The wretched of the earth

Notice who showed up to hear the stemwinders at the big radical Muslim confab in London the other day. Says the NYT:

The conference was dedicated to the return of the Khilafah, or caliphate, the organization of Muslim power that held sway for centuries after the death of the Prophet Muhammad.

Titled Khilafah: The Need and the Method, it was held at the Alexandra Palace, a 19th-century entertainment complex in grand gardens in northern London, and drew a largely professional audience — IT managers, bankers, teachers. [Emphasis mine. -- RD]For hours, speakers assailed the British government for linking the group to terrorism, and for too often treating Muslims as terrorism suspects, and drummed at the theme of the need for Muslim rule.

“There is no Islam as a way of life without a Khilafah,” said Kamal Abuzahra, an Islamic academic of Bangladeshi origin, earning a roar of approval and calls of “Allahu Akbar.”

I certainly hope every single person there was photographed by the intelligence services. Because the day is coming when the British government is going to need that information urgently.

Meanwhile, I see that Rep. Tancredo has stepped into the pile of doo that Rich Lowry and I dipped our toes into a few years ago: bombing (if not nuking) Mecca. He's for keeping it on the table as a threat to deter Muslim loonies from nuking an American city. Daniel Larison explains why that's misguided and immoral.

Five years ago, when Rich and I ever so briefly discussed it on The Corner, I wrote that the US should prepare to annihilate various Arab capitals via nuclear weapons as a means of deterring jihadists (the thought being that Arab governments ought to wipe out such anti-American terrorists living in their countries now, lest those terrorists bring down the annihilating wrath of the US upon them). I wrote at the time that there would be a sense of emotional satisfaction from destroying Mecca in revenge for Islamic terrorists destroying an American city with a nuclear weapon, but that it would be foolishly counterproductive.

Naturally every other Muslim on the planet accused me of wanting to "nuke Mecca," when what I actually said was spare Mecca, but prepare to nuke various Arab capitals. I don't regret having said what I said about Mecca, because I still believe now as I believed then that it would be stupid to destroy that holy city as a retaliatory act. But I do deeply regret being so cavalier and unthinking about nuclear destruction upon cities and civilian populations that would have had perhaps nothing to do with nuclear terrorism against the US, and I regret having registered opposition to nuking Mecca on purely strategic grounds, not moral ones as well.

God, I was angry then. Still am, but burned out on it having seen where anger I hope I have learned in the past few years how anger can cause one to self-destruct, and make unwise decisions. Hard lesson to learn. Hope I've learned it.