Stories coming out of the Pentagon state that they believe they have successfully targeted and killed, with a drone-delivered explosive, Mohammed Emwazi. This is the Daesh killer known as Jihadi John.
Some, not including myself, will no doubt question the legality of such an extra-judicial killing but I would expect that the overwhelming majority of decent people, would see this as a very welcome piece of news. This person took vile and murderous behaviour to new depths. His execution was the only acceptable outcome.
Any 'liberals' who have a problem with his death, go online a take a look at what he did to other innocents - Steven Sotloff, James Foley , David Haines, Alan Henning, Abdul-Rahman Kassig and Kenji Goto.
This Mohammed Emwazi was a refugee who, with his family, left Kuwait and was accepted into Britain. He then became another example of the 'enemy within' and it is worth remembering other 'refugees and migrants' who have abused the countries that took them in.
So all of these 'enemies within' had a refugee/immigrant background. The other thing that they had in common, was that all were Muslim. Some say that these were 'radical Muslims' and shouldn't be confused with normal 'moderate' Muslims. Some others say that the difference between a 'radical' Muslim, like Jihadi John and a 'moderate' Muslim is that Jihadi John would cut off a persons head but the 'moderate' Muslim would be holding the person down. Make up your own mind but when you do so, ask yourself how many times in recent years have you heard the politicians talk of 'moderate' Muslims - a clue - it is usually straight after another atrocity committed by Muslims. Consider also, when was the last time you heard of a bunch of Catholics or Seventh Day Adventists or Jews or Hindus cutting off the heads of people from a different faith?
Maybe all of those clamouring for our doors to be flung open, should stop and consider this. I have already posted here on September 11, 2015, my proposal that the only refugees that should be taken are those that have a lifetime sponsor, in the host country. If you are a famous actor, say Benedict Cumberbatch, for example, then you can take in a refugee or a family of them, if, and only if, you guarantee to be financially responsible for them for the remainder of their lives. Maybe that needs to be extended to include responsibility for the behaviour of them and their children? Might be a bit radical but maybe throwing a Leftie 'luvvie' or two in jail, might be a good way to sort out the poseurs from the committed?
Some, not including myself, will no doubt question the legality of such an extra-judicial killing but I would expect that the overwhelming majority of decent people, would see this as a very welcome piece of news. This person took vile and murderous behaviour to new depths. His execution was the only acceptable outcome.
Any 'liberals' who have a problem with his death, go online a take a look at what he did to other innocents - Steven Sotloff, James Foley , David Haines, Alan Henning, Abdul-Rahman Kassig and Kenji Goto.
This Mohammed Emwazi was a refugee who, with his family, left Kuwait and was accepted into Britain. He then became another example of the 'enemy within' and it is worth remembering other 'refugees and migrants' who have abused the countries that took them in.
- The Boston bombers, who killed three innocents, were refugees/immigrants to the USA.
- The killers of Fusilier Lee Rigby, on the streets of London, were migrants from Nigeria.
- 3 of the 4 bombers who killed 52 people in London, in July 2005, were the children of immigrants from Pakistan. The other killer was from Jamaica.
- The bombers of the Madrid trains, who killed 191 people, were from Morocco, Syria and Algeria.
- The killers at Charlie Hebdo magazine and the Jewish supermarket, in Paris, had origins in Algeria and Mali.
So all of these 'enemies within' had a refugee/immigrant background. The other thing that they had in common, was that all were Muslim. Some say that these were 'radical Muslims' and shouldn't be confused with normal 'moderate' Muslims. Some others say that the difference between a 'radical' Muslim, like Jihadi John and a 'moderate' Muslim is that Jihadi John would cut off a persons head but the 'moderate' Muslim would be holding the person down. Make up your own mind but when you do so, ask yourself how many times in recent years have you heard the politicians talk of 'moderate' Muslims - a clue - it is usually straight after another atrocity committed by Muslims. Consider also, when was the last time you heard of a bunch of Catholics or Seventh Day Adventists or Jews or Hindus cutting off the heads of people from a different faith?
Maybe all of those clamouring for our doors to be flung open, should stop and consider this. I have already posted here on September 11, 2015, my proposal that the only refugees that should be taken are those that have a lifetime sponsor, in the host country. If you are a famous actor, say Benedict Cumberbatch, for example, then you can take in a refugee or a family of them, if, and only if, you guarantee to be financially responsible for them for the remainder of their lives. Maybe that needs to be extended to include responsibility for the behaviour of them and their children? Might be a bit radical but maybe throwing a Leftie 'luvvie' or two in jail, might be a good way to sort out the poseurs from the committed?
No comments:
Post a Comment