Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The Appeasement of Islamic (And Indeed Any Other) Terrorists Must Stop

I came across THIS article by Nile Gardiner titled BRITAIN MUST REJECT APPEASEMENT OF ISLAMIC TERRORISTS. Gardiner is a Fellow of the Washington based Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom. He writes...

Britain needs a new generation of Muslim leaders who are untainted by association with, or sympathy for, Islamic extremism and who are proud of their British identity. They must be willing to condemn terrorism unequivocally and help root out extremists from Muslim communities. Their role in helping defeat Islamic terrorism will be invaluable.

Read the full article HERE.

43 comments:

Anonymous said...

nile gardiner is a neocon, which doesnt do much for me (despite my being a tory)...

ed said...

In my opininion, this is a rather poor article. For those who haven't read it, here is the open letter:
*******
Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.

It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.

To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.

The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.

Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.

Such a move would make us all safer.
******
This letter's signitories clearly do not support extremism, it is not, as 'Nile Gardiner, Ph.D.' infers a peice of 'Blackmail and Intimidation'. It is a crying shame that such bilge is in anyway connected to the Blessed Margaret.

Verity said...

ed - The letter is written in the taqqya template and easy to identify as such by anyone with any experience of taqqya and kitman.

You're not a regular around here, are you, Ed? Strange that you were motivated to jump right in on this...

Anonymous said...

An invaluable step would be to stop appeasement of those "Muslim leaders" like Dr Pasha of the Union of Muslim Organisations, who thinks he has agreement from Ruth Kelly for the introduction of a parallel legal system in the country which would apply only to Muslims.

Until *all* Muslims in this country recognise that the laws of this parliamentary democracy apply to them as well, their token condemnation of extremism means nothing.

Anonymous said...

Hey, Verity.

Wtf is this taqqya and kitman stuff? Point me at some references.

Tone made me do it - he's a bad influence said...

There is a whisper going up and down this land: at dog clubs, horse shows, car boot sales and in pubs right across the UK that something needs to be done and done fast.
This whisper is waiting for a politician brave enough to give it voice.

We need someone to take note of modern day Basil Liddell Harts, not a media stuffed full of professional Edward Hallet Carr-type apologist-appeasers.

The West won the Cold war because, fortunately for us, Russian military strategists were preparing for the last war they fought and were concerned only with main battle tanks, and fire power. Their rigid hierarchy meant that they were never able to think outside the Stalingrad box.

But what if Stalin had allowed his dissidents to leave the Soviet Union instead of keeping them? He could have flooded the West with foreign emigres, hiding amongst them a small well-armed militia, trained in agit prop as well guerrilla tactics, and under-mined the west from within. Telling them build bunkers under their children's' schools. Causing the west to turn in on itself by undermining its greatest strength; its compassion.

The last 4 weeks has seen the Western world wake up to a new type of war, where the main battle tank is useless. A new epoch has arrived, where the enemies of the West know our weaknesses better than we do, and know fully how to exploit them.

Yet our government seems to take no heed. If you take the street value of Heroin as a guide to how good our Customs are at keeping weapons out of the UK there has been no improvement since 9/11.

recently, late at night, I sometimes see a future of the UK turnt into a South Armagh type-bandit country whilst Blair fiddles on a permanent lecture tour of the USA. What is he lecturing about? - how to solve our problems with a policy of domestic appeasement and a interventionist foreign policy.

oop norf said...

The cry of 'appeasement' has to stop as well - it's becoming as bad as those that shout 'racist' at things they don't like.

You don't have to support terrorists to agree with some of their aims - it's quite possible (even likely) to come to a point of view in opposition to much of our current foreign policy independently of the terrorist threat. Just because terrorists want something doesn't mean we should do the opposite - we should do whatever's right regardless of threats either way.

Ed said...

I'd consider myself a regular, verity, though I've been on holiday for two weeks, so haven't commented much recently. Refs concerning taqqya and kitman, please.

Verity said...

anonymous 8:30 and any others who ask, go to Google. This is a complex and formal format of deception against people who follow Christianity or Judaism, or no religion.

It is part of the formal body of deceit that allows Islamics to lie under oath while swearing on their koran. If it furthers the cause of Islam, lying on the koran is OK. This is why British courts must never, never, never give in to the whining to allow them to swear on their own holy book. This is all part of the formal structure of deception.

One is taqqya and the other is kitman and is much too complex to go into, but I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of references on the internet. I've spelled them as I have most often seen the words spelled, but it's from the Arabic, so you may have to try different spellings. The two words are usually mentioned together as one leads on from the other. You will find it very illuminating.

The letter from MPAC or whatever it's called, is a primo example of taqqya.

strapworld said...

Verity you are a star.

We cannot give an inch to this minority. We must remind them that when in rome etc!

I fear, though, that this craven crowd in government will allow them almost anything as long as the labour party get their support at elections! Voe Labour and they will let us rule the country.

I object strongly to ministers meeting with representatives of the muslims. I object to MP's who happen to be muslims acting as if they are the MP's for all muslims. Whatever happenened to constituencies? Vaz was one for acting and speaking for matters muslim!

I am sure there are many good muslims but they have got to get their voices heard NOW.

This country ihas gone to the dogs and Enoch has been proved, well and truly, right.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

Verity herself practices her own form of deceit by asserting that Muslims use taqiya and kithman to deceive.

She neglects to mention that they are only applicable to Shia Muslims in their use, ie Sunni, Sufi, Ahammadiya etc do not practice these ideas, particularly as they are the ones who are meant to be deceived by such devices!

Let's not smother the facts with half-baked myths.

Verity said...

mahiavelli's understudy - sorry, but you have read an incorrect entry. This is a very common practice, especially throughout the Arab world. You may have read a Google entry which ascribes it to the Shia, but it is most assuredly not limited to them. They and Muslims from the Sub-Continent like, oh, Abdul Bari of the soi-disant Muslim Council, are regular practitioners.

It's either in the koran or the hadiths. I am not going to get into a religious discussion with you, as neither one of us is an expert.

Your claiming that I am practising deceit by writing that it is a common practice in Islam is a gratuitous insult. Rather than attempt the definitions myself, I pointed my fellow commentators towards Google.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

You made an assertion AND you pointed others to Google.

It isn't a single point of reference which makes the point I have repeated- there are several.

Either way, you will have your references and I will have mine.

My question is, what point are you making withpxo this? I am inclined to believe that you are leading to the position that Muslims should absolutely not be trusted.

Verity said...

machiavelli's understudy - Yes, of course I made an assertion. I mentioned that the vein of taqqya and kitman runs through Islamic relations with advanced Western societies. Then, when others who had never heard of these practices wrote in, I pointed them at Google.

I behaved perfectly correctly. A. I don't have the in-depth knowledge to pose as an expert.

B. There are tens of thousands of entries in Google where people can get a more profound definition than I could offer.

You then accused me of deceit, when I could not have acted with more transparency.

This is outrageous.

ed said...

Verity, I do not wish to be pointed in the direction of Google. Outside of Mister Dale and his associates I find that the Internet is largely made up of people distorting facts to their own nefarious ends. When I ask for a reference I wish for it to come in a book, if possible printed by a seat of higher learning by someone with enough letters after their name to win at Scrabble. The internet has many uses: dense theological explanation is not one of them.

Benedict White said...

Verity, Last time I was in court, I was asked to as a Christian to swear on the Bible.

At Mathew Chapter 5 verse 33 to 37 it says:
""Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one."

So every Oath made in court comes from the evil one according to the bible.

Tell me Verity are you a fan of the rabbi Meir Kahane?

Benedict White said...

Iain, How do you feel about our earlier appeasment of jewish terrorists?

ScotsToryB said...

Verity & Nicollo Junior try this one - it is explanatory


http://jihadwatch.org/archives/004628.php

regards

ScotsToryB

ScotsToryB said...

Benedict White

Up here in the land of stretched pennies we are allowed to affirm to our testimony. No magic books involved.
If someone is prepared to perjure themselves, they will do it, religious or not.

Why not adopt that UK wide?

ScotsToryB

ps thank god(!) for preview.

I don't mean we should all perjure ourselves.....Excuse me now, I've got a hole to finish.

Benedict White said...

Re ScotstoryB, I agree with your comments, but just wanted to draw Verity's attention to an issue of truthfullness of our own.

Personally the only thing that is relevent these days is if you get caught you get locked up.

verity said...

benedict white asks: "Tell me Verity are you a fan of the rabbi Meir Kahane?" Never heard of him. If the question was ironic, it was lost on me.

ed - If you're looking for me to do your research for you, you are doomed to bitter disappointment. I did not point you at the internet, which is indeed a ragbag. That is its nature. I pointed you to Google, which references millions and millions of facts.

Scots tory - affirming would result in the same lies from Islamics. There is no way of getting the truth out of them as they are lying in the service of their allah.

Steve G said...

A typically elegant comment, I think, on the matter from Matthew Parris in Today's Times (though I think he's conflating the Marie Celeste and the spectral Flying Dutchman):

MARY-ANN SIEGHART and Roy Hattersley, among other voices, were spot-on this week when they pointed out that the observation that British foreign policy has radicalised some young Muslims is a factual claim, not an argument against (or for) the policy. This highlights a deeper problem about the unhinged atmosphere surrounding Planet Blair.

On this planet a belief that something is “the right thing to do” implies a denial that attendant problems could even exist. Just as other craft could sail straight through the Mary Celeste, truths can sail slap bang through the middle of the Prime Minister’s mental framework — and out the other side — without ever impinging. This is a mentality familiar to psychiatric social workers. On ploughs the ghostly Tony Celeste into the night: lights blazing, nobody at home.

Verity said...

I am doing this as a separate post, because I have been surprised at the resistance to the idea that lying is an intrinsic part of Islam.

I am going to give you a classic case of kitman - deceit by omission. It is one you can all relate to, because you all heard it. Although I do not remember the exact words, I have taken care to convey the exact thoughts and meaning.

After the self-detonating community murdered over 50 people on London Transport and maimed hundreds more, the ubiquitous and oleaginous Iqbal Sacranie and cohorts were front and centre on TV, looking grave.

Did he believe the murder of innocent people in the cause of religion was wrong, he was asked.

Sacranie, with an air of great reasonableness said (words to this effect) "Of course it is! Murder of innocent people is always wrong in Islam, whether it is in the cause of religion or anything else! The killing of innocent people is an offence against allah! Islam is a religion of peace, not the murder of innocents!"

Convinced? A lot of people were. But this was a classic piece of kitman. One: He always said, or implied, "innocent" people. Here's the bait and switch: anyone who is not a Muslim can't be innocent, because not being a Muslim is an offence against allah.

Two: We, the indigenes and immigrants from other other groups, cannot be innocent because we rejected Islam! You may not know it, but you were born a Muslim! Yes! And you changed your mind and rejected Islam as you grew up. (That's why muslim converts are referred to as "reverts"; they saw the light and went back.) So you have committed a crime against allah! You are not "innocent"! This means you're not a full human being and don't count.

The British were reassured by his words, because they seemed unequivocal. But far from it. The ommissions, from which he deflected attention were employed in the cause of deceit.

This is a textbook case of kitman. Next time you hear one of their wordy "spokesmen" on TV, listen carefully to what is not being said, not being addressed. If we're to get these people to straighten up and fly right, so to speak, or get out, it's important to know the code.

Benedict White said...

So Verity, do we need to pass a law which says that a Muslims word is worth less in court than a non Muslim?

Benedict White said...

Verity, Do you check under your bed for Muslims before you retire at night?

Is it worth poiting out that the Koran requires people of the book (Jews and Christians) to be respected?

Verity said...

benedict white, either an ex-member of the Camel Corps or an otherwise Islamophile, you lived in Lebanon. I would be astounded if you weren't well aware of taqqya and kitman. Why so defensive? I don't believe that you're not aware of the practice.

"So Verity, do we need to pass a law which says that a Muslims word is worth less in court than a non Muslim?" Of course not! Blair has passed 3000 new laws since his rickety, Micky Mouse "government" took over. We don't need any more! And a law against one group would not be democratic. But judges should be aware of the facts and judge muslim testament with this in mind - especially on matters engaging with ordinary Brits and the British establishment.

Obviously, not every Muslim practices taqqya and kitman anyway. It is the ones who are out to get concessions. To normal muslims, I would think swearing on the koran would be salutary and grave and they would tell the truth.

Benedict White said...

Verity, no I have not come accross the practice of which you speak.

What you seem to be saying is that a judge should take into account that a Muslim is a liar, when in criminal matters it is a jury which decides guilt (Except in the Diplock courts in Northern Ireland), and all this without the democratic process of passing legislation.

You also seem to then go on to admit that most Muslims don't lie.

Can I assume you don't like Muslims much?

Ever been to a Muslim country, if so which one?

Verity said...

Indeed, I have been to several Muslim countries. Which ones are not your business. I have never been to Lebanon, though.

No, I don't like the Muslim ethos much. I don't think it transplants well into democracy.

I said that ordinary Muslims who aren't into sophistries and winning the entire planet for Dar-es-Salaam would probably take swearing on the koran very seriously. OTOH, Muslims on a mission have permission to practice taqqya and kitman. I doubt whether most Muslims want to live such complicated,confrontational lives.

At the same time, we can't be too sanguine as the self-detonating community, which includes enablers, supporters and demonstrtors, seems to be rather large.

crapcakes said...

I started this hobby to find out 1 thing, can the inhabitants of the world can agree about what God isn't?

I'd love to receive your 10 words and foreign post mark.

http://crap-cakes.blogspot

Michel

Benedict White said...

Verity said "No, I don't like the Muslim ethos much. I don't think it transplants well into democracy."

But would like Judges to bear in mind Muslims are liars, without passing legislation democraticaly , and you are what, the height of democratic thought?

Verity said...

bernard white - I think you've been in at the mint tea. Please refer to my post immediately above.

I said emphatically that I don't think most Muslims are liars (although I don't know that for a fact), but certainly the ones on a mission to convert Dar-al-Harb are. These include all the 30 or so Muslim special pleading organisations, everyone around the self-detonating community, including enablers in the community, demonstrators, apologists, etc and the 370,000 now promoting the introduction of their tribal shariah in Britain.

It is not all of them. It may not even be half of the adults, but it is a sizable figure nevertheless.

Tone made me do it - he's a bad influence said...

Benedict White said...
Verity, Do you check under your bed for Muslims before you retire at night?

.....No I don't (they wouldn't fit), but I have a good look round my woods.

verity said...

tone made me do it - I don't get it. Is it a golfing joke?

Tone made me do it - he's a bad influence said...

Verity
-the UK police have been intensively searching a wood near High Wycombe in connection to the 23 arrests made last week.
Tonight they are said to have made a significant "find" of a suitcase containing "everything needed to make explosive devices.

-Not so much a case of Islamo- fascists under the bed but certainly one of them defiling a Chiltern beech wood.

For many local people use to walking in such woods this brings home just how close the threat it.

I take it your fortunate enough to live outside the BBC's poll tax area?

Verity said...

tone made me do it - Why don't the British take control? As "sending a message" is so prevalent in politics these days, the government (ha ha ha ha ha) should round up, say, 10,000 Pakistani illegals, failed asylum seekers, whatever and sednd a message to the ones left in Britain by deporting them by the plane load, or even boatload. Good TV and will get the attention of trouble-makers. Especially as they could never get back in because of DNA swabs and retinal photos. Say farewell to the White Cliffs of Dover, Achmed, because this is the last time you'll ever see them.

Benedict White said...

Verity, I would ask which contry you are from, but I am not sure which planet you are from.

On the issue of assylum seekers or immigrants, we have a process. It is applied equally accross all sections of communities who are affected. (Not very well, but that is another story)

There is a process. If you are suggesting we should apply the law with rigour, I agree, after all that is what it is there for. If however you are suggesting we should apply the law with rigour to one community but no other or that we should apply the law but go further for one community, I would have to ask if you were Daggers.

I note your previous comments. They imply that an indeterminate number of Muslims lie for their own political gain, thereby seeking to make the sky fall in.

I would point out that this seems to me to be the normal discourse of political debate. Don't vote Conservative because, though they say they won't cut public services, they will. They will cut taxes for the rich, and make the poor poorer. They will do this that and the other that was not in their manifesto becuase CONSERVATIVES ARE EVIL.

Well, I am a conservative, and know it is rubbish. Further more I know Muslims, Jews, Hindus etc. I know it is all rubish.

Machiavelli's Understudy said...

I'm not sure where to fit this one in, but who's willing to bet that some of this current fad of suspects are to be held for the full 28 days and then released 'because we didn't have long enough to investigate'? I think they'll certainly make use of a full 14 days, just to 'prove' that the previous limit was insufficient.

I understand the difficulties in reporting progress, but it does seem a bit slow... I can't recall anyone who's been held for this long on terrorism allegations.

Benedict White said...

Machiavelli's Understudy, No I will not take that bet. I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories, but the longer the deadline the longer it takes.

Verity said...

Well, Benedict White, don't you live in a happy, clappy Wonderland.

Did you know many of the people at the Home Office, making decisions about who can stay, are themselves failed asylum seekers? And they're bunging people 'permission to stay' documents for sex or cash? Don't tell you missed it? The Home Office is riven with them.

Yes, large numbers of Muslims lie for their own gain. Why you say they are "thereby seeking to make the sky fall in" is odd. The sky's already fallen in. British immigration has over 1m people unaccounted for - illegal immigrants, failed "asylum seekers", people who overstayed their permission to stay. In a tiny, tiny island which is easily policable, this is inexcusable and adds to the air of lawlessness in Britain.

You write: "I would point out that this seems to me to be the normal discourse of political debate. Don't vote Conservative because, though they say they won't cut public services, they will." I certainly hope so! Get rid of the Bengali translators and interpreters, the Urdus interpreters, whatever. Cut them all. I want to wave bye-bye to Real Nappy Coordinators, Street Football Outreach Coordinators, Diversity Officers, Diversity Managers, Diversity Chairman of Diversity Committees. All on Labour-agenda driven, taxpayer funded guaranteed pensions. I don't recall having had an opportunity to vote for "Diversity". If you want such bizarre services, you should pay for them yourself.

Tone made me do it - he's a bad influence said...

Benedict White said... 2.06AM (24 hours ago)

At Mathew Chapter 5 verse 33 to 37 it says:
...........
"So every Oath made in court comes from the evil one according to the bible."

You know Benedict, I don't normally get involved in Theology (I'm C of E) but that's quite an interpretation you've made there.

My Cambridge annotated says of Matthew Chapter 5 vs 33 to 37:

"Rather than determine one's responsibility to meet an obligation by deciding the sincerity and authority of one's oath, it is essential that ALL one's statements are reliable and unequivocal"

ie tell the truth ALL the time

I can't find any Christian interpretation that says "oaths in court come from the evil one", anywhere. Perhaps you could provide references.

Sorry I just can't leave your inaccurate interpretation of what goes on in Western Civilisation unchallenged on this thread.

Boy, would Miss Pickard (RE) be proud of me.

Cinnamon said...

Hmm, you know, this idea has potential, we have a House of Parliament, a House of Lords and so, a House of Community Leaders stands to reason.

In fact, lets abolish the first two for simplicity, since no-one is every happy with their output anyway and they just cost a lot of money to organise and maintain.

The community fuehrer is much easier, all those dudes do is print a few letterheads and then collect a grant, and hey presto, they are as important, if not more, than the local MP there anyway --- I mean, who votes nowadays anyway, so few people bother that the community based systems is better.

Let's build a Communocracy!!!

Ps.: The future is orange, turning into an ever so slight pink blush, just before eveolving into a rich powell-red.

Tone made me do it - he's a bad influence said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Tone made me do it - he's a bad influence said...

I know this threads gone a bit stale but I would appreciate some references on Benedict's Matthew 5 interpretation that:
"all oaths in court come from the evil one"

Verity was taken to task on "Kitman" references, where's , Benedict's Matthew 5 references?

It seems it not just warfare that's gone asymmetric.