Friday, August 11, 2006

It's Time for the Muslim Council of Britain to Stand Up and Be Counted

Yesterday George W Bush referred to the US and the free world being in a war with Islamo-fascism. As soon as I heard him say it I smiled. Why? Because I knew the predictable handwringing outpourings of faux outrage we'd get from the liberal so-called intelligentsia. And sure enough, they weren't long in coming forward on the various rolling news channels and Newsnight.

Yes, this is a war of sorts. Of course we should do all we can to understand the Muslim communities in this country. 99.9% of them will be just as disgusted at these terrorist outrages as anyone else in the country. But there's a cancer in their midst, and unfortunately they and their leaders are the only ones who can root it out. It's not something the government can do for them.

I've just seen a pathetic statement by Prescott saying that meetings will be held next week with Muslim leaders to urgently discuss the situation. This happened last year after the 7/7 bombings. I know because I was part of them. I remember meetings I attended chaired by Hazel Blears. All very social, all very worthy, all very constructive. But they achieved very little, beyond giving the false impression that 'something was being done'.

I also remember attending a meeting in Michael Howard's office with the Muslim Council of Britain. They just didn't get it. They couldn't bear to accept that it was down to them to take action. They bleated on about the War in Iraq but could not grasp that it was up to them to control the Immams who were preaching hate in Mosques up and down the country. They thought it was up to the government. Michael Howard was superb. He told them exactly what he thought and who was to blame.

We do not have the luxury of going through this charade once again. One year on from 7/7 we now find 24 people in Police custody facing terrorist charges. Obviously we don't know the full details yet, but we already know that the majority of them are British born and British educated.

We do not need to "understand" their motives, as the liberal left would want us to do. All we need to know is that they are motivated by an evil beyond most normal people's comprehension. It's not because they are 'alienated'. It's not because they haven't been edcuated properly. It's not because they live in poverty. Most of them lead perfectly average lives and appear to have been normal members of their communities. But somewhere along the lines they have been brainwashed - brainwashed by extremists in their midst. It's these extremists we should now be targeting - and either throwing them in jail or deporting them to from whence they came.

The Dunderheadedness blog puts it well...

"This isn't a parlour game. The Islamofascists don't really care if you watch Rory Bremner or smirk every time John Reid opens his mouth. This isn't fiction. We are not in some Chomskonian fantasy where the bad guys work in a government office.

This is a war. A war between a medievalist, fascist death cult whose values include the hanging of homosexuals, the murder of adulterers and the forced subjugation of women. If you think Blair is bad, then picture what Ahmadinejad will do to your student bedsit. Or your organic allotment. All your gay friends? Forget them. That funny T-shirt with the swearing on? Burnt. Websites like this where you can pour out whatever imbecilities you like? Gone. All that 'care in the community' 'causes of crime' stuff you love to talk about over your cheap red wine? You think that'll cut any mustard in a world where the criminals are hung, dismembered or denuded of their limbs?

Every time you open your mouth to talk in the way you do, that world gets nearer. And if we can't answer this threat through language, rational thought and rule of law, then it will be answered in bloodshed."


If I don't like my lot in life, what do I do? If I don't agree with the government, what do I do? If I don't like Tony Blair or George Bush, what do I do? As a civilised person, I write articles, I blog, I make speeches, I do interviews, I write letters. I might even demonstrate. In short I exert my democratic rights. What I don't do is strap a couple of sticks of dynamite round my waist or mix chemicals to blow a plane up.

No amount of 'understanding' will divert evil minds from evil deeds. And we'd better get used to the idea.

It's time for the Muslim Council of Britain to stand up and be counted. The fact that its website says absolutely nothing about the events of the last 36 hours is appalling. No condemnation, nothing. Their spokesman, who has appeared on various TV programmes, blames the War in Iraq. Sorry. Not good enough. If John Reid has anything about him, he'll call in the MCB and tell them what's what. And before he does, he should ring Michael Howard, who'll tell him exactly how to do it.

78 comments:

Geoff said...

There are more people than the Muslim Council of Britain who need to look to themselves. The BBC website reported GWB's speech as "...still at war with extremists"

Can't bring themselves to use the dreaded "T" word, can they? Too 'judgemental' apparently according to their leaked internal memos.

Don't judge the MCB too harshly. They are just a self-appointed group of single-issue polemicists. We have other fifth columnists more deeply embedded in our own Establishment.

griswold said...

Spot on. Evasion, diversion, false trails, 'grievances', simulated 'outrage' and so on. Thats the Muslim Council. Why? Because Govt and MC collude in the lie. The Mullahs control the minds of the impressionable young Muslim idealists. Where do they get their ideas and beliefs from. Wahabbism is their creed. It follows literal translation of the Koran. Non followers are heathens and kafirs. Saudi oil money funded Wahabi madrassas in that country. 9/11 perpetrators spawned by same. Bin Laden of this ilk. Muslim against Muslim is underway and we are a sideshow - colateral if you will.

Croydonian said...

Amen, Iain.

Benedict White said...

Iain, when you heard GWB speak, you smiled. I thought what a prat.

Whilst you and I both understand the he means people like Osama Bin Laden, and can agree with his sentiment, you can be sure that when Al Qada are using his words against us to get more recruits, they will not try to be even handed nor explain what he meant to say. As such they will recruit a few more to their cause.

GWB could have used any other phrase which would have meant the same thing to us, but could not have been used as a weapon against us. This is not a game, this is a matter of life and death. Loose lips sink ships.

As for "understanding them", if you do not know your enemy you can't hope to defeat him. We spent lots of time in WW2 understanding Hitler. That paid off.

As for the MCB the government or rather the home office as I understand it since Micheal Howard has used it as the ONLY channel of communication to the Muslim community despite that fact that it only represents a small part of it, hence the creation of the Sufi council. That is workling actively to combat extreamism already, but government wont talk to it because it is not part of the MCB.

Winning this anti terror campaign is never going to be about silly posturing, it is going to be about careful politics, propaganda and most of all hard intelegence work on the ground.

beethoven writes said...

Indeed, I agree completely. Surely the problem is that we have societies inside society in Modern Britain who are so extreme that they truly do not form part of what we can consider "British society" and its values? There is a rogue element inside our British population. On this issue, I have no f***ing idea what we can do about it.

Einstein once said that if there is no solution, then there is not a problem. If only the great man was alive today so that we could ask him if he had any suggestions as to what to do to solve this one.

John Coles said...

Well said, Ian. I am afraid that this sort of clear-eyed directness will prove abhorrent to Messrs Cameron, Maude & Letwin. No matter. You've said what needed to be said and many Conservatives willl agree with you.

Benedict White said...

Oh, and Griswold is right to identify Whabism as a major issue, it is a 17century sect, that used to be very small.

Now it has bucket loads of money, and we need to be imaginative about dealing with that.

I mentioned it in my article on teh war on terror here:
http://aconservatives.blogspot.com/2006/07/war-on-terror.html

Although I am going to have to do a new one, as Comrade Reid appears to want to make us in to a totalitarian state to protect our freedoms, and GWB seems keen on giving the enemy ammunition to gain more recruits.

The Yak said...

The terrorists do not blow themselves up because they "do not like their lot in life." They feel they are persecuted by the West, and demonstrate against it. Sick though it is, they know that one (foiled) terror plot will get more coverage than 1000 peaceful demonstrations.

The actions they take are awful, evil, and should never be used in any circumstances. But you have to understand that if you crave attention, you gain more by violence than by peace.

Benedict White said...

Oh, and while I am at it, Iraq is a f*ck up zone, not because we invaded under a false pretence, because even if we found a mountain of WMD it would still be a mess, is because Donald Rumsfeld is a jerk, and likes to do war and nation building on teh cheap. Penny wise and pound foolish.

Can you imagine what it would be like if the job had been done properly?

Well, we would have liberated yet more Muslims from under the jack boot.

Fred said...

I think the Brits are finally getting to breaking point with this islamic fascist mumbo jumbo cult. If any of you could painlessly remove islam from our country how many would in their heart of hearts not do it?

john said...

The biggest mistake is to think that the current asymmetric conflict is about any more than group identity and revenge.

That is the nub of the issue. For the moment the Tamil Tigers a form of secular Hindu organisation still lead in terms of suicide bombing. However, if people try to promote this dispute further then it will come to the fore.

Anonymous said...

even you, iain, are pandering to the muslim lobbies, by claiming that 99.9% will condemn the planned attacks. We should be so lucky. As we know from polls from Muslims in the Times and other newspapers, supports the 7/7 bombers amongst muslims was much, much higher.

If we are going to address this, we need to first be realistic and admit the size of the problem.

Chris Palmer said...

99.9% Iain? Wasn't there a recent survey that showed 33% of Muslims approving of the 7/7 London bombings?

Anonymous said...

Fuck off, you racist cunt, and indeed, fuck off again for good measure.

Let's wait for some facts before castigating people, shall we?

And while we're at it, let's try to understand Islam.

Other so-called Muslim terrorists were no more Muslims than Hitler was a Christian.

The Koran is remarkably clear on this kind of thing.

The Koran is freely available in decent translations (imperfect, maybe, but decent) as long as you skip the old Penguin Dawood translation.

Peace, always.

ian said...

I've no objection with the phrase Islamo-fascists. It encapsulates US policy quite well that they have no objection to Christian-Fascists or Judeo-fascists.

You appear to be making the mistake of assuming that because they've been arrested, they are guilty. Even if the high profile cases such as the Ricin plotters, Forest Gate two, de Menezes etc, weren't enough to show you this was a mistake, just look at the statistics. On the basis of previous arrests under the terrorism act, only 2.5% of the people arrested yesterday will be convicted of a terrorist offect. Or 0.6 of a person.

I'm not saying you should understand terrorists here. I'm saying they're probably not terrorists at all. Certainly they should be regarded as innocent until proven guilty, or the terrorists have already won.

Steve G said...

What specific action, though, do you, or did Michael Howard, say the Muslim Council of Britain should take 'to control the Immams who were preaching hate in Mosques up and down the country'?

The Muslim Council of Britain, as I understand it, is an ad-hoc body comprising leading figures from particular traditions in British Islam; it doesn't actually have any authority to tell an individual Imman what he should or shouldn't be saying in his mosque.

Nor, indeed, as far as I know, do most branches of Islam have the sort of hierarchical structure we're used to in mainstream Christian churches. If an Anglican vicar started preaching a holy war against Muslims, his bishop would be able to do something about it, though there would be little other than the criminal law on incitement to prevent the vicar, having lost his licence to preach, setting up his own church. Islam doesn't have that sort of equivalent of church discipline, at least to my knowledge.

Didn't we see this when Abu Hamza took over the Finsbury Park mosque? The local management committee, as I recall, were desperate to get rid of him, and kept on asking the Charity Commissioners and government for help, but he proved very difficult to shift.

And, if wasn't for the fact he's presently in prison, there would be little the Muslim Council of Britain (or anyone else) could do to stop him setting up his own mosque and preaching whatever he liked, so long as he could find financial backers and didn't again fall foul of the criminal law.

It's all very well to say you want the MCB to control particular Immams but what, practically, do you say they should do?

Chris Palmer said...

"Fuck off, you racist cunt, and indeed, fuck off again for good measure." - Anon

Anonymous moron, use your brain (if you have one.) Iain commented on the faith of Islam. Islam is a religion, not a race of people. If you are suggesting (which you are by your comments) that people who follow Islam are only of one racial origin (for example Middle Eastern) then it is you who are the racist, not Iain. Your anonymous rant would suggest that you are, in fact, so completely retarded that you cannot even sign in to your blogger account - or are so stupid that you cannot create one. Either that, or you wanted to remain anonymous because you are a piece of stinking shit. You think anyone will take your comments seriously?

towcestarian said...

Anonymous 10:02

Apart from some wonderfully intempreate language, I think you miss the point, dear chap. It isn't whether these suicide-wallahs are "real" muslims, it is the fact that they THINK that they are real muslims. And Iain's point (I think) is that is up to the MCB to let these lemmings know that they are acting in an incredibly un-Islamic way.

Also, if the Koran is so remarkably clear, how come there is so much dispute about what it says about these things?

tapestry said...

Hatred, envy, jealousy will always find a justification. They are never satisfied with reason or concessions. Each concession or reasonable argument is seen as weakness, inviting further ggression.

The Koran cannot stop war, any more than the Bible. If man wants to kill man, he will do it. Only strong countermeasures equal to the threat will end it.

Our civilised culture is threatened by one which believes it can defeat us by persuading us not to defend ourselves. As yet we are not waking up to the amount that needs to be done. The Conservative Party is lost trying to refight the 2001 and 2005 elections. The world in 2009 will be a very different place. It is Cameron who needs to change.

bebopper said...

Good post Iain. Where is Trevor Phillips and his superranuated race relations industry when we need him? Has he condemned the muslim "community" with its tacit approval of violence and outright murder to protect its spurious victimhood? He's as visible as Prescott when the shit's flying.

OK, so we know the race industry was formed to make excuses for black crime and educational underachievement, but you'd think it might try to make an effort in the present crisis. After all, there might be a "brother or sister" or two at the scene when the next bomb goes off.

There will always be young men excited with violence. Some will be psychopaths. They will be willing participants in revolutionary movements. The politics will wash over them, but the violence , approved from on high, will be exercised with much enthusiasm.

strapworld said...

Iain,

very well said.

I once lived in a country where we lived in counties, in towns, villages and, of course, cities. People had different accents from their different counties but we lived together peacefully gently teasing each other! Communities lived in villages, hamlets and small towns.

We never referred to Lancastrians as the Lancastrian Community or the Catholic Community or Protestant Community. No 'representatives' of the counties, or the faiths were called in following an arrest/s or problems on the streets.

By giving minorities the feeling that they are to be treated special. By allowing the minorities to set up Councils or Parliaments whatever, they have allowed those 'communities' to believe that they are to be treated differently. and there the problem started.

Having worked with Micheal Howard I can believe what you say. He always told it as it was. BUT I cannot see Hazel Blears or any of this lot doing that.

That is another reason the BNP see their support swelling.

You cannot fight a war (that is what it is) with home bred terrorists without getting at them. The muslim 'community' must be told to identify those amongst their midst who are troublemakers. and those should be deported. British Born or not! Their passports and citizenship should be revoked. We cannot afford to have such people amongst us.

Well said.

Man in a shed said...

I think the question to ask is why the various community leaders etc don't seem to get excited about Muslim's killing each other in Algeria, Iraq, Pakistan and Darfur. ( Maybe they do and its never reported ? ) Israel does something very strange to them. They seem to say its about Muslims (what about the other people) being killed in South Lebanon, but I suspect its really about pride and humiliation.

Lady Finchley said...

Iain, you were absolutely right on.
I am sick and tired of these professional victims. Let's stop pandering to the 'communities'
and let's start charging the perps with treason. We've all had enough.

And let's stop blaming the war in Iraq as ill advised as it may have been. This has been going on for years, way before the war. They just want to shove Sharia law down our throats and we ain't having it.
Enough is enough.

Deep Stoat said...

You are wrong in suggesting that 99% of Muslims are disgusted at the terrorist outrages because, in a recent well publicised poll*, 13% think that suicide bombers are martyrs.

Far more feel some sort of sympathy for them.

Let us be clear. This is a clash of cultures on a grand scale and not some lunatic fringe.

The main media channels are meanwhile falling over themselves to field putative "moderates" to explain away why more than a third of their community "say modern British values threaten the Islamic way of life" and want Britain to be under sharia law.

The facts are far worse than the BBC or Channel Four dare report.

Hopefully, it will be blogs like this that provide a vital antidote.

*I found the poll at
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCommentary.asp?Page=/Commentary/archive/200607/COM20060711b.html
but it was widely reported.

Anonymous said...

"99.9% of them will be just as disgusted at these terrorist outrages as anyone else in the country."

Not true - remember the polls saying that a large proportion of them thought 7/7 was justifiable?

Verity said...

No, Benedict White, GWB used exactly the right fighting talk. They want a signal? Now they've got one.

Winston Churchill did not say, "We will have tea and sandwiches and a discussion circle on the beaches!" in case German leaders' feelings would be hurt by the truth. He was a war leader. We are at war with militant Islam. If you are afraid to name your enemy, you are ... afraid.

My heart lifted when I read George Bush's deliberate straight talk. Someone with power, at last, has said that he recognises the enemy.

Benedict White, as a member of the commentariat of the self-regarding old world, you are blinded by your silly self-perceived "sophistication". You say: "GWB could have used any other phrase which would have meant the same thing to us,". Don't you understand? He wasn't talking to us. Geddit?

the yak thinks Islamics feel they are persecuted in the West. In what way? Could you give us some examples of how an Islamic would think he is being persecuted? They don't feel persecuted in the West in the least.

Closer to the point, Islamics disapprove of the West and wish to conquer if for allah. They don't feel even mildly persecuted. They wish to persecute the indigenes who built this ancient country in which they are squatting.

anonymous 9:59, yes. 370,000 Muslims in Britain think their primitive shariah law should be applied here. To me, that says 370,000 applications for deportation.

Islam is a religion/cult of conquest, chaps. Always has been. All its fussy little rules are to bind the team together.

towcestrarian - it's not just the koran,which apparently has to be read in Arabic to get the full flavour - thanks, I'll pass - but it's also the surahs. Blah blah blah.

Strapworld, d'accord. The "Muslim community" needs to be disbanded because it's a cancer and needs to be excised. I don't deny that some Muslims - obviously not in "the Muslim community" - have courageously come forward with information for the security services. These people are not people I would call "members of the Muslim community", but people I would gladly call British.

The "Muslim community" and the "Muslim Council" etc are cancers eating at our body politic. And the Labour government's Britain is a weak and willing host.

inconvenient_facts said...

Let's hope it is a clash of civilisations, because they tend to be infrequent, don't last very long, and light on casualties compared to clashes within civilisations. Death tolls from all the major wars of the last centory are informative:

Here are the death tolls of the big ones...
First World War (1914-18) 8.5 million military
6-9 million civilian
Russian Civil War (1917-22) 5 million
Soviet Union, Stalin’s regime (1924-53) 9-60 million
Second World War (1937-45) 50 million
Chinese Civil War (1945-49) 6 million
People's Republic of China, Mao regime (1949-1975) 30-40 million

...and here are the lesser ones:
Congo Free State (1886-1908) 2.5-8 million
Mexican Revolution (1910-20) 1 million
Armenian Massacres (1915-23) 2 million
China, Warlord Era (1917-28) 800,000
China, Nationalist Era (1928-37) 3.1 million
Korean War (1950-53) 2.7 million
North Korea (1948 et seq.) 1.6 million
(Not including deaths from famine)
Rwanda and Burundi (1959-95) 1.2 million
Second Indochina War (1960-75) 1.7 million
Nigeria (1966-70) 1 million
Bangladesh (1971) 1-1.25 million
Cambodia, Khmer Rouge (1975-1978) 1.6 million
Mozambique (1975-1993) 700,000
Afghanistan (1979-2001) 1.4 million
Iran-Iraq War (1980-88) 1 million
Sudan (1983 et seq.) 1.5 million

How many of these count as clashes of civilisations?

garypowell said...

Chriss Palmer and others
Glad someone said something.

Iain
Is the C word an acceptable word to be used as a direct act of personal abuse, to anyone never mind yourself?

You gave the yellow card and threatened a red last time. I think anon is asking for it. IMHO you should give it to him.

It would not seem quite so bad if this computer virus every backed up his obvious sense of uncontrolled outrage, with a well thought out constructive argument.

Verity said...

They have the impertinence, all 2.5m of them, to think they can dictate British foreign policy.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4785893.stm

All calm, cool, controlled, reasonable (insofar as moonbats can be reasonable, but they keep a level tone of voice), and going to whine their way into governing British foreign policy.

Anyone who has been in the ME knows the routine. Hand movements, head movements, offers of sweets, calls for mint tea, "we are reasonable people", blah blah blah.

Cranmer said...

This whole conflict is theological, and its superficial expression is political. Being prepared to die for one's faith is intrinsic to faith, though Muslims and Christians use the word 'martyr' with different definitions. For Muslims, it is an actively pursued path; a supreme vocation one may choose. For Christians, it is something inflicted on one; with a helpless sense of passivity; one makes a stand for the faith, and a third party inflicts the punishment.

These two faiths do not share definitions of 'God', 'prophet', 'salvation', ''martyr', 'scripture', 'revelation'. Indeed, they frequently have antithetical views. Politicians try to brush over the whole problem by insisting that 'religion' is all about worshipping the same God really, or believing in the same values, but it isn't. Until politicians comprehend that the complexities of theology need to be understood before communication can be effective (ie so that everyone is 'speaking the same language'), there will continue to be misunderstanding, frustration, and alienation.

This is not to excuse terrorism, but to emphasise the old adage that one person's terrorist is another person's freedom fighter. When two faiths have differing views on the meaning of 'liberty' - respect for which is no longer instilled in our schools - it is no surprise that conflict ensues as they pursue their mutually exclusive philosophies.

+Cranmer

Marquee Mark said...

Verity says

Islam is a religion/cult of conquest, chaps. Always has been. All its fussy little rules are to bind the team together.

And Christianity has been happy to sit back, eh? No crusding spirit supporting Christianity then. No fussy little rules about Communion there, heh? What could be more mind-blowing to your average Martian than transubstansiation -people being bound together by a ceremony where they actually believe they are eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their leader?

If people want to do that, up to them - just don't have it impact on the way the state lets me live my life. I don't want to live under a political regime headed by anybody who believes that their God has all the answers. Whichever God.

So when Verity says:

My heart lifted when I read George Bush's deliberate straight talk. Someone with power, at last, has said that he recognises the enemy.

my heart sank. The enemy Bush sees is all Islam - because all its adherents are doomed to burn in Hell for not coming to the one true God through His son, Jesus Christ. Bush - and many of the clique around him - see Muslims as either potential converts or else (more likely) irredeemably lost. So fuck 'em - let 'em go to Hell. That attitude can only lead to conflict. I find his approach to the world about as comforting as the prospect of Sharia law for all.

Anyone who has been in the ME knows the routine. Hand movements, head movements, offers of sweets, calls for mint tea, "we are reasonable people", blah blah blah.

Except in Israel, eh? But that isn't part of the Middle East, is it? Just a piece of Judeo-Christian civilization that by happenstance is located in a sea of barbarians. Yeah, right...hey Verity, reality check - there are many intelligent, forward-thinking, tolerant people in the Middle East, happy to live in secular states whilst quietly praying to their respective Gods. But these secularists get drowned out by the screaming voices of religious imperialists. Voices such as yours. So shut up a minute and listen. Turn the speakers down from eleven. Because YOU ARE THE PROBLEM.

Anonymous said...

Spot on Iain.

The majority of British Muslims have no truck with terrorism or extremism, however there is a minority (and not a tiny one I might add), largely made up of younger members of the community, who are frustrated and alienated and in many cases sympathise or even seek to effect redress of their grievances by resorting to terrorism and extremism.

Blaming foreign policy is simply pathetic, it is simply no excuse for resorting to outrages of the kind we saw on 7/7 and nearly witness again over the next few days… we have means of articulating our grievances in democracies and that does not include acts of mass-murder.

The government can do very little, it is down to the Muslim community, many of whose leaders (no doubt despite the best of intentions) have totally failed to appreciate the challenge of extremism and intolerance within their community, who must tackle the perception current amongst many within their community that somehow violent outrages are a justifiable means of political expression.

david kendrick said...

Negotiations with 'moderate muslims?

This misunderstands many mainstream muslim attitudes to the killers, which is: 'they may be barbaric murderers, but they are OUR barbaric muderers'.

Tea and biscuits with some self-styled leaders is going to turn their chums into informers?

At least you're trying to be real.

Anonymous said...

This country went to war with Italy in 1940, don't remember Roman Catholics protesting about British foreign policy. In 1944 the monastry at Monte Casino was bombed by the Royal Air Force. Despite being offered a 'stand down' not a single Roman Catholic aircrew, took up that offer. If the decision to bomb a major moslem religious site was taken, would moslems have the same attitude?
Oh have you seen political betting 'Are the Tories about to lose their poll lead' Darling Dave's honeymoon over Iain?

gradgrind said...

Most of the people just arrested are of Pakistani families, probably decent families, and their arrest was enabled by the tireless efforts and cooperation of the authorities in Pakistan where the tide is changing (eg. http://tinyurl.com/eza8h) against the sort of extremism we are now facing. While the Anglo-Saxons among us have spent the past 40 years breeding ignorant chavs and drunks with a lot of help from the Department of Education, the Pakistani communities have also, no doubt, had their problems. The vast majority of the grandparents and parents of these disaffected fanatics must be as baffled as we all are by what is happening. The disbanding of the local education authority in Bradford by OFSTED in 2000 was just one sign of how much assistance this community had had from the government in the guidance of their youngsters.

While our government strives with the USA to liberate the people of such countries exclusively as interest them economically, it seems to be wilfully oblivious to the damage it is causing to our increasingly multiracial and diverse society at home. A populist government, fighting for its survival, is succeeding very well in the past few days in dragging the press and the blogs to its cause. The less gullible among us will not be drawn in and will look further and deeper for the causes of our ills.

Neil Craig said...

So what is a moderate Moslem to do. We are still imprisoning Fikret Abdic purely for the "crime" of opposing al Queda at a time when encouraging al Queda to murder thousands of Christian civilians was considered in our best interests.

The whole problem with the "war on terror" is to know when we are going to change sides again.

griswold said...

I am not sure that I agree with His Eminence when he says that the conflict is between two faiths. The bigger conflict seems not to be Islam vs Christianity but between the different cults or branches of teaching within Islam. Sunni Shia and Sufi and a level below that of the influence of Wahabbism which is the most fundamental branch which seeks to turn back the clock in its rejection of modernity. There is a pact between Wahabbis and House of Saud. KSA oil money has funded fundamentalist madrassas around the globe particulary in KSA and Pakistan.
Lest we forget a reminder of Terror Cheerleader Bin Laden's demands to the US as yet unmet and likely to remain so :
1. Embrace Islam
2. Stop oppression, lies, debauchery etc.
3. Admit US is a nation without principles or manners(sic)
4. Stop supporting Israel and others.
5. Pack your bags and get out of our lands
6. End support of corrupt leaders in our countries (Saud, Mubbarak, Hussein et al).
Unless advice followed, we will be dealt with like earlier Crusaders.
What more is to be said?

Cranmer said...

This country went to war with Italy in 1940, don't remember Roman Catholics protesting about British foreign policy.

Actually, many did, just as many other Roman Catholics continued to do so over British domestic policy in Northern Ireland. And did they support a bombing campaign against us? Not all, but I think you'll find that a 'sizeable minority' certainly did. The role of the Catholic Church in Northern Ireland has been ambivalent at best. Quite a few priests refused to condemn the IRA. It is not only Imams who have had problems with UK policy.

Praguetory said...

"Moderate" Muslims have had long enough to put their house in order. From their claims to misunderstand the next generation to blaming foreign policy, it is clear that their attempts to control extremists in their midst have been half-hearted at best.

A bit more stick and a bit less carrot is needed I think. The UK should give these guys one more chance to provide meaningful co-operation with kicking out preachers of hate/provide intelligence re terrorists - if they fail cut off all state support for Islamic organisations and remove charitable status of all Islamic charities. Actually deport the illegals in their communities and, stop all further migration from terrorist hotbeds such as Pakistan. Have a marketing campaign backed by voluntary resettlement packages (to Islamic countries) for Muslim families who are opposed to the British way of life. In other words think the inthinkable.

It appears that all of our political leadership seeks to avoid the policy implications of the possible conclusion that extremists are in the majority.

PJ said...

"99.9% of them will be just as disgusted at these terrorist outrages as anyone else in the country"

Like others on this thread, I don't know where you get this idea. See, for instance, the Telegraph poll of 19/2/06, which said that about a fifth of British Muslims had sympathy with the feelings and motives of the 7/7 bombers. I know too many Muslims to think that all of them, or even most of them, are this evil, but modern society is so complicated and vulnerable that it only requires a tiny minority to cause immense damage.

Umbongo said...

Reading the open letter in the Times this morning from what I can only assume are the representatives of the whole Muslim community in the UK my initial reaction is that these representatives are playing a highly dangerous game. I infer the following both from a reading of the letter and my understanding of why the letter was published:
1. They wish the Muslim minority in the UK to have, in effect, a veto on the foreign policy of the British government.
2. The letter is a signal of the implicit division of the Muslim community’s active factions into two: the “political” community which these representatives claim to lead and another, more sinister, but apparently minuscule “militant” community. The “political” faction participates in the British democratic process. The “militant” faction undertakes a more direct and lethal process.
3. The disapproval by the politicos of an aspect of British foreign policy is marked by the usual “community” action; demonstrations, interviews on a compliant BBC, letters to the press etc. etc.
4. The militants take a different route and, in line with their own priorities, plan/execute terrorist outrages.
5. The politicos publicly deplore the militants’ actions but become apologists for that action by pointing to the anti-Muslim policy which has “enraged” the militants.
6. The politicos are, in effect, saying that British policy must meet with its approval or else! Or else what? the militants over whom the “political” Muslims have no influence and with whom they have no connection (but whose anger they understand), will commit some kind of murderous atrocity.
7. Effectively, what is created is a simulacrum of the structure of Hezballah and Hamas (and, for that matter Sinn Fein/IRA) comprising “democratic” and “militia” wings of the same party. Both wings pursue similar ends but the “democrats” always claim separation from and lack of influence over the “militia”.

The Muslim community proposed veto has nothing to do with whether or not the disapproved policy is in Britain’s interests or not. Or rather the British interest is perceived as solely to avoid domestic terrorist spectaculars. The Iraq policy might have been a ghastly error for which the government created faux-support with a lie BUT I am reluctant to believe that even Blair would adopt a policy he considered was totally opposed to the interests of Britain. Furthermore, he was legally and constitutionally empowered to adopt and pursue the policy. Running a policy past a communal minority for its approval is not – as far as I am aware – yet a part of the British Constitution. However, it seems the anti-terrorist police now do this routinely where the Muslim community is involved.

London Salmon said...

Bang on the money Iain.

It is an absolute disgrace that, after every terrorist incident, foiled or successful, within hours Muslim so-called community leaders issue the same press releases over and over again. They read; "Of course we condemn these terrible atrocities, BUT you shouldn't have invaded Iraq etc...."

From a security point of view, the perpetraters, or potential perpetraters, can actually be easily found, as the vast majority of Muslim communities in this country have deliberately and physically segregated themselves from British society and the Western values of tolerance, liberty, democracy and justice. Therefore, the 'leaders' of these communities have a moral duty to root out the evil in their communities and stop making excuses and start to get tough. If they do not do this, they will be assumed by others to be tacitly in favour of jihadist Islam, which will damage any future attempts to integrate these communities.

Appeasement has not, and never should be an option when faced with those who wish to deny us the most basic human right of all- the right to live.

We should make no apology when we describe our values as vastly morally superior to those of fundamentalist Islam. It is on this basis that we must do what previous generations have done in order that we may live with the freedoms and living standards we enjoy; fight for our values and never shrink in the face of those who would deny us those values.

Any failure to strongly condemn these actions, and any attempt to offer any excuse for these horrific crimes against humanity should be met with open contempt by all in our society who wish to live in peace and freedom.

For once, I find myself in full support of a Labour Prime Minister on this issue.

Verity said...

The marqee - We're not discussing Christianity. We are discussing Islam, which is antithetical to other religions.

I can see you've never lived in an Islamic country because you truly do not understand the agenda.

BTW, what do you call a first time offender in Saudi Arabia?

Lefty.

This silly, ignorant, vain little marquee writes: "hey Verity, reality check - there are many intelligent, forward-thinking, tolerant people in the Middle East, happy to live in secular states whilst quietly praying to their respective Gods."

Could you list those secular states in the ME, please?

I think you are not competent to order "reality checks". (I see you are dependent on American slang and usage, but I'll bet you hate America.)

anonymong 9:47 a.m. says: "The majority of British Muslims have no truck with terrorism or extremism, however there is a minority (and not a tiny one I might add)". Well, that's something, but where is your proof? If there are 2.5m of them in Britain (government lies are 2m), 370,000 have already been bold enough to admit openly that they want shariah in Britain. That's the ones who admit it and didn't think quickly enough to say, "Don't know" or "Not sure". How many are those 370,000 representative of? Just themselves? Obviously, I have no proof either, but families more often than not think along the same lines.

I would venture - and it's a guess because there has never been any real research done (out of fear of the results) - that, conservatively, a minimum of half of them come from families who think like them. 165,000 families. Of - what - six people? Seven people? Just conjecture.

Prageutory - Righteous dude!

Manfarang said...

Grisworld
What more is to be said...
Osama bin Laden was part of the the arab mujaheddin in Afghanistan.
An outfit backed and created by the CIA,Reagan's freedom fighters!

casual observer said...

It's not what this lot say in public that matters, it's what they say in private. The two things I really like about this organisation is its face.

casual observer said...

That'll be the day. They are part of the problem and couldn't stand up straight if their lives depended on it, which they might soon. A spineless two-faced bunch of jumped up immigrants and Blair & co have even given at least one of them a civil honour. I hope MI5 is checking them out...

jimthechimp said...

What is especially odious about the Muslim Council is that they use this country's tolerance to promote their intolerance. They complain about islamophobia yet they do not condemn and often support discrimination against minorities. I went to a gay civil partnership this week: the perfect "fuck you" to the Muslim Council who support a system of belief that hangs young gay men from cranes.

Cinnamon said...

But Iain, the good men of those Muslim Councils ARE doing something.

They wrote a letter to the Govt. advising that if foreign policy is not changed, the civillians in the UK are going to be at risk.

They are such honourable men, making us those fair offers that would be most unreasonable to be refused.

I am still hoping to find an explanations why we need those communityf├╝her types anyway, who elected them, and why there is no official positions of that nature available to *every* community, but only the muslims have this privelidge.

Osama Saeed said...

They bleated on about the War in Iraq but could not grasp that it was up to them to control the Immams who were preaching hate in Mosques up and down the country.

Iain, care to name names? Do point me in the direction of said mosques and said imams and I will be down there in a flash.

LMO said...

Bin Laden was created by the CIA!Ooh aren't we clever.But please, manfarang, don't bother to tell us why Bin Laden was created; unless you think it would have been wise to fight the Soviets with anything other than a proxy force at the height of the Cold War.

Verity said...

Boys and girls, I know it's hopeless, but I'm going to give it one more try.

My Partridge's Etymological Dictionary describes 'phobia' thusly: "of Gr phobos - dread, a strong fear, a fear-determined aversion."

Now, some people may be afraid of Islam, just as some people are, equally without rationality, afraid of spiders. But they are rare.

Who began this illiterate usage anyway? I'll take two guesses: either the Islamics themselves via their corrupt little Muslim Council rats' nest; or those ever-busy perverters of language, the Left.

I don't think I've ever encountered anyone who's frightened of Islam. I know plenty of people, myself included, who loathe it and its precepts. But frightened?

Verity said...

osama saeed - If it's a flash of gunpowder you're referring to, I'll try to come up with a few names.

Anonymous said...

In the interests of balance, will you point out the Judeo-Christian opinion on homosexuality ? Or on swearing, alcohol and fornication?

Somehow I thought not..

griswold said...

Manfarang it is true CIA backed the Muhadajeen(of which Bin Laden was one) in their proxy battle with USSR. As it is true that CIA backed Saddam against Khomeni/Iran and Tshombe against Lumumba. These acts are irrelevant. Wahabbis/fundamentalists are implaccable in their opposition to the Satan that is the US/Western democracy. We cannot win this so called War on Terror(a daft tagline if ever there was one). We can deal with terrorism up to a point. Fundamentalism/Wahabbism can only be defeated by those Muslims who oppose the debasement of their religion. When will they stand up and be counted. History suggests not for a long time. Muslim Council and others need to send a clear and unequivocal message to the mass murderers. They won't. Some are scared and others secretly agree with the actions of the killers.Bin Laden and co are on a different planet. Its up to the Muslims to sort it.
Another question? What have the teachers/Imans of Islam done for their people over the last two hundred years?

Verity said...

anonymous 4:47 p.m. Jesus turned water into wine, IIRC.

Griswold said: "Fundamentalism/Wahabbism can only be defeated by those Muslims who oppose the debasement of their religion." A religion started by a paedophile, and it can be debased?

Verity said...

griswold said: "Muslim Council and others need to send a clear and unequivocal message to the mass murderers."

Are you kidding? Their whole schtick (a nice Jewish word) is acting as an intermediary between the aggressive, unintegrated adherents of Islam and the indigenes and the long-integrated immigrants.

inconvenient_facts said...

re: Islamic Fundamentalism's war against the West. What are we worried about? If you total the deaths of muslims against those of the west we are winning by a long shot.

By the way, here is the source of my previous stats showing almost all major wars are within civilisations, not between them.
Authors: http://www.brad.ac.uk/admin/pr/march2004/links.php
Full Report: news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/world/04/war_audit_pdf/pdf/war_audit.pdf

jimthechimp said...

I am genuinely terrified by the Islam that hangs young women off cranes for crimes against chastity, surgically removes tongues for blasphemy and pushes walls on homosexuals. If that makes me Islamophobic then I must be.

Verity said...

inconvenient_facts - Of course we're "winning". Even to speak in terms of a war is silly. This trouble is made by power-hungry malcontents and generations of first-cousin marriages from inferior cultures and countries. We just need to step on them hard. There is no "war" - except as in my current "war" against mosquitoes.

Far more urgent for this "Muslim Council" outfit to address is the matter of Mohammad Abdul Bari's wig. I have drawn attention to this before. Even if there were anything to negotiate, how can the media take anyone seriously who looks as though he has moulded camel dung onto his head?

What's "Sir" Iqbal Sacranie doing these days, anyway? Did he get sacked for saying he thought homosexuality was a sin? Did Inyat Bungalboy endorse his opinion? Jes' askin'.

Verity said...

PS - Iain says at the top, "It's time for the Muslim Council of Britain to stand up and be counted."

OK. That's one.

Neil Craig said...

"A religion started by a paedophile, and it can be debased?"

Christianity was started by a guy allowed to have sex at 13, who decrlared his mission was to "set son against father", spread by people who openly wished to "ride in blood up to the horse's bridle" & others who burnt women alive to please their God.

The only thing Christiandom has going for it over the Islamic lands is that we don't really believe in our religion nowdays. Lets not make things worse by pretending this is actually a religious war & our religion is better than theirs.

Verity said...

I do not define this aggressive by a bunch of Dark Agers as a "religious war". It's a conflict - not a war; they're not that elevated - between the primitive, superstitious Dark Ages and the enlightened, advanced West.

The reason these jerks never invent anything, apart from sheer mental incapacity, is, they sincerely believe that mohammad or allah invented everything worth having in the year 800. To invent something interferes with allah's great plan. In fact, he finds it downright offensive and orders up a fresh batch of retread virgins for the troops.

It's not going to happen while Tony Blair's poncing and posing around Westminster, nor while Dave is either, but the West needs to look at reclassifying Islam as a cult, and a murderous, backward cult at that. Mohammad makes David Koresh look like Johnny Carson.

Manfarang said...

griswold
I don't recall the main Churches trying to rein in Ian Paisley and stop his inflammatory rhetoric.

Manfarang said...

verity
Reckon we should go back to using Roman instead of Arabic numerals?

Anonymous said...

". . a medievalist, fascist death cult whose values include the hanging of homosexuals, the murder of adulterers and the forced subjugation of women."

Surely there aren't THAT MANY advocates of these mesures even among GDubbya's strongest supporters?

Isn't it all rather more simple? If you identify with a group of people (race or religion) that a lazy and incompetent and uncaring American President seems happy to kill and maim in tens of thousands en-route to his 'aims' (not discussed with or endorsed by anyone except the lap-dog Blair) then you might well be tempted to treat the civilians of the countries who support (either actively or by 'silence') this mass murderous behaviour with the same sort of contempt which the American military machine/Israel treats your co-religionists.

Gross contempt breeds gross contempt and, where there is an apparent power imbalance, hatred and madness. You don't have to agree with this or justify it (neither of which I do) in order to understand that this is what happens among a very small (but dangerous) part of the whole population involved. Same sort of reasonong got an awful lot of Australians and New Zealanders more than a little would-up over Hitler.

Verity said...

manfarang asks, with an air of quiet triumph: "Verity
Reckon we should go back to using Roman instead of Arabic numerals?"

Not at all. We call them Arabic numerals because they came to us via the Middle East. From India, where they had been devised some centuries before. Like zero.

They're Hindu concepts. Why is it India is jam-packed with brilliant physicists and the ME ... uh, isn't?

Verity said...

Anonymong 7:19 - Don't you lefties ever think of one original thing? Do you know how boring your constant regurgitations are? Drab, drab, drab. Uninspired writing - always - and retread thoughts presented by the writer as newly discovered universal truths.

Your writing is boring and long-winded and you haven't presented a single new idea, a single new thought, a single new issue.

Manfarang said...

verity
'India is jampacked with brilliant physicists.'Is it?
You must have a degree from an Indian university!
Europe borrowed much from Islamic cilivisation.

Umbongo said...

Very impressed with manfarang's knowledge of Islamic civilisation. The services Islamic civilisation provided to the world included the transmission of Hindu learning (particularly mathematics) to the West, the preservation (by accident) of some great works of Western classical philosophy, some wonderful poetry, the construction of some beautiful buildings in Spain and elsewhere and . . er . . that's about it. Had Islamic civilisation not existed I don't believe the West would have remained in the Dark Ages for ever. However, given the present characteristics of Islamic civilisation, we're in danger of re-entering them.

tapestry said...

Put the jihadis on TV, the radio, the press. Expose them to counter-arguments from the BNP and anyone else who wants to oppose mass murder as a cultural weapon - including moderate Moslems - ordinary Moslems who have ordinary jobs all over Britain who don't support jihad.

Hague can triangulate, and everyone'll be happy.

It's only through seeing counter-arguments that the cult-like following of organisations like the BNP and the jihadis can get a sense of their own extremism. Operating out of range of the media, they can easily persuade their followers that their views are beyond reproach.

It's the suppression of extremism in the media that allows it to present itself as special.

David in Edinburgh said...

Part of my liberal, educated self feels discomfort at some of Iain's points. Then, stronger than the discomfort, comes the feeling that the time is coming when we will have to resist the forces of superstition and dogma who want to undo the age of enlightenment and scientific method, dragging us back to a medieval world of constant religious conflict. The fault lines for this battle will cross all of British society. I believe this is possibly an even bigger issue than how we manage our security today, because it goes to the heart of what type of society we want to secure, and possibly defines a true reason for why we are being targetted now.

Verity said...

manfarang - India applies for more technological patents than any country in the world save the US.

How many does Saudi Arabia apply for? OK, let's go to a brighter tribe: how many does Syria apply for? Lebanon? Any Arab country? OK ... any Muslim country?

Why don't you enumerate all the wonders that Europe adopted from the ME? Other than the couple that umbongo enumerated. BTW, umbongo, some of the beautiful buildings you refer to came via the Mongols. And I believe most of the poetry you refer to came from [then] Persia.

Umbongo said...

Verity

I was being as charitable and generous as possible in my brief survey of Islamic civilisation. Consequently, I might have included items which, strictly speaking, were not part of that "Golden Age". In any event, anybody seriously contending that Islamic civilisation measures up to that of the West or Far East needs all the help s/he can get.

Neil Craig said...

I agree with David & H Beam Piper who said:

"Every society stands on a base of people who don't understand civilisation & wouldn't like it if they did"

This applies not just to Hezbollah & the majority who voted for Hamas but the Christian fundamentalists who don't want people to learn that evolution happened & the Greens who think nuclear power is black magic & can't or won't do the arithmetic to show that relying on windmills mean blackouts. Of the 3 only the latter can destroy western civilisation.

Verity said...

umbongo - any survey of Islamic civilisation would perforce be brief.

Anonymous said...

I am a free woman, thank whatever Gods there may be! But how long will it last?? MCB may smile, wring hands etc., but doubt not that they are, in many ways, "fifth columnists" who would love nothing more than to see the Western world subjugated to their "vision" of the world- a highly retrograde step and a world I would definitely not wish to be a part of. Tell them to go back to the loving arms of a fundamentalist islamic theocracy if they do not wish to accept, and live by, the values of our free society. One in which religious belief is optional. BTW, I choose anonymity to avoid hate mail and abuse by these miscreants!

Anonymous said...

talking about terrorism? when most of the world knows 911 was a controled demolition inside job http://www.911weknow.com
your whole article based on none factual information, how sad?

Anonymous said...

how funny and sad at the same time reading about 7/7 when it is so clear was an inside job just like 911. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3770877779111334563&q=77
denail is not a river in Egypt