lenin can't mention the war

You can tell how weak the argument is against Sir Ian Blair by the fact lenin can't bring himself to mention, even in passing, what happened the day before the unfortunate Menezes incident occurred, on 21/7, or what happened on 7/7 just two weeks before that. Not one little mention from him. Surprising, no?

One would have thought if the argument against Blair is so good then lenin would have no problem in mentioning the context that Islamists, who are at war with us, had tried to massacre hundreds of innocent civilians on the tube the day before, two weeks after another group had successfully taken out 52 people, and that at the time of the shooting the police were engaged in an unprecedented race against time to try to hunt down these four loose suicide bombers before they struck again.

Instead he is reduced to parroting some of the absurd media criticism, such as the criticising of Sir Ian Blair's rational call to postpone the IPCC investigation in the immediate aftermath while the hunt was still going on (something obviously the IPCC have a vested interest in being critical of), and other nonsensical baloney where he refers to an entirely different incident where child pornography was indeed found on a terror suspects computer, contrary to what lenin claims.

If Sir Ian Blair does go it will be a huge shame since he has, by and large, been an excellent commissioner that has a very good record in busting terror plots and lowering crime. People like Seymour and his partisan allies the Lib Dems and Conservatives are simply using this for shameful political reasons, and as even Ken Livingstone says are only helping the terrorists by doing so. They have absolutely nothing on him - ziltch, zero - as Seymour displays.

The people who tried to murder hundreds of Londoners have already gotten around 40 years each - who were caught just a few weeks later by the same officers involved in Stockwell - so accountability has already occurred. That is that.

Now, I have a couple of other general comments relating to this issue.

Another interesting aspect of this whole thing is those moronic type people who go around saying they are scared of getting shot in the head by the police for no reason thanks to the Stockwell incident. Yet these are usually the very same people who are the first to cry 'scaremongering' when anyone warns of the much more likely event that a suicide bomber could blow them up on the tube. Suicide attacks have much worse consequences for real social cohesion in this country as well, other than the manufactured outrage you get from community leaders when the police screw up, so if people were really interested in an easier life for Muslims then they should befirmly anti terrorist. Why are you not, lenin?

lenin also complains that the police get far too much respect in his post - after all they are not the only people to have dangerous jobs he says. Well firstly, most dangerous jobs don't include running after suicide bombers. But even so the reason police hold a special role in public service is, without them, society would quickly turn into chaos and anarchy, as we saw in Baghdad and New Orleans. They play a very important moral role that does indeed deserve some respect.

Another question I have for lenin in relation to Islamism is why he has never touched on his blog, that I would like to see a post on, is his take on why Britain was the soft touch of Europe, and indeed the world, on Islamism during the 1990s - a policy that continued until about 2003.

So how did such a bunch of "white supremacist" bigots allow this country to become the most important terror centre in the world out of the training camps of Afghanistan? It doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps lenin could explain?