Crime: Druglord and Jihadi Alleys of Dick's Londonistan

What is wrong with giving jihadis the death penalty anyway?

Mass hysteria has struck once again. Following Home Secretary Sajid Javid’s decision to not seek ‘assurances’ as to whether two members of the Beatles group of Jihadis shall not be executed when they arrived at the United States, utter hell and fury has poured out of the left.

We have had the left endlessly complain about how it was abhorrent that Javid’s acceptance of the death penalty was horrible, from thinkpieces outlining how Britain’s opposition to such a punishment should be maintained, to MPs like Diane Abbott and David Davis complaining about how ‘abhorrent and shameful’ it is to be potentially allowing the death penalty against such people and how ‘unnecessary’ it was to let the Americans off the hook in this regard respectively, to a mixture of the two, most notably with a LBC discussion between one of their hosts Shelagh Fogarty and Lord Carlile, of which the latter called Javid ‘completely wrong’ on the subject matter. The outrage has been so strong, that it has even led to the mother of one of the terrorists launching a legal case against his decision.

But in many a view (including my own), one question has to be asked: why is it wrong with giving jihadis the death penalty anyway?

Firstly, it seems like a perfectly sound punishment for people whose mission it is to kill for their cause no matter what, given that they are fighting in their eyes a holy war against the West. Need we forget that the likes of the Jihadi Beatles aren’t exactly saints (obviously), especially given how one of them (Jihadi John), has executed numerous people in cold blood, including prominent American journalist James Foley in Syria. This is perhaps the most notorious of their crimes, all the while they have a rap sheet nearly a mile long, including executing various people (including some journalists), hostage taking, torturing dissidents among other heinous acts. In fact, the two specific Beatles going to be extradited (George and Ringo), were known for promoting extreme views before joining ISIS and taking part in many of the disgusting activities ISIS got up to. I could appreciate the argument against them receiving the death penalty if they were vulnerable guys and open to rehabilitation, but given that they are jihadists of who shall happily kill and butcher in the name of spreading their evil ideology, they are clearly beyond reform. They believe they are soldiers in a holy war against the West, and from that, only understand the language of violence. Kill or be killed is their attitude, something a typical prison sentence isn’t going to satisfy. Now while I understand some would argue that giving them the death penalty is giving them what they want as Islamic martyrs, surely at least getting rid of some of the extremists means that not only is some of the enemy defeated, but it shall also show be appropriate given their reprehensible behaviour.

It also shows that we have the upper hand against these guys, something simply jailing them shall not bring. There was a reason for example that during World War 2, Britain refused to release Nazi Prisoners of War for the longest time, and even when the war was over, it took time for the relatively left wing Labour government of Clement Atlee to free them. There was also a reason that during the Falklands War, no mercy was given to Argentinian enemies. If we as a free, democratic country want to show that we shall not tolerate the behaviour of barbarians like ISIS, we should show them that we shall not tolerate their vile behaviour under the guise of showing diplomacy. And especially given that the leaders of our great nation have been foolish enough to allow ISIS terrorists back into the country, give them council housing (amongst a housing crisis I should add), and even constantly pander to the ideology that has caused numerous terrorist attacks on our soil, it is about time that Britain found the spirit of Churchill and put our foot down against an irredeemable enemy who wants to change our way of life.

So one must wonder why the left (and some on the centre-right like Davis) advocate that the jihadists be let go. After all, I don’t recall their reaction to such a punishment being as hostile when the likes of Dylan Roof who (quite rightly) initially received the death penalty for the deaths he caused during the clear case of terrorism during the 2015 Charleston church shootings. Nor would they probably complain if the likes of say Thomas Mair had received a similar punishment. I think there are various reasons for this, and none of them good. Firstly, I think the whole idea that the West is currently collectively treading on eggshells around the issue of Islam applies here. There is no reason we shouldn’t be sending these jihadis to death in the United States, but unfortunately, the whole notion of Islamophobia and offending progressive types comes about here. This partially comes from the idea that progressives (for whatever reason) feel as though the Islamic world and (by that extent) Muslims as a whole are oppressed and that any sort of criticism against them is picking on a minority group. This in turn leads to Islamic terrorists being seen as reactionaries and freedom fighters, of which in the left’s eyes is a reaction against European colonialism and the various foreign wars against Middle Eastern countries since then. As prolific author Raymond Ibrahim points out, progressive types feel that Muslim violence is a direct result of Muslim grievance of both European colonialism and American imperialism (both of which are supposedly encapsulated by the state of Israel), and from this, the violence Islamic extremists carry out while not justifiable, is unsurprising given what we in the West have done to them, of which to them indicates that their proverbial revenge is at least vindicated in that regard. From this, it can be seen that any attack the West launches against jihadists in retaliation is just further abuse of that part of the world, and extolling more suffering against those living throughout it. That is of course absurd, given how people in such areas are the most vulnerable to jihadist attacks, given that the most frequent Islamic attacks occur in the Islamic world, but that’s besides the point. Not to mention how the bigotry of low expectations undoubtedly play a part here too. The idea that because the culture that inspires Islamic terrorism has different standards to that of the far more peaceful Western culture that they fight against, that it is inherently wrong to apply our standards of law against them. As journalist Melanie Phillips points out, the left (as exemplified by her former employees at sh*trag The Guardian) feel that it is racist to judge other cultures by the standards of the West as a whole, apart from Israel of which they regard as part of the West. From this, any attempt to judge Islamic terrorism by our own standards is racist and wrong and we should treat them with not ambivalence, but rather different standards, hence why applying the death penalty to them is us in the West misunderstanding their culture according to the left. Moral relativism in action, and boy does it stink.

Meanwhile, other explanations may be more damning as to those the left share a proverbial bed with. As Tommy Robinson points out, some of the left feel that they can use Islam extremism to achieve a communist state in the end. This mainly comes around from how, like Islamic extremists, the radical left hate the law, the police and the state hence why they are in bed with radical Islam for you, even though they shall eventually turn on them too, on the grounds that they hate religion too. Casein point, the actual jihadists who have been big names within leftie movements. Take for example the various Islamic extremist groups who work with Stand Up To Racism and the Labour Party. For the former, one prominently featured guest at last year’s SUTR conference (of which I’ll be detailing my experiences there in a future article, of which you can get a sense of what went down here) was the director of CAGE Moazzam Begg, who was a former Gitmo prisoner and had called Jihadi John a ‘beautiful young man’, all the while SUTR worked with him and his group. Meanwhile, the Labour Party invited into Parliament a group called MEND (of who the think tank The Henry Jackson Society call ‘extremist’) and whose head supported the killing of British soldiers. To rub salt into the wound, this was during the time of year when most wear a poppy to show respect to fallen soldiers.

So I feel that there is no good reason as to why jihadists shouldn’t be given the death penalty. They are extremists who live by their moral code of kill or be killed, and given that they are waging holy war against us, we have every justification to fight fire with fire, so to speak. But given the left’s sympathies with radical Islam, both in the supposed legitimacy of the grievances of the jihadists and the way they can use their ideology to get into power themselves, it is unsurprising that there has been yet more pho-outrage against allowing jihadists to be put to death, let alone criticise the jihadists at the centre of it all at all.

It shows that the left are guided by deceit, ridiculous emotional arguments and very questionable ethics in place of facts and practicality. The sooner their power wanes, the better.

But on a final note, good on Sajid Javid for actually approving this in the first place. While Theresa clearly put a Remoaner into the role of Home Secretary, perhaps in response to the whole Windrush Scandal and the laughable accusations of racism it brought against the Conservative Party, he has seemingly proven his worth so far. He has finally proscribed Hezbollah as a political organisation in this country while his predecessors twiddled their thumbs on the issue and helped to block a plan to create a customs partnership with the European Union after Brexit in the House of Commons, feeling it would harm British trade worldwide. He has even said that the grooming gang issue in Britain has to be fought head on, regardless of race.

If he continues down this route, he may prove his salt just yet. Heck, even former Conservative MP Norman Tebbit praised Javid on the grounds that he felt that he was a ‘man of action and principle’ in the current ‘mess’ that was this Parliament. This indicates a positive future for Javid at this point.

I wish him well.

(Articles reflect the views of the author, and not necessarily those of Luke Nash-Jones, The Red Pill Factory, or Make Britain Great Again.)

Most Popular

To Top