Image 01 Image 03

Theresa May: We Could Not Have “Predicted” or “Envisaged” Latest Terrorist Attacks

Theresa May: We Could Not Have “Predicted” or “Envisaged” Latest Terrorist Attacks

Really? What about history?

British PM Theresa May, in an address to the nation, stated that it wasn’t possible to have “predicted” or “envisaged” the latest terrorist attacks in Manchester and London.

Here’s her statement, as broadcast on CNN this morning:

We could never have predicted the tragic turn which events would take. We could never have imagined the appalling depravity which led a cowardly and callous killer to target innocent men, women, and children, in the way that we saw in Manchester two weeks ago. Nor could we have envisaged the brutal attack that was carried out on the streets of London Saturday evening.”

Seriously? Why couldn’t she “envisage” the London Bridge attack, given that a very similar attack—in which a vehicle was used as a weapon of mass murder—took place on Westminster Bridge less than three months ago?

As for Manchester outrage, there were echoes of it in the attack on the Bataclan concert hall in Paris. In any case, how can anyone possibly be surprised, or find it hard to “envisage,” Islamic terrorist brutality in any form?

“Appalling depravity” hard for May to have predicted? Despite the history of mass beheadings, drownings, and burning in cages?


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


thalesofmiletus | June 5, 2017 at 11:40 am

“There’s no way to predict or prevent this!”, cries the only continent where this routinely happens.

thalesofmiletus | June 5, 2017 at 11:41 am

“If we put out the fire, the fire wins.”

Bucky Barkingham | June 5, 2017 at 11:42 am

After reading this I agree with Corbin that May should resign and permanently retire from politics.

pilgrim1949 | June 5, 2017 at 11:49 am

Those who refuse to learn from history…

Blather, rinse, repeat.

All of these attacks have been from known terrorists that they were already tracking. Duh!

Char Char Binks | June 5, 2017 at 12:00 pm

Past performance may not be indicative of future results, but can you think of a better indicator?

    Past performance may not be 100% predictive of future results, but there really is no better indicator.

    Radical Islamists have, as a group/nation, alternated between acts of terrorism and outright war for the past ~1,400 years. But this time they really mean it when they say they want peace.

    Sure, and this time socialism will really work. Just ask anyone from Venezuela.


      “This is the voice of world control. I bring you peace. It may be the peace of plenty and content or the peace of unburied death. The choice is yours: Obey me and live, or disobey and die.” – Colossus (Colossus: The Forbin Project [1970])

      alaskabob in reply to Archer. | June 5, 2017 at 2:29 pm

      I would respectfully challenge the concept of “radical Islam”. These jihadists are exactly what Islam is about. The really “radical” Muslims are the ones that really want peace and co-existance without subjugation… the ones that really haven’t read the Koran correctly.

        Well put, but I’d argue it’s a matter of perspective.

        To the “fundamental” Islamist — the one who reads his Koran literally, then yes, jihad is part of Islam and the ones who desire peaceful coexistence are the “radical Islamists”.

        To the rest of us (i.e. non-Muslims), peaceful coexistence — including that with non-jihadi Muslims — is the norm, so the jihadis are the radicals.

        Similarly, in a lot of ways the primary difference between a “terrorist” or “insurrectionist” and a “freedom fighter” is which side you’re on.

        Perhaps we can agree to drop the “radical” verbiage — which merely means “far outside the norm” — and use a different term instead? May I suggest, “fundamental” or “literal” Islamist?

          alaskabob in reply to Archer. | June 5, 2017 at 5:08 pm

          “Literalist” Muslim. Good points. But eventually it boils down to what form of society will prevail, what will be the civilizational construct. I am talking hard core solid foundation that works, endures and improves. At this rate… go off on a time dilation trip and return to Earth of 500 years in the future… what do you find…. a world of goat herders, abused women and a bleak landscape devoid of all that went before….. Islam perfected and fully in control. The Greeks fought the Persians for Western Civ… here we go again and this time…no natural barriers.

          JoAnne in reply to Archer. | June 5, 2017 at 6:32 pm

          You can use all the adjectives you want – once they’re a majority, they’re all “radical.”

        ConradCA in reply to alaskabob. | June 5, 2017 at 5:09 pm

        When you read the history of Muhammad and his founding of Islam along with that of his followers over the last 1,300+ years the nature of Islam is clear. It was created by Muhammad as a fanatical religion of war dedicated to world conquest and the imposition of a world wide Sharia based tyranny.

        The “moderate and peaceful” Muslims aren’t real Muslims, their apostates. It’s the terrorists and Iranians who are the real Muslims.

      randian in reply to Archer. | June 6, 2017 at 4:13 am

      If by “peace” you mean “subjugation under the rule of Islam”, then Muslims most sincerely desire peace.

A visionary she ain’t.

So May could not have predicted that somebody would run people on a bridge over with a Truck in London…. only a month after somebody ran people over a bridge with a Truck in London?

She’s…. trying…. to lose her election and tank Brexit. Nothing else makes sense. Nobody can be this stupid.

    Nobody can be this stupid, but they can be this blinded by ideology.

    We see it in the American Left all the time. Socialism cannot work and has never worked, but they still push for it. Ditto for open-borders immigration, single-payer healthcare, $15/hr minimum wage, punitive taxes on the rich, and a host of other issues.

    There are none so blind as those who will not see.

She’s no Churchill.

Or Thatcher, for that matter!

This is what happens with excessive immigration (i.e. exceeds the rate of assimilation and integration) forced by demands to disenfranchise native people, increase profits in high-density population centers, cover-up the collateral damage from elective wars, promote [class] diversity (i.e. “color of skin”), and compensate for the loss of life in abortion rites and Planned Parenthood.

Seems to me, England, France and Germany, the three nations at the forefront of bowing and scraping to Islam, can probably attribute the fact that their respective leadership is so feckless and acquiescent to having severely depleted and diluted their respective gene pool in the two WW’s of the last century. One mutti, one mami, and one mami’s boy, is all that’s left.

why does this quote come to mind?

Apparently, the crescent moon of islam never sets on the English sheep pen.

She sounds like a History Denier.

    Sure, but everyone knows that history — unlike “settled science” — is fungible and open to interpretation or future study.

    Past events may or may not have actually happened.
    Future events absolutely WILL happen; it’s settled. ZOMGTHERMAGEDDON!!!111!!11!

    Just goes to show (again): With “Progressives”, every day is Opposite Day.

What complete and utter rubbish. There have only been how many terrorist attacks in Europe since the London bombings of 2005 and the 2004 Madrid bombings, the year before? And, the pace of the attacks has been increasing. So, for May to claim that this trend couldn’t possibly be “envisaged” is contemptible nonsense. Only a totally naïve fool, or, a politician looking to escape culpability, would utter such banal remarks.

The U.K.’s choice is clear as it confronts fascistic, totalitarian evil — follow Chamberlain’s path of emasculated, self-defeating appeasement, or, follow Churchill’s path of resolute defiance, moral clarity and the will to achieve victory.

    Ragspierre in reply to guyjones. | June 5, 2017 at 7:15 pm

    Chamberlain was never the pansy you and several others here depict.

    He was actually aware of the Nazi threat, and of how unprepared GB was to meet it. He was trying to buy some time, both to prepare the military and the people for war.

    Churchill would never have put him in his cabinet or shown the respect for him he did if he were a coward. They had disagreed on many things, but they understood and respected each other.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 5, 2017 at 9:25 pm

      “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour and you will have war.”

      No, Churchill did not think Chamberlain a pansy, he thought him a fool, but not a traitor.

      Chamberlain died in Nov 1940, a year before the US entry into the war.

      From Churchill’s speech before parliament, just after Chamberlains passing:

      “He had a firmness of spirit which was not often elated by success, seldom downcast by failure, and never swayed by panic. When, contrary to all his hopes, beliefs and exertions, the war came upon him, and when, as he himself said, all that he had worked for was shattered, there was no man more resolved to pursue the unsought quarrel to the death. The same qualities which made him one of the last to enter the war, made him one of the last who would quit it before the full victory of a righteous cause was won.

      my italics

        tom swift in reply to Barry. | June 6, 2017 at 2:10 am

        it wasn’t possible to have “predicted” or “envisaged” the latest terrorist attacks

        Now she’s just playing dumb. Or perhaps she never has occasion to fly anywhere. All that rubbish one has to endure at airports is due entirely to predictions and visions of terrorist attacks.

buckeyeminuteman | June 5, 2017 at 2:01 pm

Europe’s leaders are feeding a hungry alligator, hoping it will eat them last…

What? No “Pre-Cogs” in a local swimming pool? Islamic behavior is predicable.. just not exactly when and where nor how.

This is getting as stale as, “We may never know his motive.”

While the exact time/date/&c. may not be predictable to 100% accuracy, a word of wisdom, if not for Ms. May, then for any sane people left in the U.K.:


Albigensian | June 5, 2017 at 3:35 pm

Since what she says is prima facie nonsense, some creative interpretation is required to understand what she means.

Why would a government invest resources in envisioning/predicting terrorist attacks, if not to prevent them (or at least minimize the casualties if/when they happen anyway)?

Therefore, what she’s saying is that there are so many soft targets, and so many potential jihadis living in Britain, that Britain’s government couldn’t begin to imagine when or where the next attack will occur, and therefore it is and will remain unable to protect its citizens from such attacks.

Which, I suppose, is true so long as terrorism is considered a law enforcement problem and not an act of war.

PM May admits to not reading any news from Israel, or amy EU member, or Middle East, or Africa, or Philippines, or…

Old tv show “Numbers” they were hunting a serial killer. The boy wonder pointed to a lawn sprinkler and said “We can’t predict where the next drop will fall but we can figure out where the sprinkler is.” Unless they refuse to connect the dots.
“People believe lies because they want to.” G. K. Chesterton

    Ragspierre in reply to Milwaukee. | June 5, 2017 at 8:31 pm

    Among a great deal of “stuff” Mark Steyn spewed today as guest host for Rush, he did say some things that are PROBABLY correct.

    According to the Germans, it takes about 60 people to keep track on one potential jihadist thug. The Brits say about half that.

    So it isn’t a matter of “refusing” to connect dots. It’s more a matter of affording the dot connectors.

    You may say, “OK, just spend whatever it takes”, and that is certainly not an indefensible position. But it is not without a counter-argument.

    This is why I said many months ago that we can expect more such incidents. They cost too little to perpetrate, and too much to prevent. The gradient is too large. And it will be until we develop some new tools, because we can’t just burn down civil liberties.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 5, 2017 at 9:30 pm

      “And it will be until we develop some new tools…”

      Such as?

      We have the only tools provide us by nature. Eventually we will use them.

      Hopefully before pussies get us all killed.

Move along now, the queue of suicide forms just over there.

Some dots to connect- -tennets of Islam are incompatible with United States documents, the Declaration of independence and United States Constitution. Former Mohammedans may live here as long as they forsake any semblance of Islamic practice. Islam does not get the protection of being a “religion”. Japan doesn’t have Islamic terrorism, they don’t have Muslims.

    Ragspierre in reply to Milwaukee. | June 6, 2017 at 9:54 am

    You suggest an impossible remedy supported by a false statement.

    Japan DOES have Muslims. It has several mosques. Where did you get that false nonsense?

I’ll agree I have erred. I believed a falsehood because it agreed with me. Japan does allow Muslims and even has mosques. My bad, I was wrong and on that you are right.

I won’t back from Islam being incompatible with Western values, especially those found in our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. The political parts of Islam lead to one end, world domination by Islam. The pattern through history is a consistent: Muslims immigrate and are willing to subvert their practice while a small percentage of the population. As the percentage of the population grows, they become more vocal and demonstrative in following the teachings of Islam. At some point Muslims publicly police each other for orthodox behavior, and then they police non-Muslims. Eventually the culture caves and the country becomes Muslim. The math term is “monotone increasing”.

The Christian governor in Indonesia on trial for blasphemy is charged with claiming that the Koran doesn’t require Muslims to vote for Muslims over non-Muslims.

In Saudi Arabia, all paraphernalia associated with Christianity are taken as visitors go through customs: crosses, Bibles, Rosaries, etc.

So, Rommel wanted to stop the invading Allies on the beach. Where will we stop the invading Muslims? Many of these “lone wolf” or “known wolf” attacks by Muslims come not from immigrants, but from the children of immigrants. You suggest my remedy is impossible. We can’t afford 60 intelligence agents for each radical Muslim. What is your remedy?

    Ragspierre in reply to Milwaukee. | June 6, 2017 at 10:25 pm

    Well, I don’t have it down pat.

    But it would involve “the tools nature gave us” like computers, data mining, snooping devices, and vastly improved communications between LEO and intelligence agencies.

    The last is exemplified by the comparatively super communications in and between our military.

    As is so often shown, in hindsight most if not all of the jihadist killers were on the radar…and were dropped for lack of manpower and any legal recourse. Computers are force multipliers, and they can be programmed to watch individuals. This should seem rather obvious, I think.

      Barry in reply to Ragspierre. | June 6, 2017 at 11:46 pm

      We already have those tools. Everything you say and write is probably run through a filter, stored.

      We cannot read minds though.

      The tool required is will. We no longer have that.