The number of people who have
crowbarred the horrific events of the weekend to fit their own prejudices just
grows and grows in a frankly sickening display.
Today, I would like to focus on
Donald Trump. His initial reaction to the news from Paris was all too
predictable: “Oh, there’s been an attack involving guns. Just goes to show that
everyone should have guns.”
Well, John Rambo, let’s consider this particular case. If everyone had had firearms, the terrorists would not have been able to
gun down as many people as they did, but only if ordinary people had had the calm
and the aim to not shoot at the suicide vests the attackers were wearing. And
if the terrorists hadn’t just detonated their bombs. Which they probably would
have done because they would have known they would have been shot.
Even if that hadn’t happened, the
armed police might not have been able to respond as quickly as they did because
they would have been spread about town dealing with all of the firearms
incidents and killings which happen when there’s no gun control. On the basis
of American figures, there would be 54 firearms deaths and injuries across
France every day.
All of which leaves us with one
conclusion – loads of people would still have died, and more would be dying as
a matter of course. So, well done Donald: another hole got out of by digging it
deeper.
Rambo then moved onto military
strategy to combat IS, and he suggested that, because IS makes a lot of its
considerable wealth through oil, that he would “bomb the shit” out of the oil
camps, and then send in the Marines and take the crude.
Well, here Donald has put his
finger on an actual strategic issue. The revenue from ISIS’ oil is vast and it
goes toward funding terrorism, war and human trafficking. That’s why the Coalition
has been bombing the oil refineries, though no-one has suggested going in and
grabbing the black gold.
Here's the problem - it didn't
work. They bombed the refineries, and what did IS do? They sent the unrefined
oil ahead to other refineries. To remove the problem of the oil, you have to destroy
it. Which you would do if you "bombed the shit out of it" with
incendiary bombs. Which, as anyone who’s studied fire safety knows, would destroy
quite a lot of the oil. Try using it or selling it then, you Gordon-Gekko-jackass.
My problem is the sheer,
hollow-headed idiocy of suggesting a policy that hasn't worked as if it's a new
idea, and then coming up with a Machiavellian scheme to make money out of it
which doesn't work because he hasn't read an elementary science textbook.
He isn't some moustache-twirling,
or indeed wig-adjusting, super-villain. He's a total berk with a psychology so
warped that Freud and Jung would have to get help in order to psycho-analyse
him.
My problem is that he's so jaw-droppingly inept
and inappropriate for the important job for which he is applying.
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Soundcloud.
Listen to our rebuttal of Katie Hopkins' response to the Paris Attacks below.
