Who is the imbecile: Rod Liddle or nutcase suicide bombers?
He's a sensitive guy really.
Truly I can’t decide. In his latest oeuvre, Mr Liddle is up to his usual tricks of being an insensitive twit and being wrong. All this in one tightly worded, badly proof-read package. This time it’s about people trying to blow themselves up, along with a plane full of passengers – everyone’s idea of a hoot, I’m sure. Though at least this time he’s not in danger of breaching the law with his shit-filled rhetoric.
How can we best help them, these angry young Muslim imbeciles who want us all dead, but are too thick to do anything about it?…The remarkable thing is that time after time these half-wits are foiled not by government driven security measures, or the perspicacity of our secret agents, but by their own forlorn IQs. Or might it be that Allah is trying to tell them something?
Religious bigotry aside for a moment, actually Liddle’s underpinning premise is factually mistaken. Both Richard Reid the Shoebomber and Abdul Farouk Umar Abdullah, both cited by Liddle as being too stupid to blow up their targets, were prevented from blowing up planes by the quick action of stewards and other passengers, including Jasper Schuringa, who risked his own safety to subdue the Nigerian syringe bomber.
Other examples given by Liddle, such as the 2007 Glasgow Airport bombers were prevented by official security measures, such as the concrete bollards which prevented the Cherokee jeep from being able to break through the front doors of the airport. Similarly, the people responsible didn’t ‘forget’ to set off the carbombs in London, days before the Glasgow attack. The bombs failed to go off, as bombs often do.
I’m sure there are examples of stupid bombers out there, but this is just badly researched swill, with the crass moral that we should support the terror of the Israeli Defence Forces because at least they can kill people efficiently, unlike Al-Qaeda, in the view of the article.
Nice to see that Liddle continues the finest commentariat traditions of attacking the good old British idea of just getting along though:
I suppose, in a spirit of diversity and tolerance, we could set up training camps somewhere in the Pennines suicidal Muslims could learn to blow themselves up and then, in a final, glorious coming out parade, actually do so, perhaps watched admiringly by the Home Secretary or a minor royal.
Yes because diversity and tolerance must always mean tolerating the right of terrorists to kill innocent people. Unfortunately it does mean that Rod Liddle can go on and on, day after day, with this rubbish without being run out of the country as though he were Left-wing, gay, black or a non-Christian. Shame.
You’re wrong about the hero-stories here. It’s certain that for Reid, the explosive was too damp to ignite irrespective of any passenger action. It also appears that way for Mutallab, although we’ll need to wait for the trial and formal reports to be sure.
Obviously, the security industry would prefer it if the public believed AQ were capable of making working bombs – that’s what gets them funding and power, and that’s why they spin those kinds of stories to tame hacks at the slightest opportunity.
So while Liddle is an objectionable man, pointing out to Spectator readers that the Evil Terrorists Who Will Kill Us All are a joke is definitely a public service.
I don’t really think I am wrong about the hero stories. These were not the results of people being stupid – most of the mistakes were unavoidable. The dampness of the fuse for example, was a result of the plane being delayed by an extra day.
And there’s the clear examples of the Glasgow Airport attempt.
I was surprised by the moronic nature of Mr. Liddle’s approach to religion and atheism, so his current lame attempts to stir the media pot come as no surprise.
I often wonder what goes through Liddle’s head when he’s writing about atheism. Looking at the facts of his life, it must be something like “Well, here I am, cheating on my wife, battering my pregnant girlfriend, writing race-baiting columns for the Speccie and stuffing my face with baked cream lardburgers. Thank goodness I have that superior theistic morality, otherwise my life would be a nonstop parade of indulging my basest instincts.”
Agreed… until the last sentence. It seems to me that a lot of people on the left (as with the right) use the word ‘Christian’ to mean middle-class-white-guy, when this is very innacurate. In fact it’s the Tory strongholds that are the most secular places in Britain and poorer immigrants who are the most Christian element of the population.
Gregor, whether or not that’s the case – and I’d strongly argue that while some of what you say is correct, some of it is not – it’s only tangential to the argument. Tabloid columnists such as Liddle treat Christianity as a litmus test, whether or not the middle class white guy section of their audience agree.