I referred earlier today to a Danish TV news report featuring the sister of the Somali accused of attempting to kill Kurt Westergaard. The woman maintains that the Danish PET (security police) coerced her brother into attacking the cartoonist in his home.
Many thanks to Steen for translating the video, and to Vlad Tepes for subtitling it:
Anyone who doesn't think this tale will grow legs in the Muslim world should recall that said world is full of people who still believe 9/11 was the work of the Mossad.
There are several levels of interpretation for this report. First off, of course she is doing the Muslim speciality: "We are Muslims, therefore we are blameless, it can't have been us, let me blame anyone else I can think of".
But secondly, at least in Europe, there are serious doubts about which side the Police are on when it comes to a different battle: the forcible integration of the different Nations of Europe into one State to be called Europe. The Police are acting more and more as though their principal role is to protect the State from the Citizen, rather than the Citizen from crime. Whether they are ferociously pushed over (Monckton in Copenhagen, Tomlinson in London) or assassinated by gunfire (De Menenzes at Stockwell tube station) or suffer some unexplained death (Kelly going for a walk in the woods, or Robin Cook going for a walk in the hills) there is cause for the citizen to fear the Police.
I was brought up to know (not just to think) that the Police were on the citizen's side. I had a part time policeman for a father. It was my kids who educated me that the Police had their own agenda, and that it did not often coincide with that of the citizen.
We also know about the "Beneficial crisis", used to great advantage by the proponents of the empire called Europe (Barroso called it that, on video). Given all of that background, why is it so far fetched to think that this Muslim fool with an axe was not set up by some hidden organ of the state-that-would-be to help create the chaos that will permit the emergence of a dictator. After all in the UK we already have the laws on the Statute Book that will permit him to rule by arbitrary decree (Civil Contingencies Act, and Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act). They give the government in an emergency more power than Hitler awarded himself after the Reichstag fire.
This Muslima is probably lying. But for different reasons, it might also have more than a grain of truth.
This echoes a running gag (sort of) among commentators of François de Souche, the leading French anti-immigration blog.
A while ago, several Muslim underage youths were killed or hurt (I don't remember which), when their stolen car rammed into a house while fleeing the police.
In what is now a classical scenario, violence flared among local "angry" Muslims. Shouts of Allah akhbar were heard, and the mother of one of the outlaws wailed, in front of television cameras : "Ci la poulice!" ("C'est la police", with an Arab accent : "It's the police's fault", "The police made them do it".
Of course, any sane person (meaning non-Muslim) would first consider the following :
- These youths had stolen a car.
- They were driving at reckless speed on country roads and endangering other people's lives.
- They did not even have the right to drive a car since they did not have a licence and were minors.
- They refused to stop at the police's request.
- The police car was actually keeping a safe distance from the thieves, knowing too well that any accident would be blamed on them, and would be the pretext for more violence .
But never mind. According to their own wretched mother (who should have been crawling under the carpet in shame), "Ci la poulice".
It's the police's fault.
It's always the police's fault. It's always the white, Christian, Western man's fault.
Since then, commentators on François de Souche, whenever Muslim mayhem comes up somewhere across the country (meaning everyday), dutifully provide their own diagnosis : "Ci la poulice".
6 comments:
Anyone who doesn't think this tale will grow legs in the Muslim world should recall that said world is full of people who still believe 9/11 was the work of the Mossad.
There are several levels of interpretation for this report. First off, of course she is doing the Muslim speciality: "We are Muslims, therefore we are blameless, it can't have been us, let me blame anyone else I can think of".
But secondly, at least in Europe, there are serious doubts about which side the Police are on when it comes to a different battle: the forcible integration of the different Nations of Europe into one State to be called Europe. The Police are acting more and more as though their principal role is to protect the State from the Citizen, rather than the Citizen from crime. Whether they are ferociously pushed over (Monckton in Copenhagen, Tomlinson in London) or assassinated by gunfire (De Menenzes at Stockwell tube station) or suffer some unexplained death (Kelly going for a walk in the woods, or Robin Cook going for a walk in the hills) there is cause for the citizen to fear the Police.
I was brought up to know (not just to think) that the Police were on the citizen's side. I had a part time policeman for a father. It was my kids who educated me that the Police had their own agenda, and that it did not often coincide with that of the citizen.
We also know about the "Beneficial crisis", used to great advantage by the proponents of the empire called Europe (Barroso called it that, on video). Given all of that background, why is it so far fetched to think that this Muslim fool with an axe was not set up by some hidden organ of the state-that-would-be to help create the chaos that will permit the emergence of a dictator. After all in the UK we already have the laws on the Statute Book that will permit him to rule by arbitrary decree (Civil Contingencies Act, and Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act). They give the government in an emergency more power than Hitler awarded himself after the Reichstag fire.
This Muslima is probably lying. But for different reasons, it might also have more than a grain of truth.
"...accused of killing...? or, accused of trying to kill?
“The Police Made Him Do It”
This echoes a running gag (sort of) among commentators of François de Souche, the leading French anti-immigration blog.
A while ago, several Muslim underage youths were killed or hurt (I don't remember which), when their stolen car rammed into a house while fleeing the police.
In what is now a classical scenario, violence flared among local "angry" Muslims. Shouts of Allah akhbar were heard, and the mother of one of the outlaws wailed, in front of television cameras : "Ci la poulice!" ("C'est la police", with an Arab accent : "It's the police's fault", "The police made them do it".
Of course, any sane person (meaning non-Muslim) would first consider the following :
- These youths had stolen a car.
- They were driving at reckless speed on country roads and endangering other people's lives.
- They did not even have the right to drive a car since they did not have a licence and were minors.
- They refused to stop at the police's request.
- The police car was actually keeping a safe distance from the thieves, knowing too well that any accident would be blamed on them, and would be the pretext for more violence .
But never mind. According to their own wretched mother (who should have been crawling under the carpet in shame), "Ci la poulice".
It's the police's fault.
It's always the police's fault. It's always the white, Christian, Western man's fault.
Since then, commentators on François de Souche, whenever Muslim mayhem comes up somewhere across the country (meaning everyday), dutifully provide their own diagnosis : "Ci la poulice".
Good catch, Lon! Thanks. I've corrected that sentence.
Kurt would not be pleased with me for finishing him off...
Why did the artist not have a shotgun? If he has a suicide wish, he might not want to include his granddaughter.
Post a Comment