* Themes
Today's thought
|
A (very easy) quiz...
Last week the top body in the Anglican Communion decided to institute sanctions against a country in protest at its abuses of human rights. I wonder if you can guess what country that was. Was it perhaps Saudi Arabia, where Christian worship is forbidden and reading the bible – even in the privacy of your own home – could get you thrown in jail. Or perhaps it was Iran where Christians are routinely threatened, arrested, imprisoned and tortured because of their faith. Or Sudan, where Arab militias have conducted a genocidal jihad against black civilians in Darfur. Or maybe it was Nigeria, where hundreds of Christians have been slaughtered and churches burned down in the predominantly Muslim north. Perhaps it was Egypt, where Coptic Christians are routinely discriminated against and are subject to vicious attacks by Muslim fundamentalists. Or perhaps it was China, were Christians worshipping at ‘unregistered’ churches are sent to labour camps for forcible ‘re-education’. Or maybe it was Zimbabwe where a brutal dictator is systematically starving and destroying the homes and livelihoods of his own people – many of them Anglicans. Or maybe it was Israel, the only country on this list which is a functioning democracy where the rule of law is obeyed and where the state guarantees the right of protest and freedom of religion to all its citizens regardless of race, colour or creed. No prizes for getting the right answer I’m afraid. Given the moral turpitude of the Anglican leadership it comes as no real surprise that they decided to ignore the abuses inflicted on their brothers and sisters in Christ around the globe, and instead launched a campaign of vilification against Israel. To be fair there was the odd, isolated voice of courageous decency prepared to protest against the decision of the Anglican Consultative Council in Nottingham. For example the former archbishop of Canterbury, George Carey, pleaded with his fellow Anglicans to throw out the sanctions motion saying it would be disastrous for the Middle East peace process and a ‘knife in the back’ for those Israelis working for reconciliation. But his wise words were simply swept aside. By pampering to the rising tide of Jew hatred in the Middle East and, increasingly, in Europe, Anglican leaders have shown themselves to be both cowardly and grossly irresponsible. Is it any wonder the Church of England is locked in spiral of rapid decline and increasing irrelevance? On this evidence the sooner it keels over and breaths its last, the better for all concerned. And how can we explain that alone amongst all the nations of the earth – including some of the most murderous and vile in recorded history – the tiny Jewish nation has been singled out for special criticism. It is hard to escape the conclusion that beneath the richly decorated cope of the Anglican establishment beats the corrupt heart of racism.
|
1.7.05 14:49
|
|
It was never 'if', but 'when'
I suppose a terrorist attack on the UK was inevitable but still deeply shocking.
A while ago I wrote - regarding the campaign to release the jihadis from Gitmo and Bellmarsh - :
"Let's hope the Government, activist judges and legally aided lawyers
who have campaigned for their freedom, are never called upon to explain
these decisions to the families of British victims of some future
terrorist outrage."
I hope today they are hanging their heads in shame
And I would add to them those idiots who argued the terrorist threat
was being exaggerated as part of a sinister conspiracy to undermine our
civil liberties.
Dangerous cretins.
|
7.7.05 10:58
|
|
This is our 9/11 - it is high time the gloves came off
I’m afraid it was always a case of “when” and not “if” a major terrorist atrocity would occur on ffice:smarttags" />UK soil.ffice ffice" />
It has only been through the diligence and bravery of our police and security services that we haven’t suffered bomb attacks before now.
As the old IRA adage goes – the security services have to be lucky every day, the terrorists only have to be lucky once.
But not everyone has been alert to the danger threatening our lives and livelihoods – and some have deliberately attempted to undermine any moves to bolster our security.
For example, there’s been a bizarre conspiracy theory doing the rounds, championed not least by the BBC, which suggests that the threat of Islamic terrorism is not only exaggerated but entirely invented – part of a sinister “neo-con” plot to undermine our civil liberties.
This preposterous and positively dangerous idea reached its apogee in the BBC programme, The Power of Nightmares, which was quickly accepted as gospel among the chattering classes.
Such ideas have bred a culture of complacency and weakness which has encouraged our enemies.
It explains why credible warnings of terrorist attacks are invariably dismissed as ‘scaremongering’, regardless of whether they are made by Tony Blair, Home Secretary Charles Clarke, MI5 chief Eliza Manningham-Buller or former Met police chief Sir John Stephens.
It also explains the successful, but frankly mad, campaign to free known jihadis from Guantanamo Bay and Belmarsh jail.
It explains why government attempts to curb the activities of such hugely dangerous people through “control orders” have been frustrated at every turn by an alliance of weak-willed politicians, activist judges and legally-aided lawyers.
It also explains why individuals such as Omar Bakri Mohammed, who has called for terrorist attacks against British civilians, is able to continue spewing his evil message while living on benefits in our country. Removing him would, of course, “infringe his human rights”.
Well some of us care more for the human rights of innocent civilians sitting on buses and tube trains - and it’s about time we started making our voices heard.
We should demand, for example, the repeal of the Human Rights Act, which has done little more than line the pockets of greedy lawyers while fatally undermining our security.
We should also demand that those released from Belmarsh be rounded up immediately. The foreign nationals should be deported without delay to their country of origin – regardless of its human rights record – and the others incarcerated indefinitely until it can be proved they are no longer a danger to the public.
And Omar Bakri Mohammed should be put on a plane to the Middle Eastern hellhole of his choice before the day is out.
In other words, the balance between security and liberty, as the Home Secretary put it, needs to be weighted decisively in favour of security in the wake of the London bombings.
Of course the appeasers and defeatists won’t go away. They’ll tell you the attacks on London were all are own fault; that we haven’t made sufficient attempts to sympathise with our enemies, to understand their pain. We haven’t apologised enough.
If we only pull out of Iraq, abandon Israel, elect another government, convert to Islam – whatever it takes – then the jihadis might let us live a little bit longer.
Such people are beneath contempt. They’ll never get up off their knees. But I suspect they are in a minority that, after the events of yesterday, will grow ever smaller.
For the rest of us July 7, 2005, marks a defining moment in our history. A day when the choice facing us became crystal clear – either start defending ourselves with vigour and determination or accept inevitable annihilation.
Make no mistake about it – this is war. On one side is freedom, democracy and civilised values and on the other barbarism, nihilism and fascism.
There is only going to be one winner.
7/7 is our 9/11. It is high time the gloves came off.
|
7.7.05 16:22
|
|
Is the battle in Europe lost?
The Prime Minister told the Commons this week that the government was urgently seeking an opt-out from the European convention on human rights – which of course, Tony Blair introduced into British law - to make it easier to deport extremist Muslims preaching hatred and plotting terrorist acts in this country. Cue sound of stable door slamming shut as the horse bolts over the horizon. Some of us have been warning about the influence of such racist bigots on impressionable young Muslims for years. But far from doing anything about it, the authorities have actually colluded with the extremists in a doomed attempt to curry favour with the Muslim community. The Islamic “youth club” in Beeston, for example, where at least some of the Yorkshire suicide bombers are believed to have attended lessons in jihad, was funded by Leeds city council, no doubt in the name of “cultural diversity”. Meanwhile, London Mayor Ken Livingstone issued a defiant message that the bombers would not conquer the capital. But only weeks ago he was grovelling at the feet of his “honoured guest”, the infamous Muslim preacher Yusuf al-Qaradawi, notorious for his hatred of Jews and homosexuals and support for suicide bombers. Also progressing through the Commons this week is a bill that could see critics of Islam thrown into jail – yet another craven sop to extremist Muslims. But by far the most astonishing example of our appeasement of the jihadis concerns the visit to the UK of another extremist preacher and supporter of “martyrdom missions”, Tariq Ramadan, who is banned from the US because of his links to terrorists. Will the authorities demand he be banned from this country or arrest him on his arrival? Don’t be silly – the Metropolitan Police and the Association of Chief Police Officers is actually funding his “lecture tour” to the tune of £9,000. It is worth spelling this out – while rank and file police officers are desperately trying to track down the people behind the worst terrorist attack on English soil, their senior commanders are giving taxpayers’ money to enable a Muslim extremist to preach jihad to susceptible youngsters. It is simply beyond parody. Our friends and allies in the United States look on in despair at these examples of defeatism and weakness. Is the battle in Europe lost, they ask? Is it too late to stop Londonistan becoming the capital of the new caliphate of Eurabia? Have the British simply lost the will to fight back against the jihadi onslaught? I hope not, but I have to admit the signs are not promising. The priority of the establishment is not to defend our people, but to avoid under any circumstances giving offence to Muslims. Thus the BBC has banned the word “terrorist” in case it upsets Muslims. Similarly, the Met’s deputy assistant commissioner Brian Paddick, has banned the phrase “Islamic terrorism”, again in case it upsets Muslims. But where has Paddick been over the last four years? From the slaughter of schoolchildren in Beslan, to the genocide of black farmers in Sudan, to the massacre in a nightclub in Bali, to the destruction of the Twin Towers and the attacks on commuters in Madrid and London, to the constant attacks on civilians in Israel, to this weeks deliberate targeting by a suicide bomber of children accepting sweets from an American soldier in Iraq – all have been done in the name of Islam. It is all the same war. Paddick, along with the rest of the British establishment, seems to think that if he closes his eyes and wishes otherwise, the bad men will go away. But by denying the crucially important link between worldwide terrorism and extremist Islam, Paddick proves himself unfit to lead an investigation into such a serious crime with sufficient rigour. The respected Islamic scholar Abdel Rahman al-Rashed got it exactly right when he said recently: “It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.” This is a major crisis for decent Muslims. Their religion has been hijacked by a nihilistic death cult that has declared war on the west. Whether they can wrench control from the mad men and re-establish something approaching tolerance and peace in their faith is one of the key battles of the coming years. We can only wish them well. In the meantime, we owe it to them, as well as people of other faiths and none, to defend our values of liberty and democracy with every weapon at our disposal.
|
14.7.05 20:55
|
|
Oh Lord won't you buy me a Mercedes-Benz...
For a brief moment after the first wave of London bombings it seemed that moderate Muslims in Britain were finally prepared to confront the nihilistic death cult that is attempting to seize control of their faith. But no sooner had the platitudes of regret over the murderous attacks been uttered than Muslim leaders returned to the familiar, but entirely unproductive, ground of attempting to discover the ‘root causes’ of the atrocity. So rather than tackle the bloodthirsty racism of many in their midst, spokesman after spokesman instead blamed the disgusting violence of their co-religionists on our old friends “Islamophobia, unemployment, economic deprivation and social exclusion”. Economic deprivation? Just days before slaughtering eight innocent people near Aldgate on the London Tube, Shehzad Tanweer was swanning around Beeston showing off a new Mercedes-Benz bought for him by his doting father. If this is “social exclusion” I wouldn’t mind a bit of it myself. Just how many luxury cars does each 22-year-old Muslim have to be given before they stop complaining about “economic deprivation”? In truth the Leeds suicide bombers had done very well out of their fathers’ decisions to emigrate to the UK. If they had stayed in Mirpur, these young men would consider themselves lucky to living off a handful of rice a day. Here they have been able to take full advantage of the religious, political and economic freedoms of an advanced western society. Their families owned homes and businesses, and they were well educated, some of them to university level. Luxury cars, electronic gadgets and foreign trips were showered upon them. They are not in the least bit unusual in the Muslim communities in the UK. We have Muslim MPs, Muslim members of the House of Lords, Muslim millionaires, Muslim doctors and Muslim university professors. Muslims in this country are amongst the richest and most free in the world. Compared to the backward barbarism of much of the Muslim world, the UK is a model of enlightened egalitarianism. But far from feeling a sense of gratitude and loyalty to the country that provided these opportunities, many young British Muslims hate this country with an irrational and sometimes violent passion. Their list of imagined grievances is never ending and always changing – Kashmir, Chechnya, the West Bank, Gaza, the mythical massacres of Jenin and Fallujah, Guantanamo Bay, Belmarsh Jail and on and on without cease. It is significant that Kosovo, where Western intervention saved thousands of Muslim lives, never gets a mention. Neither does Darfur where Islamic militias have waged a genocidal jihad against poor black farmers. They don’t fit the template. The defeatists and appeasers in the West argue that if we address these complaints, the Jihadis may be persuaded to stop blowing us up. But the problem is not just where do you start on this list of grievances, but when would you ever finish. If, for example, a peaceful solution was found to the problems of Kashmir, British Muslims would simply be encouraged to add another litany of complaints to the long list – the Balfour declaration, the British empire, Coca Cola, girls in short skirts, the existence of homosexuals and Jews, the loss to the Caliphate of el Andalus (that’s Spain to you and me) etc. Whatever the West does will be wrong as far as they are concerned. If we do nothing while corrupt Muslim leaders oppress their people – as in Saudi Arabia and Egypt – then it is all our fault. If however, we depose tyrants and liberate Muslim people – as in Afghanistan and Iraq – well that’s our fault too. We just can’t win. In dozens of interviews on the streets of Leeds the same themes were repeated – a wallowing in imagined grievances, a belief in barmy conspiracy theories, a feeling of thwarted entitlement, a burning sense of victimhood and humiliation – all fertile ground for the extremist preachers and their message of hate. No doubt each time Tanweer turned the ignition on his sleek Mercedes it was a reminder of the success of Western culture when compared to his own, and his feelings of humiliation burned ever hotter – with murderous consequences. I am not sure how moderate Muslims can confront these problems – but owning up honestly to the crisis they face would be a good start.
|
22.7.05 17:03
|
|
Too extreme - even for the Guardian!
In a notable scalp for the British blogosphere the Guardian has finally decided to sack its Islamofascist reporter Dilpazier Aslam. You may recall that in the wake of the first wave of London bombings Aslam wrote a revolting piece for the Guardian comment pages praising the "sassy" attitude of Muslim extremists in the UK who, unlike their parents, were prepared to engage in Jihad in order to "rock the boat". Given the constant procession of terror apologists, Fifth Columnists, appeasers, defeatists and "root causers" that parade across the columns of the Guardian, this was hardly exceptional. But blogger Scott Burgess (don't be put off by the picture) did a bit of digging and discovered Aslam was a member of the extreme racist organization Hizb ut-Tahrir. Other bloggers piled in and discovered that Aslam had written an extremely flattering profile of a British schoolgirl who, with the backing of Hizb ut-Tahrir, had taken her school to court in order to demand to be allowed to wear the jilbab. This was a bit like a paid up member of the BNP writing a fawning profile of Nick Griffin for the Daily Mail without mentioning his/her political affiliations. In other words completely unacceptable. The Guardian attempted to brazen this out but the meanstream media soon took up an interest in the scandal. Mark Steyn mentioned it in his Telegraph column, as did Richard Littlejohn of the Sun and the Independent on Sunday also ran a piece. Eventually the Guardian was forced to act. "On Monday July 18 Aslam was advised that the Guardian considered that Hizb ut-Tahrir had promoted violence and anti-semitic material on its website and that membership of the organisation was not compatible with being a Guardian trainee." Aslam refused to leave Hizb ut-Tahrir and was sacked. Too extreme even for the Guardian! Let us not forget that the newspaper's comment editor is the far left fanatic Shameless O'Milne and it has employed KGB agents and Irish republican terrorists in the past. Why was Aslam singled out. In the famous words of Ali G "Is it because I's black?" Some of us are now rubbing our hands with glee at the prospect of The Guardian being dragged through the courts accused of racism and Islamophobia. Oh happy days! In the meantime I have one question. If the Guardian sacks all the terrorist sympathisers on its staff, who the hell will be left to get the paper out?
|
23.7.05 16:18
|
|
Oh dear, what a pity, never mind...
From AP BOMBER HURT AS DEVICE EXPLODES A bomber was seriously hurt today when an explosive device – believed to have been intended for tourist shops near the famous Pyramids of Giza – blew up, police said. There were no other casualties. The incident came amid heightened fears of attacks on tourists in Egypt after Saturday’s string of simultaneous bombings in the Red Sea resort of Sharm El Sheik, 250 miles east of the capital. Security was intensified in many parts of Cairo, including the Pyramids. Investigators were trying to determine whether the man, identified as Sami Gamal Ahmad, 33, was taking the explosive to the nearby tourist area of Kerdassa, a bazaar of souvenir shops near the Pyramids, a senior security official involved in the investigation said. The device, which the man was carrying in a sack, apparently went off accidentally in the neighbourhood of Kufr Tuhurmus, several miles from Kerdassa, said the official. Ahmad, a hospital employee, was too badly injured to be interrogated, the official said.
|
24.7.05 17:33
|
|
[next page]
|