As the recent attacks against civilians in Saudi Arabia have shown, Al Qaeda does not kill civilians as collateral damage during strikes on military targets, non-muslim civilians are the target and will always be the target. People say we should ‘understand the root causes of their anger’ and I agree. And so, after understanding, that should help us to resolve to kill as many Islamists as is needed to make their cause collapse in ruin.
Of course the usual paleo-libertarians and paleo-conservatives will take this to mean I think we should use carpet bombing in cities or nuclear weapons just to make sure we got ’em all. Yeah, yeah, whatever. But a commenter on Samizdata.net said the other day in a succinctly manner I really cannot improve on:
I just propose that the only rational way to fight a war is to fight a war, and that means using whatever force is needed to defeat your enemy. This is not exactly a revolutionary concept in most military circles.
In the case of Iraq, this just means using the usual range of weapons and tactics and applying them with resolution. There is nothing about Iraq that is at all unusual or outside historical experience to suggest this need be more than a footnote in military history.
And the same applies to Al Qaeda and its confreres wherever they can be found. You find them and then you kill them by whatever means it takes. What you do not do is talk to them or negotiate with them, unless of course it is just a tactic for getting them to stand still for juuuuuust a moment.
But a LOT of the Iraq portion of the War is over. Nation building security, while a war with foreigners continues, is NOT easy.
Plus, America must encourage the Iraqi people to fight, kill, and die for Iraqi freedom.
It’s very good that America didn’t destroy Fallujah, even though it could have, easily.
Almost EVERYTHING important about Iraq is historically different — only the 20th century had a great power fighting for human rights in a foreign land. Other wars for conquest accept far more civilian and collateral damage.
My post on Harry Potter, (no) help for Iraqis is good on this, I think.
(I wonder if Perry might update from Liberty Father to this new Liberty Dad tomgrey.motime.com location?)
Bracing stuff, Perry!
I agree with your implication that we do not need to get them all. The big issue is that many of them are still in madrassas, mosques, and other nondescript places being brain-washed. That means we need to realise that Iraq is just a small local campaign, and that other means in other places will be needed as we progress in the “wack-a-mullah” strategy.
Islam requires a long and hard look at itself before we can even consider an end to this conflict.
TWG
Absolutely, Wobbly Guy. Islam needs big-time major reform before it can even hope to grow up and join the modern world.
I rather fear we depend on the House of Saud, which has has painted us and itself into this corner, finding some way forward. Can’t say I’m all that sanguine, having seen the traditionally showy, bloody, but ineffectual performance from the security forces at the weekend, and heard Prince Turki doing his everything-is-totally-under-control routine on the radio this morning.
The primary strategic goal of the West should be to free ourselves from Islamofascist oil dependency.
Yes, Susan and Wobbly – Islam needs reform. Reform of anything is generated internally, meaning the need for reform has to be recognised internally.
Islam has not yet reached this stage.
Every Western apologist who steps up to the bat for them and gives them encouragement is delaying the inevitable: Islam will have to reform.
Exactly Verity. And Ibn Warraq said it as well in his seminal work, Why I am Not a Muslim, when he asked how Islam was ever going to reform if all honest discussion of it was disallowed?
Susan – That means developing Alaska and offshore CA and there are the Sierra Club fascists who will fight that.
I agree with you. And innovative companies should know that alternative resources research will not attract tax penalties.
In fact, it should probably take on the intensity of the Manhattan Project. Now.
Exactly, Verity! It should be given the same priorities as the Manhattan Project/Moon Walk program.
I know the Army and NASA are both working on this program, and have come up with some interesting technologies, but as an adjunct to their primary missions, not as a goal in itself. Thus I fear that their finds will not be made available to the general populace for decades.
PS — Sierra Club was once an honorable organization but no more: today it’s just another tranzi Fifth Columnist organization working in tandem with all the other tranzi pressure groups. Environmentalism is actually the last thing on their minds. They recently had a very bitter and divisive organizational shake-out over the subject of illegal immigration. The true environmentalists felt obliged to back immigration reform to preserve what is left of California’s jaw-breakingly beautiful natural heritage; the tranzis didn’t want to break ranks with their buddies in the “progressive” community who view massive immigration for Latin America as a weapon to destroy the prevailing political order and establish their tranzi-socialist utopia.
Wildly OT, but I nominate THIS for BBC anti-American hate-mongering article for the year:
(Link)
Today is our Memorial Day when we commemorate the dead of all our wars, including the half-million lives we “donated” to Europe in Word Wars I & II.
Excerpt:
“Our Rome correspondent David Willey says 60 years on, some Italians are asking whether America’s armed forces should still be classified as liberators. ”
BBC, you are truly low-down, hateful, nasty scum of rare order. Take your Commie/tranzi bullshit, your pro-Islamiofascist political agenda, and shove it far, far up that place where the sun don’t shine.
If North Slope and offshore CA oil could even remotely replace mid-east oil, then bashing the Sierra Club would have relevance.
“If North Slope and offshore CA oil could even remotely replace mid-east oil, then bashing the Sierra Club would have relevance.”
Who said they did? Regards the Sierra Club, there’s a lot more going on with that organization than meets the eye. I simply brought it up to demonstrate that they are far from what they were when John Muir started them up.
In a fit of madness I once joined them; I got nothing but appeals for money to defeat this or that conservative candidate. Real environmental causes, such as the dying out of Coho Salmon in the Trinity River, due to over-development, gets short shrift from this so-called “environmentalist” organization. Grass-roots efforts to preserve our environment — not on their radar. It’s all devoted to pushing the same national political agenda as the National Organization for Women, the ACLU and other tranzi stalwarts. (The NOW & the ACLU having once been also worthy organizations with once-respectable agendas.)
Sorry Susan The Sierra Club was NEVER an honorable institution.
I am distantly related to the founder, John Muir and within the family it is well known that the Club was originally financed by a group of the biggest land owners in northern California. They wanted to keep government controlled land off the market to increase the value of their own property. Good old supply and demand. The value of natural beauty and conservation were very much secondary to the desire to maximize profit.
NASA and DoD and other parts of the US government are working on hydrogen powered vehicles, I guess they will be on the market in ten to fifteen years. Forcing these systems on the public goes against normal classical liberal principals but strategic necessity sometimes takes precedence.
The BBC is the scum of the earth. I cannot imagine any Third World propaganda broadcast organisation that could be more anti-British this license-payer funded stream of Gramscian bile they vomit. All you have to do is look at them and see their pinched little faces wreathed in hatred. All of them. Over the last 10 years, have you ever seen a BBC employee who looked like a normal person you’d see on the tube or in a restaurant? There’s something edgy and unsettling about them.
Probably more than the fuel will be, then. Hydrogen power has no technical issues to overcome for direct combustion and relatively few for use in fuel cells. However, there is no infrastructure for the production, distribution and storage of hydrogen on a large scale and little sign of the billions needed to create it. Also, there is an energy problem with hydrogen power – how are you actually going to produce the gas? Unless or until fusion power becomes practical (if it ever does), it’s hard to see much logic in mass-market hydrogen power.
Electricity, on the other hand, is a practical energy source and can be generated cleanly and surprisingly cheaply by nuclear fission. Electric cars already have adequate range for about 70% of all journeys (more in Europe), and other than range can outperform any petrol road car. You can also put 85% charge on the battery in the time it takes to have a cup of coffee and a smoke. Hybrids don’t have the range restriction, either. Assuming you drive them properly, which it seems the critics don’t. Even taking the transmission out of a standard car and replacing it with an alternator-inverter-motor setup driven direct from the engine increases efficiency.
There isn’t much to “work on”, just entrenched vested interests (both state and private) to overcome – there’s so much money in oil.
EG
The new governor of California Arnold S said that he wants to build a ‘hydrogen highway’ . i.e. the infrastructure needed to make hydrogen powered cars a reality.
As far as hybrids it seems they do not really get the milage claimed for them, at least not when driven by real life motorists in the US. However it will be interesting to see how things work out with the new hybrid SUVs.
The biggest problem I can see with hydrogen power is storage or tankage. Before they canceled the program NASA was working on a new generation of lightweight graphite epoxy liquid hydrogen tanks as part of its Next Generation Launch Technology program. They had successfully tested a pretty big one. This technology has the right combination of strength and weight to work in normal cars.
Economic production of hydrogen may be eaiser than we think. The EPFL in Lausanne Switzerland has done some good work and there are new projects springing up all the time. After all it is the most common element in the universe.
…that should help us to resolve to kill as many Islamists as is needed to make their cause collapse in ruin.
If that is what will do it. If they care how many die. First identify what they do care about and attack that.
Destroy the massive demand for oil and we destroy all the power they have. The contest should be between Western or American creativity and Islamofascist fanaticism. We’ll win that battle every time
At what point did the “volunteers” for Devine Wind duty revolt/refuse/mutiny? Obviously they didn’t. They kept marching into the meatgrinder. It took two nuclear bombs (after hundreds of thousands had been already incinerated by fire bombing) to convince their generals that the fight was over.
This is my nightmare. That only the show (hopefully) that we are willing to seek a Carthigian Peace, will the Islamists and the rest of the muslim world be willing to take that hard look at itself.
The Bushies (incompentaly) took the Wilsonian path of offering liberation and democracy. It was the only option, other than the Jacksonian option of Carthigian Peace that a majority of Americans would have preferred after 9/11…but as is obvious, we still need the oil.
Mecca delenda est
“You cannot reason with Islamic fundamentalism”
I’d try this line of reason.
Look boys, your main anger is with your own governments in your own countries (e.g. Saudi Arabia).
Instead of milling around like feckless children in London, Paris and New York, instead of killing and inciting people you understand even less than us (e.g. Iraqis), grow up, go home and sort it out. If you do we’ll let you be. If you don’t we’ll kill you.
Iain Duncan Smith has a good article “It’s infantile to believe inaction is an option with al-Qaeda” in the June 1st issue of the Times.
Unless and until mainstream Islam takes a real stand against fundamentalism, the civilized world should take the following action. Give in to the demands by the islamists and remove every infidel from every Muslim state. Then blockade them. No aid, no trade, no discussion until they themselves, drag their retarded mentalities into, say, the 18th century. It may well clarify matters in their minds if they have nothing better to do than consider the possibility that the route cause of their problems is that they have been stagnating for the past millennium.
“The primary strategic goal of the West should be to free ourselves from Islamofascist oil dependency…”
That is day-dreaming, unrealistic musings worth of the likes of Tom Friedman.
The same goes for hydrogen, which consumes a lot of energy to produce, and that will never change. Hydrogen is an energy storage media, not an energy source.
We will never “free ourselves from Islamofascist oil dependency” in the foreseable future (say, 50 years), because this is the world we live in, as contrasted to the world we would prefer to live in.
Given the ever growing chaos in the oil producing ME it seems to me it will be necessary to take control of the oil fields sooner or later. Either that, or the Arabs get rid of Islamofascism and stabilize the area. I would’t bet on the second.
Endless war against a billion people, justifying ever greater State power …? Sounds more like 1984 than libertarianism.
Cydonia
Susan – It’s easy to be suckered in to these organisations like the Sierra Club. Twenty years or so ago, I joined Greenpeace because it was then about battling the whaling industry. Then I began to notice, little by little, they inserted little grudges and dire warnings about nuclear power into their begging literature. Obviously, this having nothing to do with whales and sounding dangerously like a bid to force elected governments to bend to its will, I quit and I have never joined any other begging outfit because who knows what their agenda is?
I feel terrible shaking my head ‘No’ to the people who stand out in the cold with Red Cross tins, but the IRC is another dangerous organisation.
Re militant Islam, if there are 10,000 al-Qaeda sympathisers in Britain, they should be shovelled out of the country, I don’t care where they were born. Send them back to the land of their fathers, whose language they speak.
I agree with Jacob. At some point we will have to go in and take control of the ME oilfields – and from the point of view of decisiveness, it should be sooner rather than allow this situation to become more toxic and spread its poison into the West through Muslim immigrants with a grudge. What is frightening is, people like Tony Blair just do not understand the threat. He thinks we just haven’t been nice enough to this disaffected 10,000 British born Britain haters. Give them more concessions and they’ll realise what lovely people we really are. What is wrong with him? Making constant concessions to Islam is the route to Dhimmitude – submission.
I know we bash the French around on this blog, but actually, Chirac & Cie are much clearer on the nature of Islam than is Blair. They are heaving out radical imams at a rate of knots. They are banning the hijab on school property. It is already banned for any French civil servant. If you work in a mairie, you cannot come to work in a headscarf. End of story. They don’t make as many concessions as Blair does. (And, to tie this rant all together, let us not forget who bombed The Rainbow Warrior.)
Cydonia,
“Endless war against a billion people, justifying ever greater State power …? Sounds more like 1984 than libertarianism. ”
Well, we’re not yet living in libertarian paradise.
When oil supply drops, prices soar and a severe recession sets in, with huge numbers of poor or starving people – anything can happen, libertarian theories, not overly popular even now, won’t prevent things from happening.
Of course, this scenario isn’t the only one possible, and I’m not a prophet. It is concievable that thing might sort themselves out somehow in a more benign way. But the apocalyptic scenario is very plausible.
The situation is becoming more dangerous as we tap these posts in. I have just read over on Dhimmi Watch that a spokesman for the Runnymeade Trust, which is doing a study on Muslims (that’s all we need) has accused Britain of being “institutionally Islamophobic”. It doesn’t take them long to pick up on what works, does it?
In my view, it is time to jettison the pretence that Muslims are just like us. They are not. They believe we are wrong and irreligious and that anything they do to harm us will get the approval of Allah. Refusing to understand that there is a giant clash of civilisations – no, they not civilised, so make that clash of beliefs – in the West and it is not going to go away.
I don’t know what I would do if I were PM, but certainly I would begin deporting vast numbers of Muslims and the ones who were allowed to stay would have to prove that they did not wish to harm Britain. If we let them stay, and constantly submit to their bullying, there is only one final chapter and that is dhimmitude.
“Understanding” them doesn’t work. We must explain to them that, as immigrants to a democracy, the onus of understanding is entirely on them. No concessions.
I have a horrible sense of deja vu. Rome is burning and what passes for the British “government” is fiddling about.
I feel i must take issue with the above post.
it is time to jettison the pretence that Muslims are just like us. They are not
Erm yes they are. I sitting across from two very strict muslims (at work) and they are just like me. They work hard, they study, they enjoy spending time with thier families. I dont ask them to partake in my life style, they dont insist i pray to allah and refrain from drinking.
Saying all muslims are alike is as bad as saying all white people support the BNP. Sure some muslims cause problems and preach hate, but so does every other creed and colour. Dont forget not that long ago white irish where considered as much (if not more) of a threat than muslims are today, for the same reasons.
Verity writes:
“I don’t know what I would do if I were PM, but certainly I would begin deporting vast numbers of Muslims and the ones who were allowed to stay would have to prove that they did not wish to harm Britain.”
Pretty clearly, no British PM could do this today without bringing the roof down on his political career – the Left would simply hound him from office. After a terrorist outrage or three, on the other hand, who can say what might happen?
What is possible, in the meantime, is a tough anti-immigration policy which, curiously, seems so out of favour among theoreticians blind to the realities of life in our Midlands and Northern towns and cities.
Verity,
At the moment, events in Saudi Arabia are much more threatening than what goes on in Iraq. Iraq has been a marginal player in the world oil market since 1990 (it’s that long ago). Saudi Arabia is the star turn. Without that oil, for any length of time, it’ll be gasonline rationing; every elected govermnent on earth will feel the ground moving under it (especially you-know-who’s).
Anon John – I didn’t say that all Muslims approve of terrorism, yet they do seem curiously reluctant to condemn it. They are not like us. They do not admire us for having an open and free society. They think we’re crazy. And weak.
G Cooper, no, of course no politician today would dare to defend Britain against an alien and aggressive faith. But I have a terrible feeling that things are building up. Britain has been accused by the Runnymede Trust of institutional Islamophobia. We know from the Metropolitan Police that what follows next is social engineering against all reason. “Islamophobia” will become a crime. Speak out against Islam and you will be accused of Islamophobia and sent to reeducation camp.
We must stop stepping back every time these people poke us in the chest. We should hit them back. Hard. They don’t admire liberty. Why is that so hard for people like Tony Dimwit to understand? They are fascists and wish to impose dhimmitude on us. Submission to their will. And frankly, they’re not doing too badly. Tony Dim wants to give them special TV stations and radio stations, to be extra nice.
Who gave Jewish immigrants special TV and radio stations? Who gave Hindu immigrants special radio and TV stations? But the Muslims are to get special concessions. In other words, Tony Blair is submitting to their intransigence. This is called dhimmitude.
It is going to come down to a battle between a liberal society and dhimmitude. And the left will prefer dhimmitude.
Just to make it clear. I run on gasonline (special blend, spell checked). Not sure what the rest of you do.
Sam – Yes indeed. Saudi Arabia is the world’s hotspot. I said above, in response to Jacob’s post that this should be tackled now.
Had the Israelis not acted with such despatch and clarity of thought – despite the weepy Western “liberals” (thought fascists) – Saddam Hussein would have had a nuclear reactor. They saw the danger and they had the will to neutralise it and screw international opinion.
Why do we in the West – especially Britain – lack the nerve? Saudi Arabia needs to be taken out. This would serve the double cause of putting the Muslim world on notice that we our tempers are running short and we’re not particularly interested in their opinion of us, and would liberate the oil fields for our use. This would also concentrate the mind of the world’s largest-population Muslim nation – Indonesia, with a population of 190m and a hotbed of terrorism.
And yes, Mecca delenda est.
Verity,
Go quite a long way with you on that. But “taking out” Saudi Arabia has to mean – primarily – “internationalising” the oil supply. The PRIMARY objective of any military action would be to keep the taps open.
Read or re read the chapter on Shame and Honor in David Pryce Jones book on the Arabs “The Closed Circle” This is a culkture that rejects reason and science, which is one reason so many competent Muslim/ Arab scientists work in the US and Europe and not in their home countries.
Actually most of the really good Muslim Scientists I run into seem to come from India.
We may have to take over the Saudi Oil fields, if so we should be ready to expel the local inhabitants.
The radical Imams France is expelling are coming back into that country almost as fast as the are being expelled. Meanwhile the campaign aginst French Jews continues. A vicious attack on a 16 year old Rabbi’s son and before that on a 12 year old girl show where France’s heart really is.
Verity writes:
“Who gave Jewish immigrants special TV and radio stations? Who gave Hindu immigrants special radio and TV stations? ”
Yes, indeed. I was quite taken aback when I heard the proposal that Labour is to give taxpayers’ money to ‘moderate Islamic’ (sic) newspapers and radio stations.
I await news of similar largesse to the Daily Wiccan or Wonderful Radio Wotan with absolutely no expectations whatsoever.
The instinct of the British chattering classes to respond to threats and menaces with moral cowardice is beyond parody.
Take a look at Melanie Phillips’ article “Dhimmitude UK” (May 31, 2004).
The French are kicking their radical mullahs out because they realise how bad it has gotten. The UK is not at the same point as France (for instance I don’t believe there any no go areas for non-Muslims in the UK as there are in France) but may get to that point if it does not do something quickly. Extraditing Abu Hamza is a good first step…off many.
As far as oil goes, the West needs to use any and all of its sources of oil outside the Islamic world. They need to stand up to the eco-facists and tell them where to get off. One wonders if the eco-movement will take its cue from one of its creators on nuclear power?
As someone has said above, and I have said many times before. Its is incombant on the moderates in Islam to sort out their own house and prove to the rest of the world that Islam is a peaceful religion. Empty rhetoric and bleating whenever a proven extremist gets arrested does not exactly help their cause.
“[…]events in Saudi Arabia are much more threatening than what goes on in Iraq.”
They always were. But for many years the silence on that point suited both the kingdom and its friends.
Since the only geopolitical sense in the Iraqi invasion was to put pressure on Saudi, ructions there are probably what we should expect. Even very slight al-Saud movement in response to Western pressure is opening up the suppressed conflict there. The competence of the current régime to handle change is in doubt, and one can’t guess what will come next.
“Taking SA out” is madness. ObL and co would love a proper jihad. So supporting some change with hands very publicly off and seeing what happens, looks like the only course to me.
Even if an (even more) utterly barking Dark Age revivalist cult were to come to power, it would find it hard to live off Haj receipts, or find the wherewithal to support the ludicrous irrigated wheat crops. The whole peninsula would starve if it stopped selling oil.
Andrew Ian Dodge writes:
“..for instance I don’t believe there any no go areas for non-Muslims in the UK as there are in France)…”
Sadly, this is not the case. I have a young relative who lives in an East Midlands town where there are most certainly ‘no go areas’ for ethnic minorities.
Recent news reports of anti-English violence elsewhere (immediately hushed-up, of course) suggest his town is by no means atypical.
Guy,
As a working rule “hands off” has to be the right choice. But if push comes to shove (and it might), intervention will have to follow.
We managed to live with a sharp cut in Iranian oil supply a generation ago, mainly because the Saudis were there in the background as suppliers of last resort – central bankers to the oil market. There was plenty of spare capacity in the supply system as it stood, and good prospects for production from developing non-Middle East sources.
It ain’t like that any more. Whatever the prospects are for developing non-oil supplies, they are firmly in the “long run” box. In the short run, doing without Saudi oil for any significant period (matter of a few months) is going to lead to crisis – in some shape or other.
And yes, no one has wanted to talk about the unstable equilibrium between a pro-western Saudi oil supply policy, and the stirring of the international jihadist pot. Its a bit like talk about the Berlin wall: everyone wanted it to go away; but on the other had, while was there, at least everyone knew what the rules were. The rules are about to change again – or it looks that way.
‘Beyond Parody’ – What a great name for a play about the dhimmitude and the lefty’s attitude to it. And yes, funny how the Jews and the Hindus instinctively knew they could assimilate in our culture, and prosper within it, without destroying their racial identity or their religion. Strange how it’s only the dimwits who think they can go smirking in their pajamas, dependent on the Urdu translator down the council offices for getting as much welfare benefit as possible, who think they’re superior to the host culture.
Spacer – I’ve only read of one radical imam in France who got back in. And they’re finding a way to kick him out again. The French do things quietly, but they don’t mess around. Re the anti-Jewish incidents you cite, these will have been perpetrated by Islamic youths. The Islamic threat seems to have driven the French to regarding their Jewish population as part of France. The hatred in this part of the world is all against Islam, believe me. They are not, as in Britain, afraid to speak out against Islam. They hate them. By getting rid of these radical imams, the government is doing the will of the French people.
Which means what? That a thousand years from now, Iraq will generate less ink than the fall of Soviet Communism? Ok, sure, fine. That says nothing about whether this is ‘winnable’ (although it does suggest that all the “Iraq is the front line in the war for Our Lives and Civilization” arguments are bullshit, as Iraq is evidently nothing more than a historical footnote – funny how the worse it gets the less important it is).
And this is supposed to be a libertarian site?
In this particular comment thread, so far i’ve seen mockery towards those who question the arrest of a man for doing nothing more than speak his mind (as far as i can see; yes! what he was saying was distateful, but so what? our much-vaunted freedoms allow him to say stuff we don’t like.), and advocating taking over other people’s countries if they won’t supply us with (their) natural resources. Nice.
A-t
France has traditionally lived by the principal “Pas de liberte pour les enemmis de la liberte.” They have little if any respect for free speech. Sadly free speech in Europe generally seems to be going down the tubes. Its almost as bad as the US universites with their speech codes, but at least Harvard does not expect the FBI to police the minds of their students.
Verity
The attack on the cemetery in Alsace was appartently carried out by the usual neo nazis. When it comes to attacking Jews The Nazis and the Islamists believe in the old “Meme Combat” slogan.
You are right the Imam in Lyon is the only one that has come back so far, I’m pretty confident he will not be the last.
Good Luck
Personally I’ve always thought that sunlight is the best disinfectant, even for Islamofasict scumsuckers
Perry,
do I take it you mean “Take no prisoners?”
spacer
can you see no distinction between a person and the geographical country that they originate from? If that is so, then that would seem to justify an attack on NYC as an attack on Hillary Clinton.
A_t
If Mr Hamza merely expressed opinions about the ‘degenerate West’ then that does not warrant any extradition. If he provided funds for the recruitment and training of terrorists then that goes way beyond freedom of expression. In any case there comes a point at which incitement becomes the commission of a crime. If I say: “I wish Sir Alex Ferguson had piles.” that is not a credible commission of a crime. If someone gives a young man a gun, false documents, money and detailed instructions on the location of Sir Alex Ferguson, after expressing vitriolic hatred of Manchester United Football Club, then there is more than “freedom of expression” at stake.
A-T writes:
“the usual stuff”
If I remember correctly, it has always been the position of the Left that those who oppose free speech should be denied it themselves.
That was certainly the position of the unwashed student masses during the 1970s, who so enjoyed pelting with eggs any political figure of whom they disapproved.
What changed? Or need we ask?
Meanwhile, of course, Antoine Clarke is correct. Hamza wasn’t arrested for ‘speaking his mind’ – he was arrested so that he could be extradited as a terrorist.
He should, of course, have been arrested by the British authorities for incitement, at the very least.
But, then Cherie and her pals wouldn’t have stood for that…
G Cooper and Antoine – If Kilroy-Silk so incensed Trevor Phillips by writing that some Muslim states oppressed women and were amputators of limbs that he was motivated to call the Metropolitan Police, he should have been motivated to call the Met when Abu Hamza preached that killing foreigners working in Muslim countries was OK.
And Hamza is not a British citizen. He entered into a bigamous marriage, which is against the law in Britain, to get British citizenship. As the marriage isn’t real, neither is the citizenship, despite the mewling of the left. In fact, he should be prosecuted for entering into a bigamous marriage with a British woman who was already married.
GCooper, pray tell what the traditional position of the Left has to do with my opinions. I am not, and have never been, in favour of stopping anyone from saying what they will. I don’t subscribe to any particular movement, so I see no relevance in your comments.
& i’m aware of what he’s ostensibly been arrested for.. but it just seems bizarre that if he genuinely *is* a terrorist organizer, and the US authorities have had evidence against him for a while, that they sat on the issue for so long. Surely the obvious thing would be to get on the phone to one’s stalwart ally & ask them to institute extradition procedures immediately, no?
I’m not saying i know for sure if he’s guilty or not, & certainly not commending anything the evil fucker says, but this all just seems very handily timed, no? & weird the way the UK has no evidence against him too… you’d think we’d have something. Don’t even try & convince me we’ve not bugged his communications for the last few years (& if we really haven’t, then why the hell not?)
A_t writes:
“GCooper, pray tell what the traditional position of the Left has to do with my opinions”
I do apologise. I must have confused you with some other Guardian reader.
And:
“…if he genuinely *is* a terrorist organizer, and the US authorities have had evidence against him for a while, that they sat on the issue for so long. Surely the obvious thing would be to get on the phone to one’s stalwart ally & ask them to institute extradition procedures immediately, no?”
Apparently, they were assiduously gathering said evidence. No doubt we will learn more when the bastard is in court. Assuming, of course, that the armies of the aforementioned newspaper don’t succeed in foiling his extradition.
And, finally:
“..weird the way the UK has no evidence against him too… you’d think we’d have something. Don’t even try & convince me we’ve not bugged his communications for the last few years (& if we really haven’t, then why the hell not?)”
Because people whose opinions you usually seem so respectful of have ensured that evidence gained through intercepts may not be used in a British court of law. This is not, however, true in the USA.
Nice try at a conspiracy theory, but don’t abandon the tinfoil hat just yet.
GCooper and Andrew Ian Dodge – could you let me know where these “no go” areas for non-muslims in France and Britain are please? I would like to visit them.
Cobden Bright writes:
“could you let me know where these “no go” areas for non-muslims in France and Britain are please? I would like to visit them.”
I would like you to visit them, too.
If you are A/ White, B/Male, C/Under 20, the back streets of Luton will do, just fine.
Of course, your Liberal Shield of Sanctimoniousness will ensure your safe passage, I’ve no doubt. My relative was less fortunate, he tells me.
Verity: “And Hamza is not a British citizen.”
Oh yes he is. Otherwise Blunkett would not be trying to deprive him of his citizenship.
As for extradition, yes, the timing is mighty odd in some respects, but it may have more to do with the coming into effect of the egregious new Extradition Act than anything else. The US authorities no longer have to show there’s a case to answer (not so reciprocally).
Since constititional protections for non-citizens have been suspended over there (and much weakened for citizens) we should be being more cautious, not less about extraditing anyone.
“Personally I’ve always thought that sunlight is the best disinfectant, even for Islamofasict scumsuckers”
Oh my, I hope you don’t mean the release of electromagnetic radiation(eg. light energy) from the detonation of a fusion bomb, which is technically the same as sunlight!
😀
TWG
Guy Herbert – You are usually much more astute (and suspicious) than this.
Abu Hamza is not a British citizen as he entered into a fraudulent, non-existent marriage to come by his British passport. Blunkett is making a big display of trying to rescind this non-citizenship, which is actually a non-issue as it doesn’t exist. Like all of Blair’s initiatives and targets and enquiries that don’t go anywhere, this is to placate the British voter. They have no intention of taking any definitive action against anyone associated with the Finsbury Park mosque or other terrorist organisations in Britain.
Surely you know by now that Labour is nothing to do with substance and everything to do with smoke and mirrors? Even a blind man can see that.
GCooper, are you actually able to discuss points, or do you just enjoy pointing the finger and going “leftist! look! he obeys Tony Blair.”? No doubt it amuses the leftists-are-the-root-of-all-evil gallery, but it does little for me.
& back streets of Luton… nice try. I’d suggest a young black man might fare no better. And what’s more, I’d suggest your relative’s experience, although unfortunate, was a) unusual, and b) not particularly race-related. I could take you to ‘back streets’ (how exotic) of Newcastle where I’m sure he could have a similar experience at the hands of white people from a ‘christian’ backgrount. Much more to do with empoverished, brutal young men, very little to do with Islam or Christianity. These young men will choose whichever affiliation makes them feel bigger, be it rabid Geordie who hates Southerners, or rabid Muslim who hates the Western system. Doesn’t mean that most Muslims or most Geordies are bastards tho’, nor does it mean there are “no go” areas; just areas in most cities where you have to watch your back. And yeah, if you stand out from whatever group of young men dominates the area (be they black, asian, geordie etc.), you’re probably at more risk.
Unfortunate, but the way of the world; seeing it as some kind of Muslim invasion? Maybe you need to get out more.
A_t writes:
“& back streets of Luton… nice try. I’d suggest a young black man might fare no better. And what’s more, I’d suggest your relative’s experience, although unfortunate, was a) unusual, and b) not particularly race-related”
Nonsense – and even more nonsensical than usual because you are trying to force an actual event into something that conforms to your dogma.
The incident in question was most definitely “racist” (in so far as one can use that absurd word to describe religiously motivated aggression) and no amount of tendentious blather can make it otherwise.
You might try, just for the sake of science, actually visiting some of these places, insead of pontificating liberal theory about them. Having done so, I can promise you you’ll find much to confirm that there are very conspicuous Moslem quarters, where the aggression is motivated by something a great deal nastier than ‘they’re just lads being lads’.
Interestingly, even the government seems to agree, with its speculation that there are 10,000 young bin Laden supporters out there, ready to welcome you wamly to the back streets of Bradford, Leicester and dear old Brum.
I’ll await your dispatches from Bradfordistan with eager anticipation of a damned good laugh.
I still maintain there are dangerous streets in any town, & I don’t see much difference. Sure the crime was ‘religiously motivated’ or racist if you prefer, but I don’t see how this is different from beating up a southerner because he’s got a different accent/represents the ‘oppressor’/’privileged’ class.
The main danger though, is the larger-scale activities which some brutal young muslims engage in; Geordies don’t have a secret organisation dedicated to ridding the world of southerners & making the world speak with a Newcastle accent. And so yes, from that point of view, I think it’s worrying that we have large numbers of disaffected Muslim youths in the country… but in terms of interpersonal violence, i’ve lived in too many inner cities, seen too many people attacked for various ridiculous reasons, to buy into this “the bad Muslim boys are worse than anyone else” stuff.
On the larger “make sure they don’t become terrorists” front, I’m not sure how to act; it *is* worrying, but oppressive measures against the UK’s muslim population; forced “assimilation” classes or similar are just likely to make anyone who’s already hostile moreso, & unlikely to win many people over.
I should add for the record that I’ve had various degrees of trouble with a few folk in the UK. Mainly white kids… a few Jamaicans… no Muslims at all. You could argue that that’s because of the places I’ve lived, & maybe you’re right; I’ve not lived anywhere where the poorest people were muslims. I think this has more to do with your “no go” areas than anything else.
As a reverse challenge, if you’re a southerner, have a go at wandering round the byker wall, talking loudly… see how much fun that is. Then come back & explain to me (aside from the larger dangerous organisation mentioned above), why the Muslim kids are so much more dangerous.
Then perhaps we can get down to actually discussing what to do about this, instead of just shrieking about our country being taken over or some similar hysterical crap.
Then perhaps we can get down to actually discussing what to do about this, instead of just shrieking about our country being taken over or some similar hysterical crap.
Let me guess…”what to do about this” is going to involve giving large sums of money to “community leaders” on a regular basis in the hope they keep the violence and discontent to a dull roar.
I’ve always loved the argument that A can’t be criticized because B is bad, too. I have to think it’s one thing to be beaten up for a foreigner when you’re a foreigner, but extra special insulting to be beaten up for a foreigner in your own country. Honestly, where are the English supposed to go to be English if not England?
Say, are there any places in Britain plagued by roving bands of disaffected Hindu youths?
S. Weasel, the worst are the disaffected Buddhists!
A_t – White and W Indian louts are not taught from birth that they have a holy duty to rid the world of infidels. They are not taught that blowing yourself up in the cause of killing infidels will get you an immediate mint tea with allah and a voucher for 72 virgins. White and W Indian louts have no belief that Britain is wicked and must be taken over as a holy duty by primitive, rigid, ignorant aggressors.
That Islamic louts are disaffected is the fault of Islamic parents and of socialist state schools bending over backward so as not to offend their exquisite sensibilities instead of instructing them to straighten up and fly right or else.
W Indian thugs might plan on taking over a street. Islamic thugs plan on taking over the world, by force.
Those are the immediate differences that spring to mind.
I also think that white and W Indian boys are redeemable – if the British had the will to redeem them. Islamic youths are not redeemable. They are born and brought up in a cauldron of hatred and self-righteousness.
And if Tony Servile really believes there are only 10,000 al-Qaeda sympathisers in Britain, he is, as we all know anyway, living in a world of his own.
“Say, are there any places in Britain plagued by roving bands of disaffected Hindu youths?”
Dunno.. as I say, i’ve never lived in areas where significant numbers of the urban underclass are from the Indian subcontinent. I’ve encountered a few ‘hindus’ (tbh, the whole religious distinction hasn’t meant that much for most of the British asians I’ve ever met; they’ve been about as religious as the equivalent generation of white brits) who’ve been into drug dealing/small time gangsterism tho’… dunno if that counts.
& no, I’m not advocating the things you suggest… the word “discuss” implies I’m not sure what to do, & think we should maybe talk about it, rather than applying some guardian one-size-fits-all happy clappy solution, or just flapping our hands & getting scared.
& man.. talk about misinterpreting… I’m not saying a) can’t be criticised… nor b). Both of them are stupid, ignorant actions that thorougly deserve condemnation. All I’m saying is, being attacked by some muslim youths in a backstreet somewhere in Britain is not necessarily symptomatic of global-jihad-out-to-get-us-all-help!-help! syndrome. Illustrating that one could get beaten up, depending on location, by young men coming from a variety of different racial/religious backgrounds, for remarkably similar reasons, seemed to strengthen my case.
As for the “getting beaten up for a foreigner in your own country”, what do you think my “Geordies beating up southerners” came under? For that matter, where does “BNP member beats up British black man” come into it? I’ve known plenty black people, born in the UK, British as myself or anyone else in my eyes, who could suffer that fate. Could happen to anyone. What’s more, I’d be surprised if you could find anywhere in the world that wasn’t the case; you’re always ‘foreign’ to someone, even in your ‘own’ country.
Verity, there seems little point in discussing any of this with you; you have a hysterical, paranoid hatred of all things muslim, which doesn’t gel at all with the reality I’ve seen in the UK recently. I suspect you’ve seen high profile coverage of a few incidents, read a few pundits, & decided they’re all out to get us. Fortunately, given that you don’t live here, & have not for some time, I trust my own judgement far more than yours, and can happily disregard your prophecies of doom.
(cue. “you won’t be laughing when you’re living in the caliphate of eurabia” nonsense…bring out your paranoid finest!)
A_t – I am not saying that bands of Muslim kids go roving around looking for white people to beat up. The problem is more pervasive. The poison is in the system of their society, their upbringing – not just in the minds of a few cocky kids.
They are hand fed contempt for their host society from birth. Their parents/grandparents did not come over with the intent of fitting in and contributing and building a life here. They came over seething with resentment, with no interest in the history or the culture of Western society, no interest in our customs or our habits. They came as settlers, to take as much as they could get because it’s OK to treat infidels like milk cows.
I would certainly expect you to trust your own judgement over mine. You’d be a pretty insecure person if you didn’t. What so many people don’t understand, because they couldn’t cope with the magnitude of the problem if they really did understand it, is, this attitude is pervasive. It is taken as a given. Christians and Jews are to be used and subjugated. It’s so pervasive that they don’t think about it. It just is.
They’re marking time. It’s not that they’ve got specific grudges against us – we celebrate Christmas and Easter, for example, or that we drink. It’s all pervasive. We’re infidels and their god has commanded the entire world submit to islam. That is what dar es salaam means: universal acceptance of allah. If we won’t convert, we must submit to the dhimmitude, agree to be regarded as inferior, in obeisance to allah, and we’ll be allowed to live, but in circumstances prescribed in the koran, which has an answer to everything. Christians and Jews will be subject people.
As with everything else he “tackles”, if that is not too strong a word for his vapid little thoughts, he has misapprehended the problem because it is so far out of his own experience that he cannot encompass the thought. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in his philosophy, and he’s about to find out as he gives in inch by inch thinking he’s placating them.
fred carnes – It’s the disaffected Jewish youths who are the worst, roving around roughly forcing people to solve algebra problems and forcing others to quote texts from books on neuro-surgery.
“They are hand fed contempt for their host society from birth. Their parents/grandparents did not come over with the intent of fitting in and contributing and building a life here. They came over seething with resentment, with no interest in the history or the culture of Western society, no interest in our customs or our habits. They came as settlers, to take as much as they could get because it’s OK to treat infidels like milk cows.”
Not the people I’ve known. Have you met anyone like this then? Otherwise, where is your evidence for your sweeping statements?
So Islam has an “ideally, the whole world should follow our religion, & you should make an effort towards this” clause… So does christianity. So what? At the moment there are a few weak nutters who’ve cleverly managed to gather disproportionate attention & support for their particular doomed-to-failure vision of a pre-renaissance caliphate. I’m worried by them, but don’t believe every muslim supports them, as you seem to. You’ve extrapolated from the most extreme & outspoken fools, & ascribed their words to every muslim living a quiet life & going about his own business.
I’ve had little in the way of contempt or attempts to impose a lifestyle upon me from any muslims i’ve known. The closest i’ve ever been to anything like that was one time when a (muslim by birth) friend of mine stole a copy of Razzle (low class British porn mag) from a 24 hour garage, & our taxi driver told him he should be going to the mosque. We all laughed, & he looked disapproving, but hardly contemptuous.
What’s more, I’d be surprised if you could find anywhere in the world that wasn’t the case; you’re always ‘foreign’ to someone, even in your ‘own’ country.
Nonsense. Only very recently and only in the West do we explicitly deny our own ethnicity, a thing which is not equivalent to race. The British are particularly insistent that British means nothing more than “born in Britain.” I’ve never seen a country more in a hurry to throw away its own culture, or deny that it has one.
Even in the US, a mongrel nation if there ever was one, we frown on hard knots of hostile, unassimilated immigrants (it’s the “hostile” part, rather than the “unassimilated” that causes problems). Or have done in the past. Our melting pot is working less well these days.
There are many countries that simply wouldn’t put up with bands of hostile immigrants in their midst. At least, one assumes they wouldn’t — hostile immigrants, not surprisingly, aren’t moving to those places.
A_t – You’re in denial. Of course individual Muslims do not grab you by the collar and proselytise like Asian Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is more pervasive than that.
I wish Susan would join this thread because she has a thorough understanding, at personal cost, of how the dhimmitude works (or is supposed to work).
Whether you can credit it or not, it is taken as a given that infidels are inferior people and don’t have to be regarded as fully human. It is not in their minds every waking minute. It is part of the superstructure of their consciousness. It’s just there.
I still maintain that this could be knocked out of them in school or simply by society as a whole if the socialists did not persist in – for reasons I do not understand – treating these people with kid gloves. Changing the name of Christmas to Winterval, for example. They can’t abase themselves enough. They’re doing it because they want brownie points for being such wonderful, understanding people, but the Islamics laugh at them and judge them weak.
The British-born Muslims who became the first “British” suicide bombers in Israel around a year ago had degrees, they were part of the mainstream, they owned their own homes, they had wives (one each), they had children, they had OK jobs. Totally normal. Until they were suddenly revealed to be jihadis.
Yes, indeed — thanks to the unceasing efforts of our tranzis to destroy our successful melting pot culture and replace it with “multiculturalism” (i.e., tribalism).
Susan, welcome! I am having a problem, because I don’t have a thorough grasp of the jihadi mentality, explaining to A_t why “disaffected” Muslim youth is different disaffected white or black youths.
Like the rest of us, he knows some moderate Muslims who just want to get on with living their lives. But a vast number are fanatics under the skin. I have failed to explain adequately that the entire basis of their religion is submission to the will of allah – whether you submit willingly or not.
Maybe this will help:
Why Islam Is Incompatible with Democracy
Amir Taheri, a liberal Muslim living in the West, explains why Islam is incompatible with Western liberal democracy. Last month Taheri participated in a debate which included Prof. John Esposito of Georgetown U., (one of the world’s foremost apologists for Islam and Political Islam) on whether or not Islam was compatible with democracy. Taheri’s group, which also included David Pryce-Jones, author of “The Closed Circle”, won the day handily.
This article is a shortened version of his debate speech, published in the Times of London. I wish I could find the full transcript of — as it laid out quite beautifully the stratified justice system of Islamic sharia.
In the full transcript, Taheri used the term “apartheid” at one point.
Briefly speaking, Islamic law accords rights to people based on religion and gender. Muslim men get the most rights; non-Muslim women get the fewest (practically non-existent). There is no such thing as equality in Islam no matter what anyone says.
Now, do all Muslims believe this? No, not at all. However I suspect that most of the Muslims in charge of Muslim pressure groups like CAIR and the Muslim Parliament in Britain DO believe in this stuff.
A British friend of mine watches the “Sharia TV” that is now broadcast late night on some British network or another (Channel 4?) This show features Imams answering questions from viewers on matters of sharia. In a recent “Sharia TV” show, the Imams acknowledged quite bare-facedly that under proper sharia, a Muslim who converts out of Islam must face the death penalty. (My friend is a Muslim convert to Christianity so you can see why he is disturbed by this sort of broadcast.) The Imam emphasized however that this would be illegal under current British law, so Muslims shouldn’t carry it out (big of him, what?)
Is anybody in Britain listening? This is being broadcast to thousands of people over your networks and no one is paying attenition.
“Is anybody in Britain listening? This is being broadcast to thousands of people over your networks and no one is paying attenition.”
Yeah… i’ve watched that Sharia TV thing a few times… very dull & worthy, sometimes vaguely interesting.
Do you think someone who reckons by rights people who convert away *should* be killed, although he emphasises this shouldn’t happen is any different to Christians who think that in an ideal world, ‘sodomites’ should be flogged/imprisoned, but abide by the rules of our society?
But thank you Susan, for pointing out that most normal Muslims probably don’t subscribe to this. ‘Pressure groups’ by their very definition will represent those who are not happy with the status quo. Why would someone who’s quite happy with his life in the UK join a ‘pressure group’?
I live in South London, & they’re always consulting ‘community groups’ over what to do (eg the recent cannabis semi-decriminalisation experiment in Brixton). The trouble is, these ‘community groups’ usually consist of conservatives; in this case, churchgoing ladies who will clearly be opposed to cannabis smoking etc. They’re taken as the ‘voice of the community’, even though they probably represent a small number of people, as the rest who may well disagree with them aren’t organised because they’re relatively satisfied (or they don’t have a central organisation to rally around) (or perhaps you just can’t work up such a self-righteous head of steam going “actually, i quite like things the way they are”… let’s all march! it’ll be like a father ted protest).
Susan, I think the stumbling block to understanding in both Britain and the US is, this religion is so alien to our (the Anglosphere) enlightened liberal tradition that people simply refuse to credit it. They think it must be an exaggeration, because no one could be that crazy.
Think of it: if you don’t, through no fault of your own, believe that Allah’s an all powerful god – on absolutely no evidence – , or that everything written in the koran is the absolute, universal truth, etc, you are an apostate and must be killed. Never mind that it’s not your fault what your mind tells you is true or false. Never mind the thought of, if Allah’s that great, why did he preside over the most god forsaken area of the world? I mean, until oil was discovered by Westerners and extraction developed by Westerners and refining processes developed by Westerners, Allah was the god of vast millions of sq miles of nothing but sand with about 82 very simple people in it.
How powerful is that?
Do you think someone who reckons by rights people who convert away *should* be killed, although he emphasises this shouldn’t happen is any different to Christians who think that in an ideal world, ‘sodomites’ should be flogged/imprisoned, but abide by the rules of our society?
It’s entirely different! You call the former a religious moderate, and the latter a drooling fundie nutcase so typical of a whackjob nation which shouldn’t be allowed to have such a big army or at least ought to take orders from the United Nations or the international community or somebody before it puts an eye out with that thing for chrissakes.
A_t
If I were a sodomite, I’d go for a christian flogging and a spell inside. Never really fancied being stoned to death, with a sack over my head, in a hole. Islam ain’t worth it.
I think this is a point that Verity and Susan are trying to get across. And I think they’re right. I wish they weren’t.
I dunno, step out of the place for an afternoon and all hell breaks loose…
Naturally, I agree entirely with Susan, Verity and S. Weasel. Clearly, A_t is confusing what he wishes to see with what is going on.
As he lives in South London, I suggest he takes a bus to sunny Streatham and wanders round some of the shops, paying particular attention to the strenuous efforts being made there to recruit disaffected black youths to Islam. He won’t have far to look. I was there a couple of years ago and you didn’t need to be Sherlock Holmes to see what was going on.
Add to that the story of Richard ‘too stupid to let off a shoe bomb’ Reid and then, perhaps, he might have a better insight into the urban subculture to which he seems largely oblivous.
Umm… and while he’s at it, perhaps A_t might finally like to address the discrepancy beween the 10,000 pro-bin Laden supporters (and Verity is bound to be right about the scale of underestmation in that figure) and his claim that militant Islam is not a very real danger indeed to the safety of this country.
You don’t get it A_t — the Imam didn’t emphasize that this shouldn’t happen, period. He emphasized that this shouldn’t happen as long as Britian remains a non-Muslim majority country.With these sharia proponents, there is always the unspoken “but” — sometimes not so unspoken. I remember that when Cat Stevens AKA Yousef Islam retracted his endorsement of the death fatwa on Salman Rushdie (only after world-wide outcry), he noted that it was unrealistic for British Muslims to expect that there would be death penalties for blasphemers against the Prophet in Britain — yet. That “yet” was very ominous to my ears.
Verity: Yes, I don’t think that there are two cultures less compatible with each other than Islamic culture and the Protestant-work ethic culture of Northern Europe.
However, I try to stick to criticizing Islam as an ideology and not Muslims. Phrases like “they are not like us” are not really helpful to the debate — and will probably get this talkboard shut down by the anti-racism police. Personally I have no problem with Islam if it is practiced as Amir Taheri recommended in his debate transcript — as a personal religion rather than a pollitical and statist ideology. Unfortunately those who see it as a personal religion seem to be in the minority, or at least are not talking about their preferences very loudly.
There are some people of Muslim backgruond who are trying to swim against the grain — ex-Muslims and liberal/secularist Musliims. These folks need all our support (they won’t get any from the A_t’s of this world). Needless to say, they must fight both the “anti-racist” lobby and the Islamist lobby — two powerful forces arrayed against them — to say nothing of the death threats. Such people as Nasser Khader in Denmark; Ayan Hirsi Ali of Holland; Irshad Manji of Canada (and that other Canadian-Iranian woman who’s trying to fight the Canadian sharia laws); Khalid Duran in the US; Bassam Tibi in Germany; Ibn Warraq.
It never escapes my sense of irony to note that many of the people who are fighting the hardest today to preserve our Western culture of liberty and individualism are not of Euorpean or Judeo-Christian background. Take Ayaan Hirsi Ali — a Somalian immigrant to Holland, she worked as a house-cleaner while teaching herself Dutch and English, got her degree, then entered politics. She later immersed herself into all the great thinkers of classical Western liberal thought and switched from a Socialist party to a classical liberal party.
We need people like this on our side.
G Cooper – Maybe Tony Dim is standing by his misstatements, but 10,000 is way low. There are 2.5m (approx – probably lowball because the government is afraid to let the British know the true extent of this parasitic infection) Muslims in Britain. Say 1m adults. Let’s say approximately 50% are female. So 500,000 Muslim men/boys in Britain, concentrated in their self-imposed ghettoes.
And Tony Dim thinks only 10K are hot to trot for jihad? He thinks life in socialist Britain is so adorable that the other 490,000 have been seduced into giving up allah’s command?
Hmmm, remember when Toneboy was getting on and off all those planes to and from the Middle East after 9/11 – the self-appointed ambassador of wonderfulness and Western accommodation? And he carried a koran in his hand the way Bill Clinton carried a bible? Maybe he should have opened it and read it.
Ten K muslims, born here, brought up here, some not even speaking English, their fathers regarding pajamas as formal wear, are disenchanted? Minimum, throughout Britain, probably around 40,000 angry youths who have been disconnected from the land of their birth by their ignorant parents, see no hope for themselves in Britain because their schooling was mocked at home, are very angry and think the West “deserves” a lesson. Some will allow their anger to be deflected to Israel. Some won’t.
I ought not to have written “deflected to Israel” as though that would be a good thing. Of course, it would not. I meant that even if deflected abroad, their fury and confusion would be directed at democracy.
I’d like to ask Susan and Verity about intermarrige in the UK. Long term assimilation in the US generally happens because women from immigrant backgrounds marry outside their ethnic group or faith. It happened big time with the Irish and it shows signs of happening with the Mexicans.
Is there any observable trend of British born Muslim girls marrying chritian or post christian British men?
Spacer, it’s illegal for a Muslim woman to marry a non-Muslim man under sharia. Of course some do (VS Naipaul, a Hindu, is married to a woman of Muslim background), but many catch extreme hell for it. It’s a big taboo in Islamic culture, generally speaking. Most men marrying Muslim women end up converting to Islam, I believe.
Classically speaking, a non-Muslim man marrying a Muslim woman was guilty of a capital crime and could be prosecuted and executed. The bride could be prosecuted for fornication.
It is not illegal for a Muslim man to marry a non-Muslim woman, but they have to be either Christian or Jewish, and their children are automatically considered to be Muslims.
spacer writes:
“Is there any observable trend of British born Muslim girls marrying chritian or post christian British men? ”
I realise the question was asked of Verity and Susan, but the answer, in any case, is a simple one. Not those from strict, orthodox backgrounds, if they wish to remain alive.
The whole business of forced arranged marriages and the perversion Islamists call ‘honour killings’ are just two of several ways in which Islam is defacing this country.
I shall now await the knock on my door from the police as I don’t doubt something in the above is actionable.
Which, of course, is yet further evidence of that defacement – the removal of our freedom of speech to protect the feelings of those who hold us in contempt.
Spacer – good question. Certainly, intermarriage has, throughout human history, been a sane and calm way by which newcomers to a culture integrated and adopted its laws and its ways … from Native Americans changing tribes to people crossing borders).
A Muslim girl “marrying out” – can’t. Her parents and her brothers will carry out an “honour killing” before they let her shame the family. (What is it about these mutilators of little girls’ genitals, deniers of human rights, including education, to 50% of the population, these stoners of adulteresses and homosexuals that is so honourable it could be “shamed”? Only asking …)
So many young Muslim girls “disappeared” … so little police interest. (‘Oh, she’s gone for holiday in the Tora Borah. Back in a year or so …)
Which is why the totalitarian “hate speech” laws never work. They only increase resentment against those who are being protected from having their feelings hurt.
Nothing to do with Britain, but while living in a Muslim country, I knew a man much enamoured of a very intelligent and motivated Muslim woman. The only way he could marry her was to convert. He did so. As a Muslim male, he could divorce her. He could get out of the marriage, but, having “converted”, he could never get out of Islam.
Susan – They’re working in Britain. But the British are easily cowed – because they regard their elected representatives as “our political masters”. Hate speech is Toneboy’s fave. Lotsa publicity to let the Muslims know he’s on their side, and lots of scare tactics, via enforcer Trevor Phillips giving interviews on the “neutral”, license-payer funded BBC.
No, Verity, the hate speech laws are NOT working in Britain — otherwise there wouldn’t be widespread “Islamophobia” and “hostility to all things Islamic” in the UK as Toneboy has suddenly discovered, would there now?
And just how much of that “Islamophobia” do you think is due to people who are upset about losing freedoms and cultural privileges they once formerly had, due to the tranzi appeasement of all things Islamic? Quite a bit I might imagine.
In fact some tranzi organization in the UK did a study and found out that hate speech laws and anti-racism programs actually increased racism among the “indigenes” rather than decreased it. (This was about 18 months ago). Typically, though, the “cure” the tranzis advocated was applying more of the same instead of getting rid of all the anti-racist fol-der-rol in the first place.
Susan – What I meant is, hate-speech laws are working against the indigenes whose country this is.
Unlike the US, we in Britain are not a nation of immigrants. Our people have been on our soil since time began – although invaded now and then by some dashing Vikings and swanky French – immigrants who stayed in our country adapted to our ways while bringing a thrilling touch of their own. They became part of our scenario … as did the Scots who moved to France become part of France, but with Scottish names in their children.
Calm, maybe a little difficult in families at first, but all worked out as is ever thus with families.
Now, Islam.
Hate speech is one way. The people who have owned this country since time began are forbidden (harum) to speak out against the intruders – and we are forbidden by our own people, seeking votes. The vile toneboy and the thugs and chancers who surround him and the ghastly cherieeeee.
There are no “human rights” for the owners of Britain.
Verity, yes, yes, I understand that Islam is being pushed on you by the tranzi/Gramsci crowd as the latest battering ram against the civilization they despise.
I was just pointing out that the pattern we have seen with all tranzi efforts is true with “anti-racism” programs too:
–the poverty programs that increase poverty rather than decrease it;
–the sex education programs that increase teen pregnancy rather than decrease it;
–the homeless programs that increase homelessness;
–the anti-crime programs that increase crime;
and now — ta-dah! Introducing:
–the “anti-racism” programs that increase ethnic hatred and divisiveness rather than decrease them!
Check out this thoroughly depressing “Ask the Experts” program produced by al-BBC:
Ask the Experts on “Islamophobia”
All of the people quoted in this panel are hardcore sharia supporters — you can tell by the way that Nihad Awad completely evades the comments of the non-Muslim man living under Islamic oppression in a Muslim-majority country.
It’s very depressing to see these hardcore supporters of sharia being presented to the public as “moderate” Muslims just because they sport a thin facade (very thin, to anyone in the know) of respectability.
On the other hand, this article (below) cheered me up somewhat, in which a practicing Canadian Muslim woman of the establishment fully spells out the injustices of sharia Personal Law and how it treats women:
Editorial on Canadian Sharia by Alia Hobgen
For a practicing Muslim member of a Muslim establishment organization to publicly admit that sharia is unjust is an earthshaking moment — believe me. Having debated extensively with the “Q News” and “CAIR” type of Muslim (who simply repeat over and over again that Islam is for equality and “justice”for all people without any foundation in truth) this is really, really something.
Wow, I love it when you guys reveal my true thoughts! Always so useful to get the insight of ones wiser than my foolish self:
Susan: “ex-Muslims and liberal/secularist Musliims. These folks need all our support (they won’t get any from the A_t’s of this world).”
Phew, that was close. I was thinking of supporting them; they seemed to to align better with my views of the world than the other fanatical guys… but I bow to your greater wisdom. No support for secular muslims from me, no-ho! I will support the nutcases in the name of umm… diversity or something (help me out here! you’re the clever ones with all the answers).
& S Weasel… ” You call the former a religious moderate, and the latter a drooling fundie nutcase so typical of a whackjob nation which shouldn’t be allowed to have such a big army or at least ought to take orders from the United Nations or the international community or somebody before it puts an eye out with that thing for chrissakes.”
Wow… I wasn’t aware I’d passed judgement on either of them thus far. Just think, there was me thinking they were *both* drooling fundie nutcases who believe in some grand ghost story invented to make the world less scary. Plus my anti-Americanism’s clearly in need of some work, as none of that stuff had even crossed my mind…. doh! Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways.
Anyway, apologies for any confusion; I will make an effort to be more politically predictable. I understand it must be disturbing for you.
Thank you all for your enlightening comments.
A_t – That was a funny post! Thanks for the laugh.
But if you think Muslims are, in the main, just like us (I’m not saying you do; I’m just saying you don’t seem to realise the depth of their contempt, for the most part, of the West), this is still a misunderstanding.
Neither Susan (for whom I should also not be intuiting thoughts, I realise) nor I deny there are moderate Muslims. But there aren’t enough to build up any critical body mass. Why is there a grand total of one Muslim official – Iqbal Sacranie – who has spoken out in Britain about terror cells? And even then, his feet had to be held to the fire. (I don’t mean to diminish what he said, though; it was brave of him to make an unequivocal statement and he’s received abuse for it.)
Verity, I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one; although I’m sure most muslims in the UK have their complaints about the way the country works (& who doesn’t?), I don’t think on the whole they dispise other people more than any average Brit. Seeing as there’s no easy way to measure who’s right on this one, we’ll have to sit tight & hope i’m right.
A_t: If you support the “progressive” political agenda you are NOT supporting liberal, secularist or dissident Muslims or ex-Muslims.
For the most part, the people being pushed by the “progressive” establishment (including the BBC and al-Guardian) as “moderate” Muslims are simply selling the same snake oil as Abu Hamza, just packaged less threateningly.
Folks like Ayaan Hirsi Ali must battle both the “progressive” political establishment as well as the Islamic establishment (which is a lot less “moderate” in its agendas than is portrayed in the media).
There’s no reason for the much-needed Islamic reformation to come about if all criticism of it is quashed in the name of “anti-racism.”
You said you had no problem with Sharia TV and its death fatwas against Muslim converts to other religions. Ergo, you don’t sound like much of a supporter of Muslim dissidents to me.
Wow Susan, even lighthearted mockery can’t dissuade you from your quest to ‘prove’ that I support backwards thugs.
“You said you had no problem with Sharia TV and its death fatwas against Muslim converts to other religions.”
Hmm.. quote me that bit back again… must’ve missed that. All i said was, i’d watched a bit of it (didn’t see the fatwa bit you referred to), found it boring for the most part, & i see no difference between a Muslim saying:
“We would like X to happen, but given that current laws are against it, we will respect the law of the land.”
and a Christian or non-religious person expressing the same, which they frequently do.
If any person takes the law into their own hands, then we should clearly bring down the force of our laws on them. This applies equally to Muslims who try to kill apostates and ‘loving’ fathers of whatever denomination who beat up their gay sons.
And if you really need me to say it, of *course* I have a problem with frikking idiots who wish to kill people because they’ve given up a particular religion. I think it’s a scummy thing to even believe, let alone act upon. There you go.
Now feel free to go ahead & explain how this, along with my ‘support for a progressive agenda’ actually means I support female circumcision or honour killings. Be my guest.
…or perhaps you might like to give it a rest.
A_t: Do you support the right of people to unrestrictedly criticize Islam the same as any other ideology, yes or no?
Speaking of Hirsi Ali, she’s back in the news with death threats again:
Hirsi Ali Latest Death Threats
“A_t: Do you support the right of people to unrestrictedly criticize Islam the same as any other ideology, yes or no?”
Errr… yes! Seems to be implicit in a belief in free speech really.
Were you expecting any other answer, or have you spotted something I said earlier which you feel you can use to ‘show’ me that I don’t really believe what I stated above.
My curiosity is piqued… Susan, do you see me as some kind of socialist gramascian horror, encapsulating all your worst fears?
Why bother asking me such a dumb question as you did above? Did you expect me to come back with
“Well, Islam deserves special protection because of our colonial guilt, oh! and of course to further my secret agenda, which is to undermine all that is good in Western civilisation”?
Hah! As if.
The indoctrination camp trained me better than to reveal all my secrets that easily.
Yes, A_t, I do admit, I see you as someone who tends to support the tranzi side of issues quite often.
Well, good to see that you say you believe in free speech.
“Well, good to see that you say you believe in free speech.”
Why, thank you.
Btw, every ‘Tranzi’ i’ve ever met (including UN employees, people who work for the Beeb & worse! do i have to wash my hands?) has.
Your reference to a ‘Tranzi side’ is quite telling though. I’m not on anyone’s ‘side’ except my own & that of those I care about. I usually make my own mind using the evidence available to me, & try not to get caught in this “every issue is bipartisan” paradigm which is particularly prevalent in the Anglosphere, possibly due to the nature of our political systems. (note: just observing, not dissing. A bipartisan political system has many plusses).
If you fixate on the idea that our disagreement on some issues means I’m on the ‘other side’ in some fictional political football match, there’s little chance we can have any constructive debate. If you can see that we probably agree on many if not most important issues, & disagree about some interpretations, we’ll be on a healthier footing.
Well, yes, they SAY they are for freedom of speech — just like Nihad Awad of CAIR says that “real” Islam stands for equality for all, and just like the Soviet constitution SAID it believed in individual human liberties.
Talk is cheap but I doubt if many UN employees or Beeb employees really do believe in freedom of speech — especially not when it comes to their pet issues.
No sale on that one, I’m afraid, A_t.
Susan – you and me both. There is no free speech at the Beeb. Jeremy Paxman believes in free speech as long as everyone agrees that he expresses everyone’s beliefs. So does creaking bully John Humphreys. And Jim Nauchtie or whatever his name is. And Ola Guerrin and Fergal Keen and Jenni “I’m not scared of being fat” Murray. Such a brave band of warriors for free speech, as long as it’s read off their script and credible opposing opinions are edited out at airtime.. .
Jeremy Paxo Custard’s famed questioning of the British Home Secretary consisted of the same question 14 times because his producer had time to fill before the end of the programme and said into Jeremy’s headphone 14 times, “Ask him again”. Paxman is not a brave journalist. He has never been out cleverly chasing down a story. He’s a front man with a sneer that looks good on University Challenge.
He was a parrot for questioning the British Home Secretary a la the earpiece, and got a reputation, which doubtless came as a surprise to himself, as a feisty journalist. Jeremy Paxman is an empty balloon.
They’re all superior multiculis – which the trades unions have yet to be smart enough to understand … Once the unions understand that they are shovelling in third worlders to work cheaper (the ones who deign to work, being entitled, as they are, to the fruits of the labour of the infidel, that is) they will be in for the frisson of losing.
Hahaha!! how did i know that would be the reaction…
“they say they are, but really, secretly, deep down, THEY’RE NOT!”
ridiculous.
bye!
(if you were to argue that unwittingly many of them encourage measures/policies/views, or are part of structures which interfere with free speech, i’d have a lot more time for you, but as is, you see… i know these people. You don’t.)
(Link)
Professor Graham Zellick, former VC of the University of London, has revealed he is the grandson of immigrants who could neither read nor write English. The root of what has to cease forthwith in this country is the blame for individual failure, individual inadequacy on society, Islamophobia, racism, immigration, little green persons from Mars, or possibly the root is ‘New Labour’s’ rewriting of history. To read their drool is to go back a century or so. Sometimes it’s only 60-70 years, as you look out of the window and see the Jarrow Marchers arriving in London. Until NL, there was no opportunity. Those who graduated from ‘elite’ universities are ‘the privileged few’. It’s not just garbage: it’s filth. Yup, there are a lot of children from the professional classes at Oxford, Cambridge, London, but that’s not the point. The point is who their grand-parents and great-grandparents were. Opportunity for those with ability and motivation has been going a long time now. I think that if the whining is stopped, or at least if key people stop paying any attention to it, a lot of other things will fall back into place.
I think Muslim nations need to get themselves on a par with Western nations, so that Muslim nations too, can have nuclear weapons and the Muslim nations too can go and invade western nations and bomb the hell out of them in the name of freedom and democracy, and then preach at Westerners that they’re inferior and should be grateful for being bombed on the back of lies about weapons of mass destruction and so on.
Yup, Muslims need to be the same as westerners all right.
salam alykum,
i am a muslim and i dont agree with certain views here. first of all, you guys dont know anything about islam. all you know about islam is what the media tells you and you blindly accept that. i dont see any critical thinking. secondly, islam cannot be judged by a few terrorists. islam can only be judged on quran and sunnah. i agree that there are many bad muslims around but this has got nothing to do with islam. there are also a lot of non muslims in the world. in the holy quran it says, killing one person (independent of race culture religion) is like killing all of mankind. Islam is the fastest growing religion in the world and muhammed is the best of mankind. i strongly urge you to go and read more about islam and its roots. http://www.islamqa.com. peace with you all.