Paris Attacks Round 2

I am in Exeter this weekend visiting a friend, so fortunately I wasn’t anywhere near Paris when those fuckers were on the rampage last night.

I think it’s high time we saw some leadership and governance from Western leaders. Not rallies, vigils, politics, prayers, electioneering, hashtags, empty words, and more restrictions on our own freedoms: leadership and governance. They’ve taken the job, they have failed to protect the people whose liberty they have eroded in the name of their security and disarmed in the name of their safety, and this has happened on their watch. They need to respond, or in the near future those lamposts might be put to a use their designers never intended.

No, I don’t have the answers, I thought that’s what our so-called leadership was paid to provide.

I am seriously fucking angry.

Liked it? Take a second to support Tim Newman on Patreon!
Share

33 thoughts on “Paris Attacks Round 2

  1. Well, whatever you do, don’t leave the house with a small can of pepper spray – you would be an unacceptable danger to the public…

  2. We’ll hear the usual platitudes from politicians about social cohesion and this attack not being anything to do with ‘real islam’. And then nothing of substance will be done, again.

    I mean I’m sure they’ll crank up the Vigipirate level a few notches, post a few more gendarmes here and there, make some raids and arrests but they can’t or won’t solve the fundamental problems:

    1) The cost of performing this kind of terrorism is low: a fully disarmed populace and readily available small arms on the black market. As we know, when the price of something drops more will be demanded.
    2) The ideology behind these attacks isn’t going to go away any time soon, and will only be bolstered by a clumsy intervention by the French government in the Middle East.
    3) There are clearly enough adherants to this death cult in France where (2) provides the motivation and (1) provides the means.

    As you said in your previous post, see you for the next massacre.

  3. This is what happened last time. Western Roman civilisation hung on, dying gradually and slowly, in Italy, Southern France and Iberia. It died quickly in Northern France, and completely in England albeit erratically. It hung on for much longer in Wales. Some tenuous Roman influence might have survived in Southern Scotland for a little while. Meantime Eastern Roman civilisation hung on, waxing and waning, for a thousand years.

    What’s your forecast? Will Spain and France go down fighting, while Scandinavia and Germany surrender quickly? Will Russia and Poland survive? Meantime we are governed by a feeble twerp, and the Opposition is run a by a cadre of people who’ve spent their careers brown-nosing terrorists. Maybe if we have the balls to leave the EU we might have the balls to defend ourselves too. But it’s odds against.

  4. Tim, I think I understand the background and reasons for these attacks as fully as a lay outsider possibly can (short version: The Government, longer version: the multi-culty international elite). What I don’t seem to understand is what do you, or anyone else for that matter, expect the French (or any other European government) to do at this point? I mean, I certainly would begin by stopping the mass immigration of ME Muslims, refugees or not. I would also let law-abiding citizens arm themselves. But do you really think that these two steps will solve the problem? Is it not too late to prevent some sort of civil war at some not too-distant point?

  5. We’re hardly on the brink of civil war here! The real question is how we protect the several hundred potential future victims. Pete summarises the current situation nicely… so what can we change about it? We have the military capability to end IS but have hesitated because it was other people dying. Maybe now the West will act (don’t hold your breath though). Without such a rich and organised source of radicalisation, maybe there will be fewer attacks. Either that or, as usual, we do nothing until the next massacre.

  6. And could we get ahead of the torrent of excrement claiming that offering humanitarian refuge to those persecuted by war has somehow contributed to the events in Paris? Terrorists don’t want a work permit. They don’t want to send their children to school. They don’t seek refuge. These are NOT THE SAME PEOPLE! (@Alisa: determined terrorists will get in whether we take genuine refugees or not – don’t be so inhumane).

  7. Sure, HibernoFrog: assuming that you live in France, that is your country, and you probably know better than I do what is best for your and your countrymen.

  8. “They’ve taken the job, they have failed to protect the people whose liberty they have eroded in the name of their security and disarmed in the name of their safety”

    I am convinced that the death toll would have been smaller if some of those concert goers or diners were packin. We have to realise that the security service first priority is for their own safety not ours. It’s difficult to know why they didn’t storm the theatre sooner, particularly when there was reliable communication from inside to say they are killing us now, please send help now and there was no ransom demand!

    No doubt someone senior had to arrive on site and take charge of the response, evaluate the situation, form a plan, organise resources, receive authority and implement. This takes some time to do, but two hours seems too long particularly with the technology at hand to see through walls, listen to anything, immediate intelligence and crack response troops specifically trained for this exact situation at their disposal, slap bang in the middle of Paris.

    I don’t think any citizen can rely on nor expect the state to save their soul, as the state team’s first priority is to save their own souls and not ours.

    For all I know which admittedly isn’t much maybe there is a perfectly good reason why they held on for so long before storming the concert hall but why the hell were there no police in the side alleys and open exits assisting the people that were trying to escape and dragging badly injured or worse to relative safety, why not a single one?

  9. Thanks for the comments, folks. I’m traveling at the moment so can’t reply in full, but I’ll respond to this one question of Alisa’s now and get back on the rest later.

    What I don’t seem to understand is what do you, or anyone else for that matter, expect the French (or any other European government) to do at this point?

    I don’t know. I have some ideas, all of which are objectionable. But our elected representatives believe they can solve every problem from climate change to the optimum amount of sugar in soft drinks, and seek to govern our lives in ever-increasing detail, so I damned well expect them to come up with a solution to this problem. I don’t care if it is difficult, and I don’t care if it is impossible, but what I want to see is a concerted effort to solve it which does not look like a naked power-grab on their part and further restrictions on the privacy and freedoms of ordinary people. If it fails, so be it, but thus far I’ve seen no serious effort to deal with Islamic terrorism since Bush invaded Afghanistan and booted out the Taliban in the wake of 9/11.

    One of the first and foremost obligations of our governments is to protect their citizens from these sort of attacks, or at least try to. They have disarmed the population saying the state will protect them so they don’t need the means to defend themselves, and then utterly failed to do so. I don’t know if allowing citizens to go armed would solve anything, but I do know that various governments are failing badly in their duty. Yet they still seek to impose themselves in every minute aspect of our lives, carrying no shame at having allowed hundreds of their citizens to get massacred in a series of events which were wholly expected.

    So no, I don’t know what the solutions are, but what I would expect to have seen a long time ago is:

    1. Governments quit trying to micromanage our lives and harping on about climate change, and start dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism effectively.
    2. Quit sucking up to Muslims the world over, state clearly that we are at war with a section of Islamic society which is not insubstantial, and winning this war will be the priority of governments for as long as need be.

    I’m an engineer in the oil business, I don’t have solutions for stuff like this. That’s what governments are for. So far they’re failing and badly, and they need to either start tackling this issue as a matter of priority and openly state who the enemy is, or resign. I think it’s reasonable enough to expect that, as a minimum.

  10. Thanks for taking the time, Tim, and stay safe: somehow I get the feeling that this is far from over yet.

    I think it’s reasonable enough to expect that, as a minimum.

    It is morally, but is much less so practically. The job of a government is indeed to protect us from just this kind of thing, mostly by preventing it from happening. Problem is, as I alluded above, this problem has been created by governments (not just in France), and some problems just cannot be solved once they have been created – I’m afraid this is one of those. To be honest, my question to you was at least partly rhetorical.

  11. “They have disarmed the population saying the state will protect them so they don’t need the means to defend themselves”: which is of course what the Romans did. This left the Romano-Britons terribly vulnerable to attack by Germans and Gaels. It’ll just be another Dark Ages if we don’t get a grip.

  12. which is of course what the Romans did. This left the Romano-Britons terribly vulnerable to attack by Germans and Gaels.

    Interesting – can you expand a bit, Dearieme?

  13. “which is of course what the Romans did.'”

    And more recently and quite dramatically so did the Bolsheviks.

  14. The Roman law was that civilians couldn’t carry weapons. So when the last legions left Britain there weren’t many people with weapons or weapon training or tactical training, except presumably ex-soldiers. So some bright spark thought that they would extend the Roman idea of hiring barbarians to do their fighting for them. They hired Germans, who eventually took over the province, mainly working west from the east coast. Meantime there were colonists from Ireland settling in the west: a particularly difficult bunch conquered northwest Wales – they were expelled only by bringing troops south from the Edinburgh area. That area had been only lightly romanised, and had been outside the Empire for many years, so there were experienced fighting men there.

  15. @ Bardon,

    I am convinced that the death toll would have been smaller if some of those concert goers or diners were packin. We have to realise that the security service first priority is for their own safety not ours.

    Indeed. We’ve been left as sitting ducks, while the people who made us so enjoy round-the-clock security.

    For all I know which admittedly isn’t much maybe there is a perfectly good reason why they held on for so long before storming the concert hall but why the hell were there no police in the side alleys and open exits assisting the people that were trying to escape and dragging badly injured or worse to relative safety, why not a single one?

    That’s an excellent question!

  16. @marc,

    off topic i was in Exeter yesterday John Lewis and SP motorcycles

    Ah so near!

    Is it me or is this a symbol of appeasement

    Well, thus far these atrocities in Paris appear be an excuse for various countries to demonstrate the lighting systems on their national monuments. Hopefully we’re going to see something a little more substantial than this.

  17. Regarding the concealed carry, I was talking about this with a friend yesterday. He thought, probably rightly, that allowing citizens to protect themselves with firearms would result in more people dying from guns than is the current case. My response was that, right now, I don’t care about statistics, I care about the utter dereliction of duty by the government in protecting its citizens. What I care about is not being a sitting duck as Islamic terrorists open fire on unarmed people, until the government upholds its own end of the bargain and puts a stop to it. I was told this is an ideological approach, and indeed it is. But there is nothing noble or ideological about lying under a theatre seat helplessly waiting for some armed psychopath to shoot you.

    Streetwise Professor has put it well:

    So Brussels, the capital of the nanny superstate that claims competence over the most minute aspects of human existence is incapable of performing the most basic function of a state: securing the physical security of its residents. And it is unwilling to admit its failures, and indeed, is committed to compounding them.

    This could apply to all Western governments.

  18. “We’ve been left as sitting ducks, while the people who made us so enjoy round-the-clock security.” Spot on; a particularly egregious example is Mr Bloomberg. He wants to ban guns for Joe Soap while himself being accompanied by armed guards wherever he goes.

    “allowing citizens to protect themselves with firearms would result in more people dying from guns than is the current case”: ah but does your chum also accept that there may come a murder rate so high, whether from terrorists or ordinary criminals, that the figures will reverse, so that widespread carrying of guns will reduce deaths? And would he then support the ending of gun bans i.e. would he be rational?

  19. “You wanna get Capone? Here’s how you get him. He pulls a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue! That’s the Chicago way, and that’s how you get Capone!” – The Untouchables

    The Allies once faced a determined ideology who’s adherents were militant, expansionist, had no fear of death and wantonly murdered innocents. How did we solve that problem? War. Total war. Completely broke their spirit and their faith in their ideology. It took two nuclear bombs but we haven’t heard a peep out of militant japanese nationalism anymore. It doesn’t exist. If anything, they admired us for quite some time after. I’m not suggesting we start lobbing nukes hither and yon but the only thing that’s going to break them is going to be a very serious confrontation that leaves lots and lots of them dead.

    Lastly, there is credible evidence that looser guns laws do not lead to an increase in shootings or murders. Rather the opposite. We have had many states here in the US loosen restrictions and there was much hue and cry about the imminent emergence of The Wild West with running gun battles to be fought on every trip to the mailbox. It just isn’t so. Heinlein reminds us that “an armed society is a polite society”. I can tell you from personal experience of living in the Carolinas that you do not get into an exchange of words in traffic altercations with people who have shotgun racks visible on their trucks.

  20. “Indeed. We’ve been left as sitting ducks, while the people who made us so enjoy round-the-clock security.”

    Sitting ducks alright, especially if you take it to the next level and consider that one day the heavily armed state operatives may not only come to your rescue in your hour of need but may instead deem you an enemy of the state and take direct lethal action against you and your kind, then you will truly know how it feels to be on your own and defenseless. I don’t think any critical thinker would either rule out or dismiss the possibility that the state could turn on its own.

    Take the Russians, under the Tasr their citizens were one of the most heavily armed, they had pistols, rifles, swords, knifes these weapons being both concealed and on show and sometimes as a proud part or their cultural attire. Along come the Bolsheviks and they disarm them and then start killing them, big time, some say at least 60 million scalps taken.

    “And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?… The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If…if…We didn’t love freedom enough. And even more – we had no awareness of the real situation…. We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward.”

    Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

  21. @dearieme,

    ah but does your chum also accept that there may come a murder rate so high, whether from terrorists or ordinary criminals, that the figures will reverse, so that widespread carrying of guns will reduce deaths?

    I didn’t make this argument, because I was arguing from a point of principle, i.e. not being left as a sitting duck, than one of statistics. People always bandy statistics around when debating gun control, and these statistics are normally mangled beyond recognition anyway. I prefer to perpetuate the idea that if the state cannot protect us as they promised then we ought to be allowed to protect ourselves, statistics be damned. I’m not interested in how many other people may or may not be shot, I am interested in ensuring I am not a sitting duck.

  22. @Bardon,

    That Solzhenitsyn quote is bang-on, and I’ve seen it replicated in one or two other places this last few days.

  23. @Duffy,

    I’m not suggesting we start lobbing nukes hither and yon but the only thing that’s going to break them is going to be a very serious confrontation that leaves lots and lots of them dead.

    Indeed, and I think eventually this will have to be done. The only thing that would divert it is decent leadership from Western governments, but they seem determined not to deal with it. So it will fall to later generations, and it will be messy.

  24. On a similar vein to the Solzhenitsyn quote, I think P.J. O’Rourke asked in one of his books, how might the outcome of the Warsaw Ghetto uprising might have been different if every citizen had a gun?

    Imagine being in an army about to invade a country like the USA or Switzerland, where many (or all) adults own guns…..

  25. Didn’t every male of military age in Yugoslavia have access to a gun, albeit stored in armouries? That worked out well, didn’t it? What do you plan for Britain: every white adult be allowed a pistol? I’ve heard worse ideas, but it would run against almost every political current of the post-war years. And what about the details? Do we declare Hindus, Sikhs and Chinese to be honorary whites?

  26. What do you plan for Britain: every white adult be allowed a pistol?

    For my part, I’d advocate my being allowed to own firearms. What others do is up to them.

Comments are closed.