During his statement, after the Glasgow attack, in which he allowed that the Airport incident 'was terrorism', he proceeded to go into the obligatory song-and-dance about how the authorities would not tolerate any kind of 'harassment' of the local 'minority communities' and that any such behavior would be dealt with.
How typical of our weakling Western authorities now. It's a ritual that whenever any attack is made on citizens, even one in which lives are lost and people are injured and maimed, we have to be subjected to such lectures by our authorities, who obviously think that preserving the feelings of 'minority communities' is their chief mission. What it means is that we would rather see innocent lives sacrificed and people horribly killed and maimed rather than 'offend' any of our 'minority communities.' It's beginning to look as though our authorities, who are ostensibly charged with providing for our safety and security, instead see themselves as charged with protecting 'minority communities' from the rest of us.
I remember that Willie Rae's London counterpart, 'Sir' Ian Blair, made a disgustingly dhimmi-like speech just after the 7/7 London bombings in 2005. He said something about how the word violence and the word Islam do not belong together, and that terrorism is the work of merely a tiny minority of extremists, etc. etc. You know how the speech goes.
Our Western leaders are saying implicitly that they will see many of their own citizens dead rather than risk being mean to Moslems. So 'profiling' and exclusion of Mohammedans is not even to be discussed or considered or thought. 'Fairness' and tolerance and openness take precedence over life and survival itself.
Is this not the definition of derangement? Or is it just craven cowardice? Or is it ideological tunnel vision?
And as if Willie Rae was not bad enough, here we have Alex Salmond, Scotland's 'first minister' lecturing the Scottish people:
Mr Salmond appealed for calm, following the attack at Glasgow Airport, while stressing that steps were being taken to keep people safe.
He also told BBC Scotland that individuals, not communities, were responsible for their actions.
"No community in Scotland should feel threatened or under suspicion because of this incident."
Community relations in Scotland, he said, were strong, adding: "They've withstood a number of pressures over recent years and they'll withstand this pressure as well." '
Translation: the multicultural agenda will go on as before, regardless of its cost to human life, to civil liberties, and to the quality of life in Scotland or elsewhere. And the people will have to like it and go along with it, or else. You can be sure that any Scottish or British citizen who offends the protected Moslems will be dealt with much more harshly than any apprehended terror suspects, who will be treated with kid gloves and protected by various liberal organizations like Amnesty International.
And here in our country, it is not much better; whenever any terror plot is uncovered, the media are full of stories about the 'backlash' that never happens, and our elected officials lecture us in the same way that the PC-addled officials in the UK lecture their people. Something is really, seriously wrong with this picture.
The news coverage on Fox, CNN, and MSNBC follow the usual PC template, with inane questions from the anchors and the usual talking heads providing their useless commentary. The British correspondent Simon Marks, when asked about immigration and terror, immediately got up on his high horse and said that the 7/7 attacks were done by British citizens, and that therefore they had nothing to do with immigration.. How obtuse can one get? Of course the bombers
may have been technically 'British nationals', to use the very legalistic term, but in no sense were they part of the historic British nation and the historic British people. The very fact of their alien origins and their alien belief system is the source of their desire to do harm to British people. But this must not be acknowledged; it might offend other such 'British nationals' who nonetheless hate their adopted country and culture.
One side note: Alex Salmond, quoted above, is the leader of the Scottish National Party. Now, traditionally Scottish nationalists (like Irish and Welsh nationalists in their countries) championed their right to be free of English domination. These nationalist parties denounce the wrongs of the Sassenachs dating back hundreds of years. So why on earth do each and all of these parties support multiculturalism and the presence of Moslems and other foreign cultures in their midst? Wasn't the idea for Scotland to be under Scottish control, with a fully Scottish culture and way of life? If not, then what does nationalism mean, or what use is it? The English at their worst could never be as inimical to Scotland (or Ireland or Wales) than the Moslems and other such unassimilable alien peoples.
I noticed that some paleocons have applauded the rise of the SNP and the other nationalist parties, oblivious to the fact that these faux nationalists support the leftist, multicult agenda, and hence are no friends of true nationalism.
A 'nationalism' that stands for political correctness and multicult ideas is not what is needed in any Western country now, in these days of mass immigration, demographic warfare, and jihad.
What is needed, first of all, is a containment of Islam within its own sphere. The adnerents of that cult have proven time and again that they are both unwilling and incapable of living peaceably among non-Moslems.