Welcome to Quadrant Online | Login/ Register Cart (0) $0 View Cart
Menu
June 06th 2017 print

Christopher Carr

Enough with the Flowers and Candles

Photo ops, soft words and Iftar dinners at Kirribilli did nothing to curtail the murderous impulses of the man who, last night in Melbourne, staged a lethal ambush in the name of Allah. That creature is dead, as is an innocent desk clerk, and three officers wounded. If our leaders won't lead, we need better ones

freedom jihadiTerrible attacks in both Manchester and London further underline the fundamentally flawed official response to Islamic terrorism. The official refusal to name the enemy leads to a muddled law-and-order response, focussed on the criminal plans and actions of errant individuals. Yes, the powers-that-be talk incessantly about the so-called ‘war on terror’. But this is a cop out, as they must know in their hearts even as their mouths spill those Religion of Peace™ platitudes.

To wage a real war, you highlight the goals of the enemy, not simply his methods. Just imagine if, instead of assailing the philosophy of Nazism and its plans for domination, Churchill had talked only about the need to wage war only on Stukas, U-boats and the Bismark. Get the point? Terror is the weapon. Militant Islam, implemented in accord with quite specific Koranic instructions, is the hand that wields it.

It seems to me that the ordinary punter “gets it”, whilst “educated” officialdom remains in a fog of stupidity and political correctness.

I suspect that large numbers of ordinary people are sick of efforts by the likes of Malcolm Turnbull and Therese May to describe Islamic terrorists as somehow “un-Islamic”, supposedly guilty of perverting Islam, despite numerous quotations from the sacred texts lending full justification to the jihadis’ mayhem. Of course, neither Turnbull nor May is in any position to propound a corpus of doctrine which would constitute “authentic” peaceful Islam.

Unfortunately and inconveniently, a large percentage of Muslims in the West countries regard Sharia supremacism and violent jihad as authentically Islamic and other Muslims who opt for peaceful integration as un-Islamic. Whether we like it or not, a large number of Muslims in our midst, whether by thought or deed, feel themselves at war with the rest of us.

By trying to pretend that we are not at war, we have sacrificed innocent lives. We should long ago recognised that this is not simply a matter for the police and the criminal justice system. Nor is it any longer a matter of our intelligence services being able to catch terrorists just before they commit mass murder. So far, with the notable exception of the Lindt Cafe siege, Australian intelligence has largely succeeded in foiling large-scale potential terrorist acts. But even the best intelligence service cannot hope  this run of luck will continue. Someday, somehow, an Islamic terrorist group will slip through the net. (stop press: last night in Melbourne a Somali-trained disciple of the Prophet killed one person, wounded three police officers and, his one good deed, saved the courts the trouble of dealing with him by succumbing to  hail of bullets).

The great tragedy in both Manchester and London is that at least some of the perpetrators were “known” to authorities, as was the perpetrator of Melbourne’s ambush. We have now further learnt that up to 23,000 are, err, “known” to Intelligence authorities in Britain. The problem is that only approximately 3,000 can be monitored at any one time. The rest, including the perpetrators of the latest horrors, were off the intensive watch list for the time being.

Clearly, the reactive police approach favoured in peacetime has failed, and will continue to fail, with more tragic loss of innocent lives.

By contrast, waging war against a named enemy must be necessarily proactive. The following are the essential elements of waging war:

(1)  Name our enemy. To the extent that Islam is a spiritual exercise, it can be tolerated. However, to the extent that it is a political ideology, which does not recognise any distinction between the sacred and the secular, it must be fought and defeated. We may choose to identify the enemy as “Sharia Supremacism”. This is the goal for which the terrorists are fighting.

(2) Institute preventive detention. The onus would be on those interned to prove that they pose no threat to life and limb. Those who declare war on our civil society through incitement, association and actions should not expect protection from institutions whose legitimacy they reject.

(3) Those who have chosen to fight for the Islamic State are our enemies. Where possible they should be stripped of Australian citizenship and prevented from returning. Whether they become stateless is their problem not ours. After all, they have chosen to place themselves outside of Australian civil society.

(4) All funding  from abroad for mosques, Islamic institutions and associations should be blocked. Saudi funding of Wahhabism in this country and worldwide is an especially pernicious facilitator of global jihad.

(5) All mosques which promote Sharia supremacism to be closed down. Likewise, Islamic associations, such as  Hizb Ut-Tahrir should not only be banned but, in addition,  its members interned.

(6)  Proactive counter-terrorism must inevitably be the responsibility of the specialist military.  The police forces have to remain primarily focused on civil law enforcement.

Today  we hear that the perpetrator of the latest incident in Melbourne was yet another of those “well known” to police — a fact that underscores the point that the sooner we move away from the stupid delusion that a peacetime criminal justice system can deal with the threat, the safer we will all be.

Comments [18]

  1. Bushranger71 says:

    Bravo Chris!

    We need to toughen up on language. Just not good enough to say we might cancel passports.

    BANISHMENT is appropriate, meaning: ‘to drive out, expel, condemn to exile’.

    Any of those who have gone to involve with the Islamist push in other lands should be automatically banished from Australia and any of their dependents here deported.

    Kim Beazley’s latest message that we should soft pedal regarding criticism of Islam was abhorrent.

    • Lo says:

      We need to toughen up on behaviour. We might. We should. They could be liable for. But they never actually get sent away, or refused re-entry or jailed for 30 years or whatever. Talk is cheap, whether it is tough talk or not. It’s just talk and that’s not going to change anything. Stop talking, politicians. Act.

  2. Warty says:

    You are right to commend our intelligence services for foiling plots, but this is only catch up stuff. Naming the enemy; preventative measures; stripping of citizenship; closing down relevant mosques, as you have said; but also opening up the various ghetto suburbs, so that the sons of b. . cheese feel exposed to Aussie culture. On the other hand who’d want to live anywhere near them?

    • Warty says:

      I don’t know how ‘cheese’ got in there.

    • ianl says:

      > ” … closing down relevant mosques, as you have said; but also opening up the various ghetto suburbs …”

      Such as – Lakemba, Sydney ? That would likely spark outright civil war, which is what I thought we were trying to quash.

      Venting is ok, but resolves nothing of practical use. The articles here are now quite repetitive and impotent. Pointless.

      The canker will just grow as our smorgasboard of weaknesses become more and more apparent. We’ll turn on each other, as is evident now. Various branches of authority will increase onerous surveillance of the population of potential victims (ie. us) in fear of uncontrollable unrest. Bureaucracy/political/MSM will continue with liberal splashings of the Islamophobia/lone wolf BS while ensuring their own “line of bollards” is continually hardened. These people have made a catastrophic, on-going, lethally destructive mistake in immigration policy – they are absolutely terrified at the burgeoning results, with no idea at all on how to resolve it, yet too arrogant to admit it (eg. the Lewis sneer at Hanson in the Senate hearings last week).

      • Warty says:

        I have no problem with much that you have said, particularly the ‘lethally destructive mistake in immigration policy’ bit. But my comments about the ‘relevant’ mosques, was simply a reiteration of Theresa May’s comments, immediately after the London attacks. By relevant, she was speaking of those mosques that were preaching hatred towards our Western values, our culture.
        The Lakemba mosque has too high a profile to get away with insurgency, but there are others that do, like the Parramatta one that enabled the 15 year old boy to come away with sufficient venom to murder a police employee in cold blood. If there are links to anti Western rhetoric then they should be closed down. Should there be civil war, then so be it, but our Muslims are but 3% of the overall population.We need to stand up for our own values even though we may be attacked for such a stand. To do otherwise would be capitulation.

        • Rob Brighton says:

          Is it a legal possibility to be stripped of ones citizenship and if so, what is to stop a future government who you do not agree with from doing just that?

          The idea of internment seems possible but what about due process? That smacks of re-education camps, how very Chairman Mao of us.

          What happens if in some dystopian future the greens are our political masters and decide that stripping citizenship from Ms Reinhardt is for our protection or popping non believers into internment camps until we all agree that AGW is true and Gaia our one true god? This is the problem with these sort of laws, we always forget that at some point in the future someone who you do not agree with will hold the levers of power.

          Otherwise I applaud the suggestion in this article, certainly it is a huge improvement over were we are currently.

          Oh and by the way in a purely practical sense, I note there are 31 million Malays of whom 60% are Muslim and 230 million Indonesians of which 80% are Muslim. These things can get out of hand, we should ask ourselves or better still someone who has the military knowledge if we can deal with it if and when it does.

  3. Doc S says:

    Khayre had a long criminal history we are told. As of this mornings presser with Premier Plonker of Gardenia, the police were still looking for a motive. The ‘I’ or ‘M’ words were noticeable in their absence. As the scumbag had been bailed to appear (once again) maybe he decided his long criminal history was finally catching up with him so becoming a shaheed (martyr) courtesy of the thogut (oppressors of the believers – in this case the kuffar Victorian police) was the perfect path to redemption. Straight to paradise with the ‘first flow of [his] martyr’s blood’, no hellfire torments of the grave, no kuffar judge to send him to the unbeliever’s prison – and hopefully kill a few of the thogut police as well – with not a care in this world! Its Salafi jihad, pure and simple. And unlike the poor Chinese Australian building super, the police were very, very lucky not to lose anyone. Motive? Salafi Islam MANDATES violent jihad for its followers. So I would add to Carr’s excellent and sensible suggestions above (No.5) the internment or deportation of ALL Salafist imams and the immediate closure of ALL Salafi mosques and the internment of all Salafi followers.

    We need to bell that cat and we can be quite specific about it as 99% of ALL terrorist attacks in the last 15 or more years have been conducted by jihadis who follow Salafi ideology. Salafi is the 5th column operating in the midst of Australian society but more specifically within the Muslim community itself and it must be dealt with.

    I would add to the above a moratorium on ALL Muslim migration – every Muslim applying to come here including those as part of our UNHCR-obliged refugee intake be thoroughly vetted with a minimum six month wait before admission. Exceptions (i.e. less than six months) only on a case-by-case humanitarian basis approved by the Minister.

    This plus the above suggestions are prudent and will have the effect of keeping us safe, at least in the first instance and note that I didn’t even have to use the ‘I’ word either!

    But of course, even as the bodies continue to pile up, the authorities will continue on their Quixotic quest to look for a motivation and our current political leaders of both stripes fail to find a spine to enforce our existing laws let alone new ones to deal with the deadly threat in our midst.

    • LBLoveday says:

      “..moratorium on ALL Muslim migration” presents a problem of determining who is and is not Muslim. The 50,000 “refugees” R-G-R let in barely had a passport or any other ID between them, and the lies have been exposed, to no good purpose unfortunately, in AAT hearings.
      Given the Koran-based directive/obligation to deceive non-Muslims, there is no effective way to pause Muslim immigration other than pausing all.

  4. Jody says:

    Turnbull asked today why that Somali feral was on bail!! If he doesn’t know, nobody does. And don’t expect the legal profession to be one scintilla answerable to the community; they are a law unto themselves and Jesus Christ himself couldn’t compel them to explain themselves. The public once used to regard doctors in such a reverent way; not any more. It’s time to make the law ACCOUNTABLE. NOW.

    • padraic says:

      Somalia was one of the countries on President Trump’s migration list, and for good reason. Apart from their piracy in the north Indian Ocean area, they export jihardist terrorism into the rest of Africa (they are intensely disliked in Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia etc for their arrogance and disrespect for the law). We should suspend their entry into Australia along the lines proposed by Trump for America, even for those in refugee camps in Kenya, until there is a system in place to say they share the views of Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They tried to introduce the drug of abuse KHAT into Australia as a “cultural” necessity of life and no doubt would have flogged it to us natives.
      The other point mentioned in the article is stripping terrorists of citizenship – an eminently sensible idea. However, the lawyers say you can’t strip a person of their citizenship. So why not pass a law that allows the government not to issue a passport to someone it suspects is going to fight or is fighting overseas for a terrorist organisation or at least pass a law that says the government has the power to cancel a passport and ask the person to reapply. This would allow the government to cancel the passport of overseas “Australian” terrorists and if they had the gall to reapply then stall them for 5 years or so and hope they perish in the meantime in their heavenly caliphate

    • Ian MacDougall says:

      Jody,
      Khayre with his long criminal history was out on bail in Victoria. Commonwealth level is where Turnbull operates. If he is on the ball, he will have Commonweath officers on the job divising ways Commonwealth law can be tightened up so that such a ‘person of interest’ can be given some bother: like say, indefinite preventive detention.

      • Jody says:

        I understand the jurisdiction in which this perverse leniency exists but Turnbull has at least belled the cat. Now watch a legion of self-serving lawyers try to tell us all about “rights” of the “detained” and “he’d served his time”. These craven individuals obviously see the law and its enactment as fundamental to their ‘careers’ and having nothing to do with community wellbeing. The offenses of that criminal were itemized and on any measure of decency he should have still been incarcerated with many many years yet to serve. That’s what happens when you have the Left infiltrating the legal profession with it’s “we know best” attitude. Their effectively sentencing innocent people to death and suffering so that the criminal can get a ‘fair go’. Reminds me of a famous biblical story, actually.

  5. Bill Martin says:

    Christopher Carr’s “to do list”, appropriate and appealing as it is, needs adjustments and modifications.

    (1) Name our enemy. – The naming of Islam as the enemy must be absolutely unambiguous, emphatically stripped of all segmentations into peaceful, violent, fundamental, etc. and its intent to annihilate our culture identified as the essence of its animosity.

    (2) Institute preventive detention. – Desirable as that sounds, it is impossible, both logically and legally, to prove the negative, i.e. that I am not going to do an infinite list of deeds.

    (3)Those who have chosen to fight for the Islamic State are our enemies. – Nobody could argue with that.

    (4) All funding from abroad for mosques, Islamic institutions and associations should be blocked. – Most appropriate, but it would be difficult if not impossible to defend, both domestically and internationally, against accusations of religious discrimination, having named Islam as the enemy notwithstanding.

    (5) All mosques which promote Sharia supremacism to be closed down. – That, of course, means all mosques. Similarly problematic as (4).
    Proactive counter-terrorism must inevitably be the responsibility of the specialist military. – Makes perfectly good sense.

    The physical existence of Islam, the enemy, is the ummah, the Muslims at large. Islam must be neutralised by depriving its adherents, individually as well as collectively, of their right to be active proponents of its agenda. During the recent census, practically every single Muslim ardently identified as such and many others also recorded their religion. The Attorney General should draw up a Statement of Loyalty, pledging absolute loyalty to the Commonwealth of Australia, its people and its laws above any and all other obligations, religious​ or otherwise, acknowledging that contravention of that pledge constitute an offence punishable by law.. A copy of that statement should be mailed out to every citizen who listed their religion on the census form, requiring them to sign it. This policy should be widely and forcefully publicised as a sensible security measure.

    Regardless of how many or few Muslims signed the pledge, the exercise would “put the cat amongst the pigeons” in the Muslim communities, exposing an unimaginable range of conflicts, discrepancies and hypocrisies in the ummah and amongst their religious leaders, exposing sentiments usually hidden, seriously degrading their ability of promoting Islam. Where it might go from there is anyone’s guess, but it would be a very useful first battle action in the war against Islam, easily defended against accusations of islamophobic discrimination.

    • Doc S says:

      Your point re No. 5 – because of the pernicious influence of Saudi Wahabism (of which Salafi is sometimes seen as a subset) closing of all Sharia-promoting mosques would be the closure of most Sunni mosques or nearly 90% of the total mosques here. That will never fly – the furore that would result from attempting to do so would make it damn near impossible to achieve. HOWEVER – if you applied it to those mosques who refused to eschew Salafi ideology you’d close at the most about 25-30% of Sunni mosques and maybe as little as 10% – much more achievable. Moreover the Muslim community may even come to support the measure if they can be convinced by doing so rids them of the same cancer.

      • ianl says:

        > “That will never fly – the furore that would result from attempting to do so would make it damn near impossible to achieve”

        My point above about Lakemba as an example. The result would be more than mere “furore”. The bloodshed would split the country apart for generations. This comment is *not* some pissant fear of giving offence: I do not wish to see Sydney or Melbourne disintegrate into street-mindless sectarian slaughter.

  6. Keith Kennelly says:

    Bill to your list I’d add, round up and intern any associates and the extended family of anyone who commits or proposes to commit acts of terror.

    Then offer them safe passage to the Muslim country of their choice or Europe.deport the Imams of their mosque and level it.

    We need leaders not managers. And that’s all we’ve got at the moment … with one shining example.