Sky News reports that Khuram Butt, one of the London attackers, was known to police and MI5. Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said an investigation into him started in 2015, but with "no intelligence to suggest that this attack was being planned... the investigation had been prioritised accordingly".
Sky are reporting that a neighbour who did not want to be named said Butt stared angrily whenever he saw women cycling on the estate. She described it as "sinister" and "sexist".
So again I would venture this is rooted in a pathological hatred of women. Angry losers filled with envy - and because they can't have what they want, being dead eyed underachievers with pubic beards, they lash out. They excuse their own lack of success with women by way of being morally superior and pious but prior to that... a track record of drug use.
These scumbags are walking cliches. They pluck bits of Islamic scripture to fit their intent, usually overheard with no real record of Islamic scholarship, adopting it largely because it's available - probably through congregating with other losers in real life and online.
This particular attack is a low grade, low resource kind of attack where it is next to impossible to predict or detect. One neighbour, Ken Chigbo, said Butt has asked him about hiring a van hours before the attack took place. "He said to me, 'Oh, where did you get your van, Ken? How much is it, is it possible to get in automatic?' - all these specific questions about the van, which obviously now makes sense in my head," Mr Chigbo said. "At the time I didn't think anything of it."
So there you go. Not the sort of thing all your high tech surveillance can pick up. Intelligence services would have to be watching him 24/7 and still there is every chance they would miss the signs.
So what to do? With such an obvious psychometric profile, there is a case for going down the list and snatching them off the streets to be detained and questioned - but at that point you've pretty much abandoned the rule of law in that you might very well just be detaining a run of the mill loser who wouldn't hurt a fly. I think we lose this the moment we make abridgements to basic rights.
On the technology front I can envisage certain measures we could take to better regulate the internet but the problem with it is that it puts all of the power over a persons online identity in the hands of the state - and as soon as that happens, online freedom of any kind is dead. There are some peripheral measures you can take which work in theory but in practice just ends up with people being censored at the hands of a big data algorithm.
Whichever angle I examine this from I am faced with the depressing conclusion that there isn't much we can do. At best you can reform asylum laws to prevent it in the future but I think really that's only going to be effective if you apply some pretty sweeping criteria to it - and you know what the left and the human rights lawyers are going to say about that.
But then at some point something has to give doesn't it? Asylum seekers have human rights but then British citizens have a more basic right not to get murdered. But even then, we can bring in asylum seekers who are fully loyal to the west then find their offspring adopting a bastardised version of Islam they themselves have never been exposed to.
We can then talk about where these ideas originate and who finances their promulgation. At the moment we're pointing the finger at Saudi Arabia, but I don't buy it. This is too low grade. This is more akin with paedophiles sharing indecent pictures. All done in private networks on anything from gaming channels to Youtube comments. These dickheads will get it from somewhere.
So really what we have here is a cultural problem where the normal narratives of "multicultrualism" don't really pan out because we're finding that mosques are also rejecting these losers, and the extremist mosques we know about, the grubby shop front places have long since been banned. (unless you know different?)
As to community countermeasures you're looking at the ages between 20 and 28, largely out of reach of the education system, past the reach of youth organisations and are pretty much low attaining private citizens. At this point we need to start asking questions about how they became the men they are - and in that you're going to have to take a very close look at the schools and their overall composition and look for trends there. I'm going to bet that there will be interesting correlations between certain factors but I don't think they will be causal. I think we are dealing an epidemic of sociopathy.
I think with a rising population you are going to see a higher ratio of them and I think the answer lies in early detection, spotting the tell-tale signs - probably not unrelated to Aspergers. That's going to require razor sharp school counsellors. They need to be taught how to manage their rage. I think there's a Dexter element to it.
But then at the same time we need to ask why it is that Sikhs tend to be well adjusted and become productive integrated members of society and these loser don't. It's very easy to say it's to do with Islam but I really struggle to find the single isolating factor. Perhaps there is an inherent stigma to being a muslim that prevents them from ever being accepted. More likely, I think it's just shitty parenting.
So that then prompts the question of how we better support first generation immigrants in establishing themselves and adapting. But again, why do we not have this problem with Sikhs? To get anywhere close to answers there we need to know more about the perpetrators parents. It's probably to do with them coming from places where there is no well established civil society, running on tribal values.
In that you need to look at proper citizenship training. As far as I'm aware the UK citizenship test is little more than a trivia quiz whereas Norway, as I understand it, has much more involved training and evaluation. It's certainly not going to hurt - but it needs to be demanding and failure must carry consequences.
The problem with all this is that it's time consuming, it costs money and only attracts the right resources in the aftermath of a terror attack. Pretty soon after it starts to disintegrate simply because we get complacent and it doesn't generate any meaningful statistics where they can say for certain that it contributes to our safety. The question comes down to how much do you want to spend and what are you prepared to cut? If the answer is, as is so typical, not a lot, then we are going to have to ask serious questions about the asylum system and whether we even want them. I would venture that we don't. My tolerance for risk ends at young people being blown to pieces.
I think we are probably going to have to have a moratorium and instead have asylum windows so that the rate of influx is slowed. We can perhaps look at reforming the Geneva Convention on Refugees and establish a global treaty on asylum quotas. I imagine not many would be in a rush to ratify it though with more countries demanding more border controls. We may just have to start saying no. If importing garbage from the back hills of the third world means carnage on our streets then a judgement call has to be made. How many more have to die before we act?
Caroline Lucas can go on the telly and virtue signal all she likes about enrichment - but if we are to be slaves to that politically correct narrative then it is for her and her ilk to explain why we should accept this as the new normal. I haven't got an answer to that question.
No comments:
Post a Comment