Another day, another jihad attack. Will this one shake the certitudes of our ruling class? Not likely, judging by this ridiculous "initial reactions" article from Simon Jenkins in the Guardian. Being killed by Muslims is inevitable. It's just like a rainy day, a traffic accident or an earthquake, an unfortunate random occurrence the risk of which we must simply accept. Nothing to do with our immigration policy.
There is no way any community can make itself immune to terror attacks. Since they are random, no protection can defend that community from them. No amount of police work or surveillance, no deployment of armies or navies, let alone of missiles or nuclear weapons, can guard against them. Intelligence and surveillance can go so far, but the bombers and killers will get through any net.Source
But, strangely, although it has nothing to do with our immigration policy, it might have something to do with our foreign policy.
What is not stupid is seeking to alleviate, or not aggravate, the rage that gives rise to acts of terror, and then to diminish the potency of the incident itself. The first requires a wiser foreign policy than most western nations have shown towards the Muslim world over the past decade. The second is even harder to achieve. It demands patience and restraint in publicising terrorist incidents and in responding to them.So, according to Jenkins, we should alter our foreign policy to be more pleasing to Muslims, but at the same time we should refrain from retaliating against, or even being in any way critical of, these same Muslims, because the attacks have nothing to do with them. It's rare to such a pristine example of the appeasement mentality.
UPDATE: Another crazed example of from Deborah Orr, also in the Guardian (link).
How can we pick our way through the intellectual debris that terrorist attacks leave in their wake, just as surely as they leave broken human bodies in their wake, without sounding like a cringing apologist or a bellicose imperialist? Both approaches further inflame an already appalling crisis of humanity, one that is ripping apart our politics, promoting racism, hatred and isolationism, feeding demagogues and warlords, and destroying any humane, liberal, open values that could help us to resist that which we most fear.
It cannot, surely, be beyond the wit of the world to find the common ground we need in order to stand united against the manufacturers and retailers of hate and death and tragedy.
A process of truth and reconciliation would be long, arduous, complex and expensive. But so is never-ending war and resentment and hate. And if we continue down that latter path, then the terrorists win, every time.
Here was the comment I posted to this article on the Guardian website which, predictably, was deleted.
I think you've erred on the cringing apologist side, dear.
Whatever ideological spin you put on it, the facts are clear. You, the ruling classes of Europe, decided to allow Africans and Asians from primitive societies in the third world to colonise our continent. You said that after the first generation the Africans and Asians would be just like us except for their physical appearance and that anyone who objected to them coming could therefore only be motivated by an irrational hatred of their physical appearance. You set up a tyrannical system of repression and propaganda to "exorcise" this curiously intense aesthetic preference in the indigenous people.
Now, here we are, multiple generations on, the Africans and Asians clearly aren't just like us. They are murdering us. And they keep coming in ever larger numbers to the point where they will be majoritarian in most west European countries by the end of this century. Yet even in the face of the overwhelming evidence that they present a threat to us, you won't even discuss changing the policy that is allowing them to come, so intoxicated are you by the sense of moral superiority that your deranged do-gooderism gives you.