"As moderates we will do all we can to fight extremism. We hope the government will join us in this, not just by changing the rules on hand luggage, but by showing itself as an advocate for justice in the world."
So says MP Sadiq Khan, who was among those who signed an open letter to the British government designed to deflect attention away from their own failures to address the problem of Islam .....and back onto British foreign policy. The BBC prefering to focus on the 'lighter' elements of their argument noting their (utterly insincere) 'we will do all we can' disclaimer - whilst essentially legitimizing terror as an 'understandable' reaction to government actions you don't like.
It is time to kick these leaders, who have been cossetted and pandered to, back into the reality of how democratic processes actually work. As an MP, Sadiq Khan made a gross error of judgement on this. Todays leader comment in the Sunday Times:
"We already have a generation of disaffected Muslims who see any excuse, whether it is war in Iraq, Afghanistan or Lebanon, as a reason for killing their fellow citizens. The government has commissioned studies on combatting the problem, so far with little tangible impact. Tony Blair has been wooing Muslim leaders, too often the radicals rather than the moderates, although this policy seems to lie in shreds as they moan about wars in the Middle East inflaming Islamic youth. They are perfectly entitled to be angry about these conflicts, but that anger should be expressed through the democratic processes of demonstrations and elections"
Or frankly kick these groups out altogether. They've achieved nothing. I for one have had enough. How do I, incidentally, address this grievance I have with them? Would they care to suggest any recourse to action?
Sadiq Khan, for example, utterly belittles the terror threat when he speaks of 'changing the rules on hand luggage'. Had any of that hand luggage been responsible for the grotesque mass murder of men women and children he could not have been so flippant. He assumes no responsibility for atrocities committed in the name of Islam by members of his community, whilst condemning the West for what he views as our failures in the name of western values: 'no you started it!'. He is ignoring the fact that muslims live in denial with many believing 9/11 was a set up and only adds to this ridiculous smokescreen when his fellow muslim leaders insist the perceived failure of this country to back a call for ceasefire in Lebanon was seen to have gone hand in glove with the latest terror threats. How can that be? This operation has been planned for months - well before the current conflict even showed signs of breaking out. These disingenuous muslim leaders are allowed to deflect what is a clear issue with Islam by insisting the police produce real facts and make the case stick - the burden of responsibility placed firmly on anyone else. Forest Gate, I want to shout at them, was a real time reaction to a piece of horrifying intelligence from a member of the muslim community who alleged an attack was imminent. It was not the result of months and months of intelligence gathering that spanned the globe. I cant believe people are deliberately this thick so draw my own conclusions. Not just limited to muslims:
From dear sweet 'Jenny' at the New York Times website: "Yet another summertime plot by the right wing to boost their poll numbers. Bush has no credibility and neither does Blair. Theyve pulled this stunt before".
Many other similar points of view expressed at the same website. Perhaps she would care to explain this 'stunt' to the relatives of those killed on July 7.
And so Jenny and her ilk align themselves with the fascists.
"So they pretend that Islamism doesn't exist or rationalise it as an understandable, if regrettably bloody, critique of Anglo-American foreign policy, as if what we are up against is the armed wing of the Liberal Democrats. I wonder how many explosions it will take to blow their comfort blanket away" Nick Cohen (hat tip DfH)
The letter was universally condemned. Thankfully. But we still have to endure the incessant whining that the real terror threat is from our security services and the police. Sandmonkey puts this into some perspective.
Muslim communities are adept at highlighting the strain they feel they are under and issuing veiled threats. So here's one in return. The tolerant British public might not continue to be quite so tolerant.... if the comments section at the BBCs Have Your Say is anything to go by. Click on 'most recommended' at "Is British Foreign Policy fuelling extremism?"
"Dr Mohammed Abdul Bari said the community supported curbs on terrorism, but warned of "a distance" growing between them and the police" in response to aggressive signs of growing anger. (A 'but' again). But hey, thats ok because apparently violence and aggression is a legitimate form of protest when you are really, REALLY hacked off. Though this attack isnt a patch on liquid bombs aboard transatlantic planes the muslim community will permit us to excuse such aggression, correct? This equally well illustrates the growing distance between the muslim 'community' and the rest of the UK. A direct result of the muslim 'community's' propensity to wallow in self pity and fuel hatred ALL ROUND.
In another Times piece Portillo underlines the devisiveness of Lefty inspired collective guilt syndrome:
"So those who argue that Britain has brought terror to its shores by supporting George W Bush should admit that we have imported it unwittingly by recognising our obligations to Commonwealth countries such as Pakistan, by pursuing liberal policies on immigration, by extending asylum to those who faced “persecution” without much reflection on why they found themselves in that position, and by ignoring the activities of “dissidents” based here, despite warnings about them from allies such as France and Saudi Arabia.
More uncomfortably still for those who argue the simplistic anti-Bush line, Britain could be an Al-Qaeda target precisely because it is a nation divided and given to self-flagellation. After the Lockerbie bombing it fell to me as a transport minister to meet some of the grieving relatives. One man who had lost his daughter told me that he blamed airport security, not the terrorist. Even allowing for his suffering I can make no sense of the remark, but it seems to typify a misplaced magnanimity that springs from unwarranted collective guilt"
The Times concludes in the leader piece (finally sounding like a paper talking to the masses at war incidentally):
This low-level war is going to take a huge effort of will and courage. It is going to mean applying what may seem illiberal measures in order to save lives. In return, the state must exercise massive restraint and not abuse that responsibility. But the real key is for Muslims to realise that their future lies here and to embrace British values and reject violent Islamist theology. The country may indeed be in its greatest danger since the second world war, as John Reid, the home secretary, said last week. But as Britain prevailed then, so it will again.
The link was added by me obviously...I FULLY support the 90 day detention proposal and hope that the police investigations into the current terror plot were sufficient to glean enough evidence to put before the CPS to gain convictions ~ in addition to averting the threat. Especially since the arrests included the British operative Al Qaeda leader. Besides - maybe if 'we' start to lose some freedoms 'we' will actually appreciate them.
*****Thanks to Maggie in the comments I should indeed draw attention to Sir John Stevens comments today and to the home secretary who per the same BBC link above stated:
"he would not question the motives of those who signed the letter, but said it was a "dreadful misjudgement if they believe that the foreign policy of this country should be shaped in part or in whole under the threat of terrorist activity".
Mr Reid told the BBC: "No government worth its salt would stay in power in my view, and no government worth its salt, would be supported by the British people if our foreign policy or any other aspect of policy was being dictated by terrorists.
"That is not the British way, it is antithetical to our very central values. We decide things in this country by democracy, not under the threat of terrorism."
Sir John Stevens - former Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Sky:
"When will the muslim community in this country accept an absolute, undeniable and total truth to a real and obvious threat ...that islamic terrorism is their problem - they own it- and its their duty to eradicate it"
Quite! All round. Stop apologising - and stop cossetting and accommodating 'moderate' muslim views where they are far from moderate and clearly anti democratic.
*****Update. The Washington Post KIDS itself and its readers, getting it totally and unhelpfully wrong:
"In one of Europe's largest Muslim communities, young men face a lack of jobs, poor educational achievement and discrimination in a highly class-oriented culture".
Absolute rubbish! The latest crop were university educated, one of the July 7 bombers worked in a school...all are afforded the same opportunities as everyone else in a country with low unemployment, steeped in multiculturalism and political correctness.. one of the most tolerant societies in Europe:
"63% of all Britons had a favourable opinion of Muslims, down slightly from 67% in 2004, suggesting last year's London bombings did not trigger a significant rise in prejudice. Attitudes in Britain were more positive than in the US, Germany and Spain (where the popularity of Muslims has plummeted to 29%), and about the same as in France" according to the Pew poll.
Wakey wakey Washington Times. Or is that you (much like the NYT) conveniently prefer to believe otherwise of the UK??
and finally....(Hat tip JOnz in comments)...Rod Liddle on the BBC getting it wrong amongst other things
"You never usually hear the term “British-born” in domestic news reports, as in, for example: “The prime minister, the British-born Tony Blair, today resigned.”......
Later various British-born community leaders appeared on the news to simultaneously condemn the alleged terrorists, sympathise with their real anger and hint darkly that maybe the fuzz had got it wrong again.
A chap from the increasingly gobby Muslim Public Affairs Committee insisted that while murdering thousands of innocent people was unquestionably wicked, if the rest of us didn’t begin to appreciate just how very angry — justifiably angry — were many young British-borns, more terrorism was likely to occur.
This strikes me as being a few yards short of a full, unequivocal, condemnation. If we reassure them that we do indeed understand their anger but nonetheless do not agree with their views, will they cease attempting to board aeroplanes with soft drink bottles full of nitro?"