:

The writer then goes on to list the top six reasons why the killers want to destroy the West - although there appears to be two points made several times.


Do you think that any of those especially 1,2 & 3 fit the worldview of most people on here?



See, they state explicitly it's the last reason why they attack people in nightlcubs, kids going to concerts etc. But why let something so inconsiderate as facts get in the way of their excusatory narrative? Of course I don't expect certain posters on here to argue their point just ignore it and hope it goes away, as they do whenever they are asked questions they don't have acceptable answers to.

I posted that why they hate us quote earlier in the thread in response to a poster stating it is all because of us "white people" (their own words ) bombing them and it got deleted, no idea why.

old_aussie

wakka12 wrote: »

Nobody with rational thoughts worries about terrorism affecting their daily life

And who are those three people who are capable of rational thoughts?

wildeside

Marcos wrote: »

For another more detailed examination of why certain people, posters on here included, think the way they do look at this article from the independent.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-does-isis-hate-us-so-much-9664506.html


You wonder when the attachment to the narrative that everything in the West is bad, and the pathological need to be seen to be so virtuous crosses the line into enabling? So are they genuine or do they have an ulterior motive at stake? Like calling for the overthrow of the Capitalist West so then there will be a peoples revolution and we will all join hands together and march off into the Socialist Utopia.

Or if they are genuine, and that's a big if for me, then they are just the latest incarnation of Stalins useful idiots. Either way they are unlikely to subscribe to the quote attributed to Keynes: When I find new information I change my mind; What do you do?

Come to think of it doesn't their hate for us and the West almost mirror the Jihadis? :rolleyes:

Except the Jihadi's aren't full of self-hatred at least, I'll give them that

People on the left (which I often, not always, identify with) I think are wracked with a sort of "collectivist guilt". You can see it in these discussions about what "we" (i.e. you, me and everyone else in the west) have done in the Middle East for example. Which is ridiculous of course. I didn't fire a single bullet. I am personally responsible for nothing that happened over there. I have even protested against foreign interventionist wars. But even so, the secular and un-ironic self-flagellation must continue. I must suffer for the sins of my father so-to-speak. There is nothing I can do to escape the charge of fascist imperialist except perhaps self-annihilation.

Or maybe excusing the terrible behaviour of others will help absolve some of the guilt? After all, "I" have done terrible things so who am I to judge?

And lets not forget, the Middle East wasn't exactly a hot-bed of liberalism and freedom of expression right up until The West ... I mean you and me ... started meddling in their affairs and stealing their oil.

I'm not defending the actions of the US war machine and its allies or imperialism but we can't keep denying certain facts e.g. some people are just full of hatred AND bad ideas exist. Sometimes these two things co-exist.

Hector Savage

Why when something like this happens is it described as a "tragedy" ? like something that just happens, and it's all peace and "don't look back in anger...."
It's not a tragedy - tragedy indicates an accident - what happened was MURDER - inspired by a twisted ideology that needs honest discussion and action - why can't they shut down the Mosques that host the hate preachers for a start ?

Look at the NZ Mosque shootings, that premoted ANGER ! - people saying THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE - and this sets a precedent , it should make people angry, it should be unacceptable, people don't have love and hippy bull**** songs when that happened, people were angry and rightly so.
The culprit was demonised and so was his ideology.

With this it's never honestly discussed, they always will go with the "tragedy" angle and not mention the motives, the culprit will be demonised (barely) but never his ideology.

These attitudes need to change, it's almost like they just want people to accept this as part of life in a city now, imagine if they said - "Get used to far right attacks on Mosques, it's part of life now" ... un ****ing acceptable...

WrenBoy

Hector Savage wrote: »

Why when something like this happens is it described as a "tragedy" ? like something that just happens, and it's all peace and "don't look back in anger...."
It's not a tragedy - tragedy indicates an accident - what happened was MURDER - inspired by a twisted ideology that needs honest discussion and action - why can't they shut down the Mosques that host the hate preachers for a start ?

Look at the NZ Mosque shootings, that premoted ANGER ! - people saying THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE - and this sets a precedent , it should make people angry, it should be unacceptable, people don't have love and hippy bull**** songs when that happened, people were angry and rightly so.
The culprit was demonised and so was his ideology.

With this it's never honestly discussed, they always will go with the "tragedy" angle and not mention the motives, the culprit will be demonised (barely) but never his ideology.

These attitudes need to change, it's almost like they just want people to accept this as part of life in a city now, imagine if they said - "Get used to far right attacks on Mosques, it's part of life now" ... un ****ing acceptable...

We all see the underlying narrative here, the oppressed minority are striking a blow at the Overly Privileged West, Western Europe deserves it according to some people to atone for past sins in history but there is no end to this atonement so it will have to endure it forever and just smile and accept it because we deserve it, any attempt at protection (harder policing, immigration measures) is seen as racism and furthering supremacist ideology.

Sand

NewbridgeIR wrote: »

It is a most timid, almost pathetic tribute; have to allow for the fact that he is in shock. But it reads like a resigned acceptance.

I'm not sure it is. I see Boris Johnson has been criticised by Guardianista's for vowing to toughen terror sentences, prevent criminals entering the UK from the EU and cracking down on early release of those convicted of terrorist offences. You might argue the merits of the policies, but when citizens are being murdered its perfectly reasonable for politicians to debate the response.

Not so for Ash Sarkar: "It's beyond disgusting that Boris Johnson, Priti Patel and newspapers like the [Daily] Mail are using Jack Merritt's death and image to promote an agenda he fought against all his life. He was a passionate believer in rehabilitation and transformative justice, not draconian sentencing." This is an incredibly strong condemnation of some fairly minor proposals.

Merritt Snr followed up on his earlier communication to retweet the above, endorsing it. Merritt Snr and Ash Sarkar probably are not wrong though: Merritt Jnr, like his father, seemingly had very 'woke' views. Activists in Germany and Norway who have been raped by migrants have prioritised the well-being of their rapists over concern for themselves. Mollie Tibbett's father similarly condemned anyone citing the murder of his daughter by an illegal migrant in connection to US policy, infamously describing the migrants as "Iowans with better food". Like all the above, Merritt Jnr likely would not want his death to fuel a narrative he disagreed with.

However, its not about Jack Merritt anymore. He is dead, and no policy proposals can save his life. But better policies can save the lives of others. While we can sympathise with his family, they don't get to dictate the political response. If only they and their families suffered the consequences of the policies they advocate for, then it would be their risk to take. But they don't and it isn't. Countless Europeans have suffered needlessly due to bad policies.

Jack Merritts death was not an accident. It was a result of decades of policy. Policy can be changed and its right for politicians to debate it.

James Brown

WrenBoy wrote: »

We all see the underlying narrative here, the oppressed minority are striking a blow at the Overly Privileged West, Western Europe deserves it according to some people to atone for past sins in history but there is no end to this atonement so it will have to endure it forever and just smile and accept it because we deserve it, any attempt at protection (harder policing, immigration measures) is seen as racism and furthering supremacist ideology.

No, racism would be racism. That's treating people differently based on race, colour, religion IMO.

I don't think the west deserves it but like 9/11, my thoughts were, what a tragedy and chickens coming home to roost.
These days we've every nut with a gripe trying to be part of a cause. For Muslims it's ISIS etc. For Whites it's INCEL, white supremacy etc.
This particular arsehole was claimed by ISIS but British Intelligence, for what they are worth don't seem to think so.

Going to war with all Muslims is playing into the hands of ISIS.

There is something really disturbing in the discussion of the London Bridge attack. When there’s an act of far-right terrorism, the liberal elite calls it by its name and demands tough measures to deal with it. This is fascism, they say, again and again, and we need censorship and social control to defeat it — censorship of alt-right hotheads and tabloid newspapers, and social control of any organisation that exhibits anti-immigration sentiments.

But after London Bridge, as in the wake of all Islamist terror attacks, they do the precise opposite. They never name the ideology behind the attack — it’s always just an “incident” or an “attack” or “terrorism”, never Islamist terrorism. And they are openly arguing against any kind of draconian response to London Bridge. In fact they insist that these terrorists need our help. They need ”deradicalisation support” and even “mental-health support”. In short, they need therapy.

Where the far-right terrorist is seen as a conscious and willing propagator of evil, the Islamist terrorist is treated as hapless being, almost as a victim, a passive creature who has been “radicalised” — ie, infected — by others. Where there is hatred and opposition to far-right terrorists, there is *sympathy* for Islamists, even though they have caused far greater destruction in Europe over the past decade than the far right has. Nothing better captures the moral exhaustion of the liberal elite than the fact they feel sorry for people who despise them and who want to destroy their society and its values.