"Allahu akbar!" in Norway - a lesson our "leaders" haven't learned

Norway has very strict gun control laws. Even the cops don't carry guns [as used to be the case in Britain. Ed.] Until yesterday, that is. The police directorate has now ordered officers nationwide to carry firearms, following a series of terrorist attacks in which five peopole were killed and two wounded by a man armed with a bow and arrow. 

That's an arrow in the inset picture. "The man used a bow and arrow...for some of the attacks," the local police chief told the meeja, adding that they were investigating whether other weapons had also been used.

Reuters quotes the top cop as saying, "The man has been apprehended.... From the information we now have, this person carried out these actions alone." What Reuters doesn't say (but Al Jazeera does!) is that the deadly archer is Espen Andersen Brathen, a Dane who converted to Islam, and was flagged as having being "radicalized". 

Yesterday's attacks took place over "a large area" of Kongsberg, a municipality of about 28,000 people in southeastern Norway.  "The reports coming from Kongsberg tonight are horrifying," Prime Minister Erna Solberg told a news conference. "I understand that many people are afraid, but it's important to emphasise that the police are now in control," she said. 

The statement from the police directorate said, "This is an extra precaution. The police have no indication so far that there is a change in the national threat level."

CAUTION: This is a cautionary tale. You may think you live in a peaceful country, like Norway... or Canada or New Zealand... where you are safe from random attacks by Islamic terrorists. Your government may tell you so. "The threat level is low. Police are in control. No need to be afraid." They lie!

Dear reader, no matter where you live, your country has its share of Islamic extremists. Hundreds of them, maybe thousands. Some, like this "Danish Mohammed", might be called "homegrown". Others -- most of them -- are imported from the Muslim shitholes of the Middle East. 

They have been allowed into your country by "leaders" like Germany's Angela Merkel. Other "leaders", like Canada's Just In Trudeau and America's Senile Joe Biden, are actually encouraging them to come and make themselves at home, not in cities like New York and Toronto, but in smaller cities and towns... just like yours.  

When you venture out today, to go to work or shop or go to a ball game, take a look around you. When did that mosque ["Islamic community centre", shurely. Ed.] get there? What's going on inside? Is someone preaching jihad to susceptible "homegrown" converts? What about that person covered head to toe in a burqa? Is it a woman or a man? What is he/she carrying under there? An AR-15? A bow and arrow?

Good questions, all of them, but you're not allowed to talk openly about such things. Mustn't encourage Islamophobia, you know! Besides -- this is what they tell us -- the overwhelming majority of Muslims in our communities are "moderate Muslims", peaceloving people who wish only to live in peace with us ...and of course benefit from our generous welfare system. 

Really -- this is what they tell us -- we should welcome the 1000s of Afghans who are being settled amongst us right now. It's the Christian thing to do, eh. Hmmm, somehow that doesn't sound quite right.

VIDEO: Wm. F. Buckley talks with Ian Smith, Prime Minister of Rhodesia

Regular readers of WWW will know that I have an abiding interest in Zimbabwe, a dictatorship in southern Africa which went from being the second-most prosperous on the Dark Continent to what Still-President Trump would now call a "shithole".

I lived and worked in Zimbabwe in the 90s, and could see the handwriting on the wall after the former Big Man, Robert Gabriel Mugabe, decided to pay all his "war veterans" gratuities of Z$50,000 each after they had staged a series of protests, claiming that they had not received the "benefits" of their revolt against the "white settler regime", viz: white cars, white houses and white women.

The unbudgeted payouts saw the Zimbabwe dollar lose its value by 70% in one day -- I remember it well -- and analysts say the move signalled Zimbabwe's well-documented economic collapse. Banknotes were issued in denominations of billions and even trillions of dollars and were literally not worth the paper they were printed on.

The Mugabe government abandoned the "Zimkwacha" because of hyperinflation in 2009 -- 1 US dollar was worth around Z$35 quadrillion at the time -- and started using American dollars and South African rand. 

But I digress. I was about to tell you that when I first went to Africa, there was no Zimbabwe. The country was then known as Rhodesia, a former British colony which declared its independence from No-longer-great Britain on 11 November 1965. I went there about four years later, over five years before William F. Buckley Jr. went there to record this interview with Prime Minister Ian Smith. 

I went to Rhodesia on a fact-finding mission, to see for myself whether the Africans (by which was meant "blacks") were so badly off under white minority rule as was argued by the "progressives" at the United Nations, the World Council of Churches and elsewhere. I concluded that it would be a mistake -- detrimental to the well-being of the Africans -- to overthrow the "white settler government" and impose "majority rule". But it was clear even then, in 1969, that the mistake was going to be made, in the name of "freedom and equality, yada yada yada. The mistake was made, and the result is the shithole that is Zimbabwe today. 

In this interview, recorded in April of 1974, Ian Smith makes the case for the continuation of minority rule until the majority population should be ready to govern themselves. Mr Smith was right, but of course that doesn't matter now, does it. 

One thing to note, at about the 38-minute mark, is that Mr Smith asserts that the black revolutionaries were financed and trained by Communist China. Of course today's China would never do that kind of thing.

Further viewing: Thames Television documentary visit to Rhodesia, June 1975. Includes interview with Ian Smith.  

Identity of The Hague attacker revealed - not a Mohammed

Walt is pleased to welcome back (after a long absence) Agent 69, who helps us keep on top of the news from the Islamic States of Europe. [Be careful. I don't think that's been officially announced yet! Ed.] He speaks Dutch and has verified and amplified the comment added to the comment appended to "Allahu akbar! in London... now The Hague too!" (WWW 29/11/19), in which the attacker who stabbed three people in The Hague was described as "licht vertint". Here's Agent 69's report.

"Licht vertint" is a term used by the police when they mean "black as the night". And usually "North African descent" means Muslim. But in the case of The Hague it turned out it wasn't a Muslim, but a psychologically disturbed tramp who looked dark because he hadn't washed for weeks. You could probably smell him from 200 meters away! Police don't yet have any idea why he did what he did.

A few weeks ago the head of a national assistance unit said that we should stop with this bullshit and acknowledge that most crimes are committed by dark people and the children born here from Muslims parents. You can probably guess what happened: all political parties were shocked and bewildered. Not because he told what we all know for years already, but because he said it out loud! As head of a important police unit he should know better.

VIDEO: Undefended border with Canada threatens both countries

For many months now, Walt has been reporting on the problems at the World's Longest Undefended Border (TM), particularly at St-Bernard-de-Lacolle QC, where 10s of 1000s of "refugees" from the USA (!) have crossed illegally into the Great No-longer-white North following Canuck Prime Minister Trudeau's infamous tweet in which he offered asylum to anyone, anyone fleeing the horros of Trump's Amerika. No questions asked. Welcome to Canuckistan. See "True stories from the US-Canada border", WWW 11/2/17 and "Canucks ask US Homeland Security to help turn back border jumpers", WWW 23/10/17.

Those stories have focused on the problems caused by the lack of border controls on the Canadian side. A particularly egregious example is the true story of Abdullahi Hashi Farah, a follower of the Prophet Mohammed who came to the USA as a refugee only to commit numerous criminal acts. American authorities would like to arrest and (maybe) deport him, so he did the logical thing and refugeed right quick to Canada, where he was arrested and released three times because he was honest enough to declare that he was in trouble in the USA. See "Somali gangsta enters Canada illegally, allowed to stay 'because he was honest'", WWW 14/12/18, includes video.

But the ever-increasing tide of terrorists and criminals runs in both directions, and at least some American lawmakers have started to notice. Last week, the incoming chair of the House Homeland Security Oversight and Management Efficiency Subcommittee, Rep. Lou Correa (D-CA), said that President Trump's focus on the US-Mexico border is leaving unaddressed threats from America's northern border. In an interview with CTV's Richard Madan, Mr Correa said that, because personnel and resources are being diverted to the southern border, the northern border is "totally wide open". Here's the report from CTV News.



"Big swaths of area between Canada and the U.S. -- nobody watching," said Mr Correa. "A lot of negative things go in and out: drug trade, arms trade, things that happen on the northern border that nobody's watching. And it's happening now." He said he had been warned by a US border agent that the Canadians were being complacent, worrying only about the bogus refugee claimants coming into their country from the the USA.

In its "Northern Border Strategy", the Department of Homeland Security said the biggest threat from Canada was the illicit drug trade. It also warned of terror threats "from homegrown violent extremists [Not Islamists, surely! Ed.] in Canada who are not included in the American government's consolidated terrorist watch list and could therefore enter the United States legally at Northern Border ports of entry...without suspicion."

Rep. Correa's accusations aren't new. At a hearing of the same committe back in November of 2017, Rep. John Katko (R-NY) warned that several facilities on the American side of the border, including crossings at Niagara Falls NY and Champlain NY, have been "woefully neglected". A sign at one border crossing shows there are "200 vacancies" for Border Patrol agents at the Canadian border.

For want of adequate manpower to do proper inspections and vetting, Islamic terrorists and criminals of all religions can slip the great undefended border without detection. "We have to recognize the northern border is a threat just like the southern border," he said, "and I would argue that because of lack of attention it is more than a threat."

VIDEO: "The more Muslims you have, the more terrorists" (Mark Steyn)

Mark Steyn has been all but invisible this past summer, working on a project about which he promises to reveal more later. He surfaced this week on Bill O'Reilly's show, talking about freedom of speech and Muslim terrorists. Only 3:19.



Want more? If you're up for nearly two hours of Mr Steyn filling in for Rush Limbaugh (16/9/16), click here to listen. Find out who really started the "birther" thing! Hear Mark's take on Hellery's "medical episode" -- "She went down faster than Monica!"

UK boy did NOT live in "terrorist house" after all

Inspector Knacker of the Lancashire Constabulary confirmed today that his force has completed its investigation of an unnamed Muslim boy [perhaps "Mohammed" Something-or-other? Ed.] who had written in a school assignment that he lived in a "terrorist house".

Teachers at the 10-year-old's school had notified Authorities not because of Islamophobia, but in compliance with a law requiring schools to report any possible "links to extremism" observed in their pupils. The Peelers responded by sending an officer along with a social worker to visit the boy's home in Accrington. They found that the boy actually lived in a "terraced house" -- British English for a row house. Another case of the inability to spell correctly all too common in 21st century edjumakashun.

"There were not thought to be any areas for concern," Inspector Knacker reported, "and no further action was required by any agency." Case closed. That's good police work, boys!

Don't tell us the San Bernardino massacre isn't the work of terrorists!

I started writing this about 1 PM yesterday, watching (on CBS-TV) the live coverage of the "incident" in San Bernardino CA. 14 innocent civilians killed, 17 wounded. By whom? By one crazy "lone wolf" with some kind of hatred for "developmentally disabled" people or civil servants? Or???

One eyewitness said that from her office window she saw three (3) attackers, dressed from head to toe in black, carrying "long guns" (the police chief's description) and extra ammunition. She wasn't sure, but had the impression the shooters were white, athletically built, and though that, while two were men, one might have been a man or a woman -- hard to tell, in the heat of the moment.

In the first presser, shortly after 2 PM, the San Berdoo police chief carefully avoided the use of words like "terrorists" or "terrorism" or "Muslims", In response to questions, he would only say that the authorities had no idea of what the motive might have been, and "weren't ruling out" terrorism.

Before we lift the veil from the identity of the two "suspects" (out of three) who have now been killed, let's consider the attacks on innocent civilians perpetrated in Paris not so long ago.

On 7 January 2015, two men dressed in black, carrying assault rifles and other weapons, forced their way into the Paris office of the French satirical weekly newspaper Charlie Hebdo They killed 11 people and injured 11 others in the building, then killed a French police officer outside the building as they fled, shouting "Allahu akbar!" Another 5 people were killed and 11 wounded in related attacks in the Île-de-France region around Paris. The gunmen, Saïd and Chérif Kouachi, identified themselves as belonging to Al-Qaeda's branch in Yemen.

On the 13th of last month, masked men dressed in black, carrying assault rifles, IEDs and other weapons, staged a series of coordinated terrorist attacks in Paris and its northern suburbs. Three suicide bombers struck near the Stade de France in Saint-Denis. Cries of "Allahu akbar!" were heard again, as this attack was followed by suicide bombings and mass shootings at cafés, restaurants and the Bataclan music hall in Paris proper.

The Islamic terrorists -- for that's what they were -- killed 130 people, including 89 at the Bataclan, where they took hostages before engaging in a stand-off with police. There were 368 injuries, almost 100 of them serious. Seven of the jihadists also died. The ringleader is still at large, believed to be with ISIS in Syria.

ISIS claimed responsibility for the attacks, saying it was in retaliation for the French airstrikes on IS targets in Syria and Iraq. French President François Hollande said the attacks were an act of war, and called for swift and terrible retaliation. See "War begets terrorism begets war begets terrorism... etc" (WWW 3/12/15)

Now, let's examine again the mass shooting perpetrated in San Bernardino yesterday. Three attackers, dressed in black, carrying "long guns" (= assault rifles), burst into a crowded conference hall where the San Bernardino County Public Health Department was holding its annual Christmas party. According to witnesses, they didn't say or yell anything, just opened fire on all and sundry, killing 14, wounding 17.

Who could or would do such a thing? Would it be
(a) crazy people
(b) a disgruntled civil servant who "went postal"
(c) Muslims
(d) terrorists
(e) some of the above
(e) all of the above
While Ed. is tabulating your response, Walt will tell you what we now know.

Around 4 PM yesterday, two bodies were pulled out of a black SUV which had been riddled with gunfire in a scene reminiscent of the finale to Bonnie and Clyde. They were clothed in black, and were wearing body armor. They were Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik. The late Mr. Farook was born in Illinois, of parents who had immigrated from Pakistan.

According to Canadian Press, Mr. Farook went to Saudi Arabia for about a month this past spring. About a month after he returned to the USA, he was joined by Ms Malik, whom he described as a pharmacist and introduced as his wife.

Why did Mr. Farook and his wife do it? We can't ask them because the police, in time-honoured American fashion, decided to exterminate them first and ask questions... well, not at all. All we know is that Mr. Farook joined his colleagues -- he worked for the County Public Health Dept. -- at the party, but, after staying only a short while, stormed out following some kind of dispute. He returned with his wife, both dressed in tactical gear and carrying assault rifles. You know the rest of the story.

The level of preparation -- they brought extra ammunition and also had pipe bombs in the SUB -- is one of the factors investigators are weighing as they examine a motive for the attack. San Bernardino Police Chief Jarrod Burguan told an evening news conference that the attack did not seem to be "a spur-of-the-moment thing". Great police work there, chief!

Also unanswered is the question of what happened to the third shooter... if there was a third shooter. If the police (and the sheriff, TSA, FBI, CIA, and dogcatcher) can identify and locate him (or her), will they kill him (or her) too? Why would they do that? Surely it wouldn't be to keep us from knowing that the attack had something to do with the jihad being waged against us. As the Prez sez, there's no such thing as Islamic terrorism... is there?

Footnote: The correct answer to our quiz is (e).

African terrorists kidnapping schoolkids - 1973 version

In "Nigerian schoolgirls: we've seen this movie before -- literally!", I said the saga of the kidnapping of nearly 300 schoolgirls by Boko Haram -- did I mention they're militant Islamists? -- reminded me of an incident depicted in The Gods Must Be Crazy.

Agent 3, who lived in that part of the world for some years, tells me I could have done much better. The plot of the 1980 movie, he says, drew heavily on an actual kidnapping on the night of 5 July 1973. ZANLA terrorists fighting for the "liberation" of Rhodesia abducted 292
people -- almost the same number as were taken in Nigeria -- mainly children, from St. Albert’s Mission near Centenary.

Click here to read the Wikipedia article on the Rhodesian Bush War. Under what the black terrorists called the "white settler regime", Rhodesia was the second-most prosperous country in sub-Saharan Africa, after the Republic of South Africa, which coincidentally was also run by the white minority. Many Rhodesians were concerned that "majority rule" would bring chaos, as resulted when the Belgian Congo was decolonized in 1960.

The Bush War involved counter-insurgency operations by the Rhodesian Security Forces against two rival terrorist gangs, the Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army (ZANLA) and the Zimbabwe People's Revolutionary Army (ZIPRA). In July 1973, ZANLA cadres, trained and supported by the Maoist Frelimo forces in Mozambique, attacked the school at St. Albert's Mission between Centenary and Mount Darwin in July 1973 and abducted 292 pupils and staff, whom they force-marched north into the Zambezi valley towards their base in Mozambique. This true story is almost exactly that told in The Gods Must be Crazy.

The terrorists were intercepted by the Rhodesian Security Forces, albeit without the assistance of the movie's bumbling but brave biologist. All but eight of the children and staff were recovered. Similar abductions were repeated over the following years and the security forces found themselves increasingly unable to prevent them.

The captured schoolchildren would be marched to ZANLA bases in Mozambique where they would undergo "political 're-education'" and guerrilla training. No mention is made of the girls being forced into marriage with the guerrillas, or worse, but unlike in Nigeria, the ZANLA terrorists were not Islamic fundamentalists.

Further reading: The St. Albert's Mission kidnapping is mentioned along with other incidents which occurred in Rhodesia in the months of July, 1890 through 1978, in the July 2013 edition of Contact! Contact!, a publication of the Rhodesian Services Association Inc. The online newsletter has all kinds of interesting factoids, photos, and Rhodie stuff for sale, so if you (like Agent 3) have some connection with the great country that has now become the far-from-great Zimbabwe, check it out.

9/11: US version of the Reichstag Fire? What about MH370?

The Reichstag was the German parliament in the 1930s. The name also referred to the building which housed it. On 27 February 1933 the building was destroyed by an arson attack. Like subsequent events which changed history, it was initially blamed on "just one man, acting alone" -- Marinus van der Lubbe, a somewhat retarded Dutch bricklayer who was caught at the scene. He was also a card-carrying Communist. Thus the Nazis were able to claim that the Communists were plotting against the German government, which was true enough but hadn't been confirmed by any overt acts until then.

The burning of the Reichstag was a turning point in the rise of Nazi Germany. Hitler, who had become Chancellor of Germany just four weeks before the fire, talked President Paul von Hindenburg into passing an emergency decree to suspend civil liberties in order to counter the "ruthless confrontation of the Communist Party of Germany".

After passing the decree, the government instituted mass arrests of Communists, including all of the Communist parliamentary delegates. With their bitter rival Communists gone and their seats empty, the Nazis went from being a plurality party to the majority. Subsequent elections confirmed this position and thus allowed Hitler to establish his Third Reich.

Some historians suggest that the Mr van der Lubbe, a mildly retarded and suggestible person, was put up to the arson by the Nazis themselves, as what is now called a "false flag" operation. It's a movie which the world would see again... and again...

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is one of many groups of "truthers" who believe that the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 on 11 September 2001 was caused by a controlled demolition. (The official investigation says falling debris from the nearby Twin Towers ignited fires in Building 7 and ultimately caused its collapse.)

One of AE911's members, architect Richard Gage, is on a speaking tour, "raising a red flag" (his phrase) not just in the USA but in Canada. "We're not trying to upset anybody," says the self-styled patriotic American, [but] "if there’s any question about what happened on 9/11, which created two wars and the loss of our civil liberties and massive economic hardship...then we’ve got to get to a real investigation and answer these questions."

Who would have been behind this controlled demolition and perhaps the whole 9/11 outrage? Fingers were naturally pointed at Muslim terrorists. But there were those -- including the creators of South Park-- who painted a different picture. Could it not have been the government of Bush the younger, seeking to create a "casus belli" as an excuse to start Desert Storm II and create a police state in America?

Consider what followed in the aftermath of 9/11:
- legislation like the Patriot Act in the USA (and similar "security" laws in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere)
- a de facto police state where the power of the military and "security forces" is unquestioned
- the drastic curtailment of the freedoms we used to take for granted: to bear arms, to criticize the government, to travel in our countries
- the invasion and brutal occupation of Afghanistan by NATO of Iraq and Afghanistan, and
- a resurgence of American imperialism in the guise of being the world's policeman.

Suggested reading: "Too Many Years Of Lies: From Mossadeq to 9/11" by Paul Craig Roberts, author of How America Was Lost: From 9/11 to the Police/Warfare State (just released) and The Tyranny of Good Intentions.

Which brings us to MH370, still unaccounted for as the guesses and theories multiply. The words "Muslims" and "terrorism" are on the tips of many tongues.

The pilot and co-pilot of the ill-fated plane were Muslims. (Malaysia is a predominantly Muslim country.) MH370 might have been hijacked by Uighur (Muslim) terrorists as part of an attack on China. (Unlikely, but who knows.) Or the Taliban or al-Qaeda might have diverted the plane to a secret airstrip to turn it into a giant flying bomb!

Nothing can be ruled out! For Walt, "nothing" includes the possibility that the American military may have diverted MH370 to a location they control, like Diego Garcia, which should have been within range.

Why would they do this? To divert attention from the failure of Obama's foreign policy in the Crimea? Or -- far worse -- to set that stage for a catastrophe in Afghanistan -- not a long flight from Diego Garcia -- which would "require" the Americans to stay in the sandpit for another couple of years, even if the Afghans don't want them there. You read it here first.

See also: MH370: Three guesses from Walt

A good reason to ban the burqa

Meet Mohammed Ahmed Mohamed [One 'm' or two? Ed.], a suspected terrorist. Mr. Mohamed, who has been linked to the Somali militant group al-Shabaab, was subject to a "TPim" (Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures) order, aimed at protecting the British public from people believed to have engaged in terrorism-related activity but who it is not deemed feasible to prosecute or deport.

That shows you the British respect for justice and fair play and all that rot. In China this guy would have been shot! (They're not crazy about Muslim extremists there, you know.) In the USA he'd have been locked up, maybe at Gitmo. But in the UK all he had to do was promise to be a good boy and not blow himself to Paradise in the middle of a crowded street. Oh yeah, he had to wear a GPS tag too.

You probably can't see the GPS tag in the middle and right pix. Perhaps Mohammed Mohamed wasn't wearing it. Hard to tell. In fact it's hard to tell if the person in those pix is really Mr. Mohamed, or even someone of the male gender. That's the problem with the burqa, you see...or, rather, you don't see.

Neither did the London police. They believe now that Mr. Mohamed went to the An-Noor Masjid and Community Centre -- that's what they call a mosque when they don't want to upset people -- on Friday morning, and was seen inside around 3 p.m. (Ironically, the mosque is located on Church Road in Acton, one of the darker parts of London.) Sometime thereafter he walked out the door, clad in the full burqa as seen in the surveillance pix, and promptly disappeared. Kind of a Muslim variant on the old Hindu rope trick.

Mr. Mohamed is now "at large", as the saying goes. But he's probably not a threat to the public peace, since, after all, he is bound by the TPim, and faces restrictions on travel, movement, association and communication. So that's all right, then.

Further reading: Apparently some of the ink-stained wretches that pass themselves off as journalists haven't read "Hijab, niqab, burqa -- what's the difference?", since some reports say Mr. Mohamed was wearing a niqab. No, you culturally illiterate clods! The "full Mohammed" is a burqa!

Kenya: a lot of damage for only 4 terrorists

New estimates of the death toll in the terrorist attack on a Nairobi shopping mall keep coming in. The Kenyan government -- whose president is awaiting trial in the International Criminal Court -- says there might be another 4 bodies left in the rubble. Or maybe 6. The Red Cross says there are three dozen (or so) still missing. As with most things in Africa, who knows?

Another interesting number has leaked out this week. Reviews of extensive CCTV footage suggests that there were fewer al-Shabaab terrorists than the Kenyan army claimed. It is now believed that the Islamic extremists numbered four. That's 4 -- count `em, FOUR!

Which begs the question, how could four crazed Muslims cause so much damage? You've likely seen video clips showing a huge crater which used to be the centre of the Westgate Mall, apparently destroyed by the explosion of several RPGs. The grenades seem to have been fired by, errr, "rescuers" from the Kenyan army. How many bodies are buried in the rubble is as yet unknown.

Other videos seen in this report from the Sydney Morning Herald, show a horrendous amount of looting -- much more than could have been perpetrated by four crazed Muslims who were probably already dead. Mannequins were stripped clean, jewellery cases smashed, racks of expensive suits carted off, and dozens of cash registers cracked open. At least one member of the Kenyan "security services" was arrested, caught with a bloody wallet.

According to the paper, the looting appeared to have the scope and organisation of a large-scale military operation, and many Kenyans are speculating that it was just that. From the first hours after Islamist militants burst into the mall on September 21 until a week later, when shopkeepers were let back in to sweep up the broken glass, very few people were allowed inside the mall except the Kenyan security forces, mainly the army.

More and more Kenyans believe those soldiers methodically cleaned out the mall, and that the barrages of gunfire ringing out for days were being directed not at the last of the militants but at safes and padlocks to blast them open. Some business leaders even question whether the Kenyan army deliberately prolonged the crisis by saying shooters were still in the building when they were actually dead, to give themselves extra time to steal.

Witnesses said that the most they saw militants loot was a couple cans of soda, and shopkeepers cited no instances of panicked shoppers helping themselves to merchandise as they ran for their lives, leading to the widespread conclusion that the security forces must have been involved.

The Herald reports, rightly, that Kenyans are accustomed to corruption. Corruption is the norm in sub-Saharan Africa, and Kenya is consistently rated as one of the worst of the worst.

And there's a second payoff for Kenya. Western governments, still suffering pangs of white liberal guilt, are falling all over themselves to send millions of your tax dollars to Kenya's corrupt government and thuggish military. It's all about fighting terrorism, they say. But who are the terrorists? Will Western aid and intervention succeed in making Africa a safe and better place to live? Walt says there are two chances -- slim and none.

Thanks to Agent 17 for sending along the report from the Antipodes.

Highly recommended reading: The Africans, by David Lamb. Vintage Books, 1987.

"Kaffirs!" Muslim extremists ARE out to get you!

Those who know (or think they know) something of the history and culture of South Africa may think that "kaffir" was an Afrikaans derogatory term for blacks -- like the N-word in the USA. In fact, it's a much older Arabic word for a non-believer, someone who is not a follower of the Prophet Muhammad. That's what the Muslim terrorists call the rest of us.

The politically correct apologists for al-Shabaab, the armed Somali Islamic extremist group that attacked a shopping mall in Kenya, are up in arms [Bad rib! Ed.] over portrayals of the terrorists as, errr, Islamic extremists out to murder non-believers. Some lamestream pundits are saying that, oh noooo, they're just Somali patriots fighting against the evil Kenyans who've invaded their homeland.

Well, that's not what the Islamic extremists themselves are saying. In an e-mail exchange with Associated Press, reported today in HuffPost, a spokesthingy for al-Shabaab said that foreigners were a "legitimate target" and confirmed witness accounts that gunmen tried to let Muslims go free while killing or taking the others captive.

AP quotes the terrorists as saying "The Mujahideen carried out a meticulous vetting process at the mall and have taken every possible precaution to separate the Muslims from the kaffirs before carrying out their attack."

Eye-witnesses have said the gunmen rounded up people, asked questions about Islam that only a Muslim would know how to answer, and told the Muslims to leave the mall. Out of 72 dead counted so far, at least 18 were foreigners, including six Brits, and nationals of France, Canada, Trinidad, the Netherlands, Australia, Peru, India, Ghana, South Africa and China. The current death toll is 67 and is likely to climb with uncounted bodies remaining in the rubble of the Nairobi mall.

Walt's advice to fellow kaffirs: don't go to Kenya or Egypt or Syria or [Ed., please insert another dozen or so north African and Middle Eastern countries]. Stay somewhere safe, where there are no Muslim terrorists. Like, say, Boston. [Ed., maybe that wasn't a good choice. Please insert name of a country or city where there's no threat from the jihadists.]

Open season on Christians: latest from Kenya and Pakistan

For those keeping score, the latest death toll in attacks by Islamic extremists [Is there any other kind? Ed.] reported here this morning is: 68 dead in Kenya, 78 in Pakistan. But the fat lady hasn't sung yet in Kenya, where some of the Somali terrorists are still lurking in the shopping mall. It's possible they're hiding amongst the pork carcasses in the butchery, where they figure the Israeli SWAT team won't be looking.

Cutting back to Pakistan, the two Taliban suicide bombers strapped to themselves packs of ball bearings and scrap iron, so the amount of shrapnel flying around was horrendous and the number of injured is said to be in the hundreds. In Kenya, the official count of injured stands at 175, with many expected to move into the "deceased" column. Death tolls in both countries will certainly rise.

Recommended reading: "It’s open season on Christians in Syria and across the Muslim world", by Matthew Fisher, in today's National Post.

No rivers of blood in streets of London... yet

Back in 1960, then-British Prime Minister Harold Macmillan made a speech to the Parliament of South Africa, which was quickly dubbed "the Wind of Change Speech". The theme was that independence was going to come to the British colonies in Africa and the rest of the world sooner rather than later. It was idle to stand up against the wind which was blowing, he told the recalcitrant (white) South Africans, so we might as well embrace the changes to our society which would surely follow.

As part of his government's "adjustment" to the new world of equality and diversity, the doors of Great Britain were opened wide to immigrants of any colour from any British colony. If you held a British passport -- to which people born in the colonies were entitled, at that time -- you were welcome to come and live in the mother country. And to no-one's surprise (except possibly Mr. Macmillan's), that's exactly what they did.

One of those who was not surprised was Enoch Powell, like Mr. Macmillan a Conservative Member of Parliament. After watching boatloads and planeloads of immigrants arrive from places like Jamaica, Pakistan and Nigeria, Mr. Powell made a dire prediction in what came to be called "the Rivers of Blood Speech". The gist of it was, as the name suggests, that unrestricted immigration from countries and cultures so foreign to that of Britain could only lead to social unrest and worse.

Mr. Powell said that Britain would rue the day when it opened the doors to 1000s of third-world immigrants who would not or could not be assimilated into British society. His speech included the line, "As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see 'the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'" He did not actually use the phrase "rivers of blood", but the prediction was well enough understood.

This week Britons saw that, even taken literally, Mr. Powell was not far wrong.



The blood of a British soldier is not exactly "much", but there's certainly enough of it -- on the pavement, and on the hands, knife and meat cleaver wielded by his killers.

The two terrorists shot by police at the scene (in Woolwich, a part of London) were identified as "born in Britain, of Nigerian heritage". Like the Boston Marathon bombers, the murderers' families came to a new country, far from their impoverished homeland, and took advantage of the education and opportunities they were generously given by a guilt-ridden white Christian society.

Their response? To convert to "the religion of peace" (the PC term for Islam) and bite the hand that fed them. No, not "bite". More like "cut off", and worse. And yet politicians and "progressive thinkers" express surprise that such a thing could happen in a country which not only accepts but encourages multiculturalism and diversity. What they can't say is that they weren't warned!

The friend of mine enemy is likewise mine enemy

The Boston Marathon bombing has provoked a fit of "terrorist target envy" in the Great White North. Canada's Prime Minister, "Call me Steve" Harper, is seriously vexed. He and his bumboy John "Nancy" Baird have been so vocal in their attacks on the enemies of Israel, yet the Islamic extremists keep targetting the Excited States of America. Tain't fair!

Sergeant Dudley Dooright of the RCMP and Col. Beau Gosse of CSIS (Canada's feckless "intelligence" agency) were duly summoned to Ottawa and told they'd better discover ["manufacture", surely. Ed.] some kind of Islamic fundamentalist threat to the Land of the Maple Leaf and Home of the Bieber right sharpish.

Right on cue, Canuck police and intelligence services arrested two men with beards yesterday, accusing them of plotting to attack a VIA Rail passenger train "with the intention of inflicting mass casualities and causing terror on Canadian soil". All this with the "direction and guidance" of "al-Qaeda elements in Iran", of course.

"Had this plot been carried out, it would have resulted in people being killed or seriously injured," a Mounted Police spokesthingy told the press yesterday. He was apparently referring to VIA's passengers -- Tyler and Tracy Luney of Pickering ON -- and innocent people passing the train on bicycles and skateboards.

The RCMP said the suspects had scouted railroads in the Toronto area as part of their preparations. The pair had been under investigation for an extended period of time and investigators said they were ready to act if they went into action. [I know it's early, but can you try to write more coherently? Ed.]

The Mounties also said that the suspects "are not Canadian citizens". Doubtless someone -- perhaps Immigration Minister Jason Kenney -- knows where they came from and how they got into Canada, but this information has, errr, not been forthcoming.

Yesterday's arrests come at an auspicious time for the Harpoon government, as Canada's House of Commons gets set to debate a bill that would strengthen Canada's anti-terrorism laws.

The timing of the debate is more than a little suspect. The "new" bill S-7, which will authorize such things as arrest without trial, was introduced in Canada's Senate a year ago. That august body (Hello, Senator Puffy!) gave it some quasi-sober thought and sent it to the Commons, errr, four months ago.

Why the sudden urgency to proceed with it now? Well, Monday was supposed to be an "opposition day" on which newly-crowned Liberal leader Justin Trudeau was to introduce a motion to limit the powers of the party whips to control which MPs could speak and on what issues. Since the governing Conservatives are grappling with a backbench rebellion on that very issue, the draconian anti-terrorism bill suddenly took priority.

Speaking from behind his moustache, Canada's Public Safety Minister Vic Toews averred that, "Today's arrest shows that terrorism continues to be a real threat to Canada. The success...is due to the fact that Canada works very closely with its international partners to combat terrorism."

Walt says it's the "international partners" that are the problem. The threat of terrorist attacks on Canada and Canadians increases proportionately as the Harper government's support of Zionism and American adventurism in the Middle East. If, when al-Qaeda and other Islamic extremists point their guns at the USA, Canada is standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Uncle Sam [and Uncle Bibi. Ed.], Canada is bound to get hit. Call it "collateral damage".

Further reading: "Don't call in an air strike just yet!" (WWW 19/4/13) and "Walt's solution to the threat of terrorism" (WWW 16/4/13).

What should be done with killers like the Tsarnaevs?

Tamerlan Tsarnaev is dead, killed in a shootout with Boston police about 36 hours ago. The elder of the two terrorist brothers was named for the infamous "Tamerlane", a vicious conqueror who razed ancient cities to the ground and put entire populations to the sword. Tamerlan is the one who said "I don't have a single American friend. I don't understand them."

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger brother of Tamerlan, was apparently wounded in Thursday night's gun battle. He was discovered yesterday evening, hiding in a boat in someone's driveway. He is now in custody in a Boston hospital, where he is said to be in serious condition.

"Why did they do it?" -- assuming that they did do it -- has already been asked by everyone from Walt to the Prez and back again. If Dzokhar lives -- well, who knows? --  he will doubtless be asked that very question. Do not expect a particularly rational answer. Rather we may hear something along the lines of "I was mad at the world, so I decided to kill some Americans".

It may be that the two brothers "suffered" from anomie or alienation or weltschmerz or all of the above. It may also be that they were agents of a foreign power -- Russia, for instance -- or a foreign "religion of peace". They certainly didn't try very hard to cover their tracks or escape. Perhaps they were looking forward to martyrdom for Islam, and the delights of the 72 virgins awaiting them in the Muslim heaven.

But let's go with the first possibility -- that they were acting on their own for no better reason than dissatisfaction with their lives in the country that welcomed them as refugees and gave them the opportunity to get an education and a better life than they could ever have had in Kyrgystan or Dagestan or anywhere else in the miserable part of the world from which they came.

What should be done with someone who would commit a cowardly, dastardly and ultimately meaningless act of that nature? How about strapping a pressure cooker filled with shrapnel to his back and then...

1000s of voices will be raised -- Walt can hear them already -- calling for the reinstatement of the death penalty, at least for acts of terrorism. But was the Boston Marathon bombing an act of terrorism? Or just plain, senseless murder? Assuming the brothers Tsarnaev were not directed or controlled by outside forces, how is their crime any different from that of, say, Adam Lanza?

So Walt asks again, what is to be done with murderers? The Church teaches that we must follow the Sixth Commandment: Thou shalt not kill. What remains, then, is to remove murderers -- including terrorists -- from our society, not so much as punishment as for our protection and the (possible) deterrent effect on other killer wannabes.

Back in the 18th and 19th centuries, the British used to transport their worst offenders to Australia. The French gave their a one-way ticket to Devil's Island. Such places seemed so remote, in those days, that there was no way criminals could ever return to "civilization".

Do similar places of exile still exist? Well, Alaska has a lot of cold, empty space. And there are several flyspecks in the Pacific still under the flag of the USA. How about a nice trip to the South Seas for Mr. Tsarnaev? Maybe he wouldn't find 72 virgins there, but America would be rid of him.

Footnote: Walt hasn't forgotten about due process. Put Tsarnaev on trial before putting him on a slow boat to Guam.

Food for thought: Last week's Economist had an article, "Not dead yet", pointing out that the USA executed 43 criminals in 2012, less than half the number killed in 1999, when capital punishment peaked in America. Luckily for Adam Lanza, last April Connecticut became the 17th state to abolish the deah penalty.

More food for thought: Should America (and Britain and Canada) really be opening the doors to "refugees" from places like Chechnya, a part of the Middle East that has spawned decades of violence -- from separatist wars to suicide attacks, blood feuds and hostage sieges. See "How did Chechnya's culture of terror come to Boston?"

Don't call in an air strike just yet!

Events are moving so quickly in Boston that Walt has to get up earlier than usual to learn the latest. Could the FBI not manage to make arrests during the daylight hours so we could turn off the TV and get an uninterrupted 8 hours zzzzz?

OK, seriously, the breaking news is that the FBI, police et al. have shot one of two suspects in the Boston Marathon bombings -- "the one in the black hat" -- and are closing in on the other. These are (or were) the two backpack-toting men whose pictures were released yesterday afternoon.

It is not clear whether anyone has asked either of them any questions, but asking before shooting wouldn't be the American way, would it. Besides, as one blogger wrote yesterday, they look like the kind of people who would do that kind of thing!

And what kind of people would they be? Chechens, that's what kind. So that explains it. Oh, you don't know about Chechens? When they're at home, they occupy a tiny republic on the north border of Georgia. [The other Georgia -- the one in Asia. Ed.] The language they speak is Chechen [Well, DUH! Ed.]  And the religion of most Chechens is... wait for it... Islam.

Just as we assume (but will never know for sure) that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone when he shot JFK, let's assume (but will never know for sure) that these two Chechens were foreigners living in the USA and acted in concert to perpetrate the outrage at Boston. And let's assume they are (or were) Muslims. Why did they do it?!

The new leader of the Canada's Liberal Party, Justin Trudeau -- son of Himself -- may have read Walt's post of Tuesday, for he dared yesterday to express the view that there are lots of people, including native-born Americans, who have a bone to pick with the supremacist policies of the US government. He argued that the motives of the bombers needed to be understood and considered, for until their grievances -- real or imagined -- are addressed, America and Americans will continue to be the target of terrorists both overseas and right around home. (That's Walt's paraphrase, not M. Trudeau's actual words.)

Canada's Bully-in-Chief, Stephen Harper, begged to differ. [Oh c'mon. Harper would never beg! Ed.] Apparently Mr. Harpoon belongs to the George W. Bush school of (semi)thought. It doesn't matter who they are or why they did it, he said. Stand up for America, hit them hard and make them pay!

We should be thankful that Steve only heads the government of Canada, rather than a truly powerful nation, otherwise the B52s would likely be en route to Chechnya even as we speak. Walt trusts that Barack Hussein Obama will show a little more restraint. Perhaps he might even read Walt's analysis and have a little think about the unintended consequences of his dubious foreign policy.

"We don't know who did it, or why..."

The words of President Barack Hussein Obama in response to the Boston Marathon bombings, which the White House is calling "an act of terror". But why would "they" do that... to Americans??!! Walt will tell you why.

Let's assume that the bomber is not just one deranged Unabomber wannabe. There were two bombs, suggesting at least two terrorists acting in concert. And let's assume, from the somewhat lame and amateurish quality of the attacks, that they were amateurs, not professionals. Walt believe what we have, then, is an act of domestic terrorism with an international connection.

Putting it another way, if the identities of the bombers are ever learned, they'll likely turn out to be local Muslims acting in sympathy with their co-religionists in the Middle East and Africa. Lifetime pct .980.

Most of the ROTW (Rest Of The World) hates Americans, but none more so than the Muslims of Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Palestine, Jordan, Iraq, Iran [That's enough. Ed.] Why? It's not just envy of America's riches. Other countries -- Norway for instance -- enjoy larger per capita incomes and better standards of living. But you don't see the Islamic extremists targetting Norwegians.

Walt suggests that the main reason why Muslims -- especially the Islamic fundamentalists -- hate Americans is because the government of the USA keeps trying to impose its versions of democracy, justice, "culture" and the other blessings of the American way of life on the Islamic society which rejects those ideals.

Worse, America keeps trying to extend its economic and cultural empire by force of arms. The USA keeps on bullying and attacking smaller and weaker countries -- every country other than Russia and China -- whose politics or social systems it disagrees with: Vietnam, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Libya [That's enough. Ed.], yet Americans wonder why they are hated. 

Three Americans were killed yesterday, and the Prez promises those responsible will be brought to "justice". But just over a year, an American soldier decided to shoot up an Afghan village, for target practice or just for the hell of it. 16 Afghans, including women and children, were killed. Has he been brought to justice yet?

It seems to the ROTW that Americans regard non-Americans as some lesser form of life. If Americans kill unarmed civilians -- men, women and children -- in large numbers, it really doesn't matter, as long as they're foreigners, like "gooks" (Vietnam) or "towel-heads" (the Middle East).

Just one (particularly egregious) example of American disregard for others. This is taken from the chapter headed "Friend or Foe" in Christopher Dickey's recommendable book Expats: Travels in Arabia from Tripoli to Teheran (Atlantic Monthly Press, 1990).

Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian airliner, an A300B2, flying from Bandar Abbas, Iran to Dubai on 3 July 1988. That's a 140-mile, 35-minute milk run. Conditions in the Gulf were such, at the time, that civilian aircraft were restricted to a 20-mile-wide commercial air corridor, within Iranian airspace. Flight 655 was flying right down the middle of that airway, at the correct height and in the approved manner, when it was shot down by a guided missile fired from the US Navy cruiser Vincennes.

All 290 on board including 66 children perished -- the highest death toll of any aviation incident in the Indian Ocean, and the ninth-deadliest disasters in aviation history. The ensuing enquiry determined that the crew of the Vincennes somehow mistook the jumbo jet, which was climbing, for a much smaller F14 Tomcat fighter diving to attack them.

The commander of the Vincennes was exonerated. American investigators -- Iranians had no say in the matter -- recommended that one junior officer receive a "nonpunitive letter of censure", the mildest reprimand in the US military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the US Secretary of Defense rejected that recommendation. Officially, no-one was to blame.

Dickey quotes Iranian Brigadier General Mansour Satary (who was trained in the USA) as saying that he didn't think the Americans actually intended to shoot down an unarmed civilian aircraft. They just didn't care enough to be careful enough not to do it.

It is that attitude -- that nothing matters except the security and prosperity of America -- that rankles the ROTW. It makes the ROTW feel threatened and insecure. In Walt's opinion, the goal of the terrorists is to make Americans feel equally threatened and insecure. As well they might.

If you can't go Dutch, go Chinese! But go carefully...

In "Go Dutch!", posted yesterday, Walt rehashed [What an admission! Ed.] a story from June 2011 on the Dutch government's plan to end its disastrous experiment with official multiculturalism. Specifically, they want to put a stop to the growth of a Muslim "parallel society" in the Netherlands. As of January 2013 Muslims who immigrate to the Netherlands are supposed to fit in or ship out.

The usual gang of "progressive thinkers" and celebrants of diversity denounced the new Dutch legislation when it was introduced and every day since then, but, as far as I know, the Dutch are not going to back down. Stubborn people, they are. But we wait (so far in vain) for other western governments to follow suit instead of following burqa.

Perhaps western governments should look for guidance and inspiration to that model of freedom and enlightenment, Communist China. Religious freedom is enshrined in the constitution of the People's Republic. Yes, the Chinese are perfectly free to believe whatever they like, and practise their religious beliefs as they see fit... subject to government approval of course. And provided you're not, errr, a Muslim.

You might think Muslims would be pretty thin on the ground in China, but in the western province of Xinjiang they are (just barely) a majority. Xinjiang, which constitutes 1/6 of the total area of China, was formerly known as Eastern Turkestan, because it was inhabited mainly by Turkic and Mongolian peoples. The largest "minority group" in the province are its nine million Uighurs, nearly all of them Muslims.

A couple of weeks ago, as the Muslim month of Ramadan approached, an edict was issued by Xinjiang's local and regional governments, prohibiting students, teachers, "officials" (including retirees) and all Communist Party members from taking part in religious activities, including visits to mosques and fasting during daylight hours as Islam requires.

The discouragement of Muslim practices in Xinjiang is presented as a matter of social stability and security. Believe it or not, the Chinese think that some of their Muslim citizens could be "separatists" or, worse yet, terrorists! Why some of them might even favour violent resistance to the Communist government, as has occurred in the neighbouring provinces of Qinghai and occupied Tibet.

Certain awkward questions arise. Can there be limits of freedom of religious expression? How much tolerance of pluralism and diversity is too much? Is forbidding the peaceful, normal religious practices of Muslims or Jews... or Christians... not contrary to the principles of freedom and natural justice for which millions have died?

Let me cut a little closer to the bone. If Muslims are to be prevented from praying in the street, does it make any difference whether the street is in Urumqi or Utrecht? Those of us who hold to the One True Faith do that Faith -- and ourselves -- no good service by insisting on religious freedom for ourselves but not for others.

If you wish to learn more about Xinjiang and the oppression of the Uighurs and other "minorities" by the Han Chinese, Walt recommends Wild West China: the Untold Storyof a Frontier Land, by Christian Tyler (John Murray, London, 2003).

"Total war against Islam" taught at Pentagon... no longer

Walt has been wondering what possessed the American soldiers who burned copies of the Qu'ran, had themselves photographed pissing on corpses, or went on a killing spree offing 16 (or so) Afghans. Is this any way to win the hearts and minds of those benighted Muslims? What were they thinking?!

Turns out the idea of waging "total war" against the Afghans and all Muslims has been put into the troops' robotic minds by the Pentagon! BBC News reports that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was shocked and saddened to hear that the Joint Forces Staff College has been teaching that America’s enemy is Islam in general (not just terrorists) and suggesting that the USA might ultimately have to obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths.

Gen. Martin Dempsey said the course was "totally objectionable" and "against our values", and has now been suspended. That's "suspended" like the Santorum and Gingrich campaigns, not "cancelled". Certain training materials at the FBI have also been rewritten for being similarly politically incorrect.

The military now says that the teaching in the course, led by Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, was at odds with the government's repeated claims that the American war in Iraq and Afghanistan -- not forgetting Libya -- is against Islamic extremists. It's not a Christian crusade against Islam itself. As if Hussein Obama would be leading a Christian crusade!

Before we condemn Lt. Col. Dooley, let's hear a bit of what he was saying to his students. In a presentation last July at the Staff College, he said, "[The Muslims] hate everything you stand for and will never coexist with you, unless you submit."

He went on to say that, for the purposes of his theoretical war plan, the Geneva Conventions that set standards of armed conflict are "no longer relevant". "This," he added, " would leave open the option once again of taking war to a civilian population wherever necessary (the historical precedents of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, Nagasaki being applicable...)."

Lt. Col. Dooley's war plan suggested possible outcomes such as "Saudi Arabia threatened with starvation ... Islam reduced to cult status" and the Muslim holy cities of Mecca and Medina in Saudi Arabia "destroyed".

Pretty strong stuff. But wait a minute. Haven't we seen this movie before? Only with the characters reversed... Aren't the Muslims saying that we "Christians" are mounting a crusade, a holy war, against Islam? Aren't they calling on the faithful to wage jihad against us? Haven't they plotted to destroy our cities and holy places, just as they did in the Middle Ages? Is it not their wish...their prayer...to wipe the infidels (i.e. non-Muslims) off the face of the earth?

Where is Santiago Matamoros (St. James the Moor-slayer) when we need him?