I disagree with much of what Amy says about these topics, but...

Of course, we can't have hope of stopping this from happening until we admit what the problem is -- and stop deeming every person who expresses criticism of Islam a "bigot" or "hater."

Meanwhile, perspective. I'd blame incompetent immigration more than I'd blame Islam per se. Last night in London wasn't as deadly as LaGuardia.

"The world will not be destroyed by those who do evil, but by those who watch and do nothing."

Islamic men are too ready to kill. European men won't even defend themselves. History tells us which of these extremes will prevail.

> History tells us which of
> these extremes will prevail.

It does? Whew.

It must be fun to live on a planet with no mysterious human variables or unforeseen outcomes, where the only things required are simplistic, platitudinous, incurious expressions of judgment. Right? When you've got it figured out, why even run the experiment?

See Sapolsky on C-span: Nobody knows anything.

> the only things required are simplistic,
> platitudinous, incurious expressions of judgment.
> Right?

Nah, I'm recommending action.

These politicians are not ignorant of the dangers of Islam. They just don't want to upset a voting bloc of muslims. They feel that they are safe with their position and government provided security.

If any of these terrorist attacks kill or maim some of them or their family their thinking will suddenly "evolve" into a deep understanding of the threat of the "religion of peace."

@Crid, a good chunk of the blame also lies on the Gawkeresque attitude from the Journalists.

The guy who accidentally stopped the WannaCry malware had trouble with the British Papers:

https://twitter.com/MalwareTechBlog/status/865937835643285506

The same can be said about news outlets. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the terrorists are actively avoiding damaging zones surrounding media buildings.

> Nah, I'm recommending action.

No you aren't.

You're not even demonstrating any.

I should dig out that issue of Internet Tough Guy magazine.

we need to start:

#HadEnoughYet?

Nah, nothing would come of that either.

When seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

The stabbings went on for eight minutes until the police arrived and used - wait for it - guns to stop the attack.

Because guns are evil and Islam is the religion of peace, of course.

[O/T— Szabo, Bay=beeeeee!]

Words from a less politically-correct time:

In the seventh century of the Christian era, a wandering Arab of the lineage of Hagar, the Egyptian, combining the powers of transcendent genius, with the preternatural energy of a fanatic, and the fraudulent spirit of an impostor, proclaimed himself as a messenger from Heaven, and spread desolation and delusion over an extensive portion of the earth. Adopting from the sublime conception of the Mosaic law, the doctrine of one omnipotent God; he connected indissolubly with it, the audacious falsehood, that he was himself his prophet and apostle. Adopting from the new Revelation of Jesus, the faith and hope of immortal life, and of future retribution, he humbled it to the dust, by adapting all the rewards and sanctions of his religion to the gratification of the sexual passion. He poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war, as a part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST: TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.

Between these two religions, thus contrasted in their characters, a war of twelve hundred years has already raged. That war is yet flagrant; nor can it cease but by the extinction of that imposture, which has been permitted by Providence to prolong the degeneracy of man. While the merciless and dissolute dogmas of the false prophet shall furnish motives to human action, there can never be peace upon earth, and good will towards men. The hand of Ishmael will be against every man, and every man’s hand against him. It is, indeed, amongst the mysterious dealings of God, that this delusion should have been suffered for so many ages, and during so many generations of human kind, to prevail over the doctrines of the meek and peaceful and benevolent Jesus (Blunt, 1830, 29:269, capitals in orig.).

--John Quincy Adams, regarding Islam

We all loathe the form, right? Certain internet tools are good for certain kinds of expression, while others aren't. Blogs are good for medium-length exposition, books are best for long form, and 140 characters is only enough for a link or a quip.

But I would describe this as a poignant and convincing tweetstorm.

(This may be the bar video he mentions, but I haven't the heart to listen closely.)

Thanks for the tweet-storm link, Crid.

On a tangential topic that you just raised, i.e., "We all loathe the form, right?"

I suspect that the reason so many of us dislike the 140-character format is because the results are usually so crude, vague, or otherwise unsatisfying. This is due no small part, one suspects, to the tweet format being so difficult to use properly.

Most people, who don't think much about English composition, and those who have been miseducated or undereducated about literary forms, assume that since the tweet format is so short, that anybody may use it effectively. But evidently, writing epigrams or other short remarks is quite difficult to do well. Those writers who were able compose engaging quips, such as Oscar Wilde or Mark Twain, are remembered more widely for this one literary talent than for the rest of their considerable output in prose.

This (apparently) happened within minutes of London Bridge. Terror works.

> the results are usually so
> crude, vague, or otherwise
> unsatisfying

Only if you follow crude, vague, or otherwise unsatisfying people. If you follow articulate, articulate, courteous ones, it works great... For one hundred forty characters or less.

I mean it's about using the right tool for the job. A lot of wonderful thoughts can be concisely expressed. Two tweets from recent years, regarding the most serious topic of all:

Now he knows.

One ping only, please.

Don't take strippers home to Mom; don't put your treatise on Twitter.

I said articulate twice, but y'know.

A Graceful One™ comes through like a brother.

I can't help but contrast the American active shooter mantra with the British one. Ours (I took an active shooter class last month) is Run, Hide, Fight. Run if you can. Hide if you can't run. Fight if you must. The British mantra is Run, Hide, Tell. Run if you can. Hide if you must. Call the cops as soon as possible. Nothing about fighting.

There is something defiant in the American character that won't die, despite 50 year of socialistic attempts to dampen it.

> The British mantra is Run,
> Hide, Tell.

We're not immune over here. I've made a couple of blog comments about the Army General demanding protection from sexual harassment, rather then finding some independent way to countermand it. How could anyone thereafter, in any context, trust her to lead and support soldiers at war?

There's something feminine, and not admirably so, about leftist thinking.

I find it heartwarming that in Indonesia -- the most populous Muslim country in the world -- only 16 percent of Muslims favor the death penalty for apostasy.

What does being *woke* to Islam look like?

There's something feminine, and not admirably so, about leftist thinking. ~ Crid at June 4, 2017 11:17 PM

Crid, I wonder if the percentage actually is much higher than what is shown in the chart.

The study gathered self-reported political views. I've met or read many leftists who habitually describe themselves as moderates or "mainstream" yet have never voted for a Republican in their lives or have never expressed admiration or respect for anyone who is not a leftist. Their arguments on political issues seem to have been lifted directly from Karl Marx.

The phenomenon does not seem to repeat itself on the right. Most people I've met or read on the right who describe themselves as in any way moderate do so with a hyphen, e.g., "moderate-conservative" and have expressed admiration or respect for the occasional Democrat.