Gay Patriot Header Image

The mess in the UK

Posted by Jeff (ILoveCapitalism) at 11:24 am - June 19, 2017.
Filed under: Politics abroad,Religion Of Peace,War On Terror

As you’ve probably heard, a UK man assaulted pedestrians with a vehicle last night.

What’s new and different is that, instead of the usual Muslim trying to kill infidels, he was an infidel trying to kill Muslims. Needless to say, his murderous actions were wrong and I condemn them.

What amazes me is that this sort of thing hasn’t happened sooner. European and UK authorities have chronically failed to protect their citizens from Islamic terrorists, prompting citizens to take matters into their own hands. It’s amazing that it took this long for one of their citizens to do so.

As an aside, I’m slightly puzzled by whether this attack should be called “terrorist”. In deciding what to call combatants, I have always used the following matrix:

  • Uniformed soldiers attacking uniformed soldiers: Honorable combatants.
  • Uniformed soldiers attacking civilians: War criminals.
  • Civilians attacking uniformed soldiers: Irregular / guerilla forces.
  • Civilians attacking civilians: Terrorists.

The underlying premise is that a war is going on. Islamic terrorists are called terrorists, in part because they are engaged in a war (against the infidels and/or to establish the supremacy of Islam). Or, as they call it, “jihad”.

If we call this UK guy a terrorist, we implicitly acknowledge that the UK (among others) is in a war with Islam and this particular combatant is on “our” side, however wrongly he goes about it. Do we not? Rather than do that, I’m inclined to just call this UK guy a lunatic mass murderer.

Feel free to let me know your thoughts. Again, due to the failure of UK and European authorities to protect their citizens from Islamic terrorists, a case could be made that the guy is a combatant in an ongoing war with Islam – albeit a degenerate combatant; a civilian attacking civilians – thus a terrorist.

So that’s what I’m stuck on…whether to call him a terrorist or a mass murderer?



  1. Why are the two mutually exclusive? Whether the goal was to bring terror to British Muslims, he has undoubtedly succeeded to a certain extent. What I find interesting is how quickly he has been named a terrorist — no reluctance whatsoever upon the part of the media, UK government, public. There is no signalling so virtuous as in tragedy, apparently. Compare/contrast with how jihadists are treated in the West (“motive unknown” despite Allahu Akhbar!, “workplace violence”, etc.).

    Comment by Ignatius — June 19, 2017 @ 12:23 pm - June 19, 2017

  2. Good point – how eagerly they will label someone a terrorist – provided that he isn’t Muslim. If he is, it’s time for the euphemisms.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 19, 2017 @ 12:58 pm - June 19, 2017

  3. I would say a terrorist attacks civillians to instill terror and enforce a political agenda by way of the terror. A terrorist attack would be one is not against the intended target.

    Comment by karen — June 19, 2017 @ 1:05 pm - June 19, 2017

  4. Stick with your definition above.

    Or change it universally, and not based on religion of the idiot.

    Otherwise you find yourself in the position of the BBC after the London Bridge attack – where you will never know the motive.

    As for the retaliatory nature of this attack, I agree with your “I’m surprised it hasn’t happened sooner” stance. Given that the Brits have decided to live in a defenseless victim zone, they can’t do much to stop an attack in progress. I would think at least one of the survivors of a dead victim would decide that Justice has failed, and vengeance is all that’s left.

    Comment by Zendo Deb — June 19, 2017 @ 1:16 pm - June 19, 2017

  5. Muslim extremists murder innocent non-Muslims. The governments responds by promising to protect Muslims from retaliation, and threatens to prosecute anyone who says anything negative about Islam. The media insist that the motive is not clear, and refuse to call it terrorism.

    Non-Muslim murders Muslims. The government responds by promising to protect Muslims, and threatens to prosecute anyone who says anything negative about Islam. The media do not hesitate to call it a terror attack. And they quickly publicize the motive.

    Whether it was justified or not, the attack was obviously in retaliation for the Manchester and London Bridge attacks. Which the authorities failed to prevent. And to which they failed to respond forcefully. It is their failure that has forced civilians to resort to vigilantism.

    I refuse to shed any crocodile tears. What goes around, comes around. And, remember, the mayor of Londonistan previously said moderate Muslims were “Uncle Toms” and that terror attacks were just “part and parcel of living in a major city.”

    Comment by Tom — June 19, 2017 @ 1:17 pm - June 19, 2017

  6. What nomenclature would be applied to the guy who sought out and shot the Republican Whip?

    The mess in Syria has a lot of non-military (no uniforms) folks shooting not only at the Syrian army, but other factions not wearing uniforms.

    The Geneva Convention Protocols have never been particularly useful when dealing with, for instance, Muslims slipping into Thailand and killing Buddhists.

    Radical Islamists are “off limits” in the Western world while groups of horny Muslim men do “diversity” and “multiculturalism” on girls of their choice in the public square. Since the forces of protection may not cross the line of tolerance in the name of religious differences, it only stands to reason that a deplorable or two will step up to the plate and spit in the eye of the status quo out of frustration.

    Some European countries have restricted their swimming pools to Muslim women at certain times of the day. I favor a transgendered guy-woman demanding to skinny dip during the Muslim women only schedule.

    Political Correctness and Progressive organic social justice have gotten us to this state in which common sense self-preservation is all but taboo.

    Comment by Heliotrope — June 19, 2017 @ 3:15 pm - June 19, 2017

  7. I’d call him IRA (IslamReductionArmy)

    Comment by Bob Mitchell — June 19, 2017 @ 6:11 pm - June 19, 2017

  8. The London idiot did a wicked thing. Period.

    Like Jeff, though, it amazes me that these types of acts are so rare (non-Muslim attacking Muslims).

    I am currently listening to “The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam” by Douglas Murray (of UK Spectator, I think). One thing I’ve learned so far is that the rulers of Europe have been ignoring giving the finger to their *subjects* for decades. Recommended.

    I do wonder what happens when people start figuring out that there are no lawful means of restraining their rulers. It’s a dead cert that some will act out violently.

    Comment by KCRob — June 19, 2017 @ 7:08 pm - June 19, 2017

  9. What’s new and different is that, instead of the usual Muslim trying to kill infidels, he was an infidel trying to kill Muslims.

    Was it that new and different from Pavlo Lapshyn?

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — June 19, 2017 @ 10:44 pm - June 19, 2017

  10. I agree – his murderous actions were wrong and I condemn them as well.

    However, I will posit what I said in a later post:

    It’s time to ask whether the attack on the Muslim community in London was foreseeable, predictable and, to some degree, self-inflicted.

    Too many leaders, and political commentators, who set an example for us to follow, have led us into an abyss of violent rhetoric which, it should be no surprise, has led to violence.

    This was not the first time.

    Peter H.

    Comment by Peter Hughes — June 20, 2017 @ 2:54 am - June 20, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.