<< DON'T EVEN ASK WHAT THEY DO TO APPLES ~ MAIN ~ CURIOUS BELIEFS HELD >>
IRAQIS UNRADICALISED
Arthur Chrenkoff asks a question:
We are told that London bombings are a result of Tony Blair’s decision to participate in the illegal invasion of Iraq. We are told that the continuing occupation of Iraq, and the carnage and humiliation inflicted upon Iraqi people by the United States, Great Britain and other occupying powers have radicalized some British Muslims to such extent as to push them into becoming suicide bombers on the buses and subways of their adopted country (in some cases their country of birth).
There are 250,000 Iraqis living in Great Britain - that’s quarter of a million people, one of the biggest communities in Iraqi diaspora, and just under one sixth of the total British Muslim population of some 1.6 million.
So why, among the original 7/7 bombers, the next lot of recently captured bombers, and all the other people arrested in connection with the attacks, aren’t there any British Iraqis?
Because it’s not about Iraq. Were there allied forces in Iraq when the planes ploughed into the Trade Center?
It’s a culture, a mind-set that we have allowed to grow unchecked in the west like some cancer.
When you bring millions of Muslim immigrants into the UK and permit them to live in insulated communities, often at odds with the larger society, you are inviting disaster. When you permit fanatical Wahhabist demagogues free rein and stand by while your streets are taken over by hordes of demonstrators who make their devotion to Al Qaeda loud and clear, you are taking freedom speech provisions into the realm of absurdity. There is after all a war going on. In the WW2 era, British born Oswald Mosley had less freedom to promote his fascist views than today’s Muslim extremists, who can burn the Union Jack in Hyde Park and raise the banner Al Qaeda with apparent impunity.
The problem however is a lot more extensive than small groups of extremists. The Muslim community in the west as a whole needs to be put under closer scrutiny.
I find it rather rich that Muslim spokespersons, who have been curiously mute about condemning extremism in their midst, suddenly start decrying the bastardization of their religion by “fanatics” after the outrages in London.
Let’s back up a little. Prior to 9/11 mosques throughout western Europe and America had plenty of extremists turning up for prayer. Did any imam or concerned worshiper at that time come forward to either the media or the authorities to say - “um, I think we might have a little problem in our midst”. If one or two did, please give me their names.
Let’s take a hypothetical scenario in which Christian churches on these continents become infested with neo-Nazi, Aryan type extremists with a radical interpretation of the scripture. They believe they must begin a crusade worldwide and start blowing up innocents like there is no tomorrow. Would ministers and concerned Christians step forward and blow the whistle? You bet they would. In droves.
How can Muslims in the west pretend they are committed to democracy and an egalitarian society, when they have quietly facilitated the traffic in their mosques that has helped to create the environment for extremist clerics and their followers to thrive?
Forget the eerie silence of Muslims prior to 9/11. What about the months afterwards? Did one major Muslim leader in America or Europe step forward to unconditionally condemn Al Qaeda and add force to the words by issuing fatwahs against “perverters of Islam”? No they didn’t. The fatwah in Spain following the Madrid train bombings was issued to protect the Islamic community living in Spain from revenge attacks by outraged Spaniards. So they only issued the fatwah basically as an internal security measure - not because they reject everything bin Laden stands for.
Muslims in the west are a deeply conflicted people. They can’t play this double game any longer. Either they are willing to support democratic values and the aims and ideals of a pluralistic society - or they are not.
Sorry folks, there is no in-between “special” category reserved for the followers of Muhammad.
FOR THE SAME REASON AS THIS:
The most senior Islamic cleric in Birmingham claimed yesterday that Muslims were being unjustly blamed in the war on terrorism and that the eight suspects in the two bombing attacks on London “could have been innocent passengers”.
Everything can be denied, everything can be misrepresented.
Eventually, dialogue becomes meaningless, and actions speak louder than words.
They will drag us down to their level, and we must be bigger bastards than they are to win there.
If we have no stomach for a deadly fight, we will be white-anted and defeated, with them using our own liberalism and fairness as a weakening agent.
Under the rules of engagement laid down by the Koran - in dealing with us, there are, in effect, no rules.
Deception is ok, killing is ok, mass murder is ok. Where do you go from there?I believe most of them are Kurds. Your argument still holds for the rest of them, of course.
Posted by jake-the-peg on 2005 07 31 at 04:30 AM • permalinkFixed, blogstrop. Don’t know what was wrong with copy and paste—that’s a Windows function, this website has nothing to do with it. Sometimes if your cursor isn’t in the proper place it won’t work (I occasionally lose track of the little thing).
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 07 31 at 07:24 AM • permalinkUm, because they all fled Saddam and are probably pretty happy that hes been taken care of…
In other words, if some Muslims are indeed radicalized by the occupation of Iraq, it’s because they idolized Saddam’s rule? That’s an interesting position for the Left to take, then, in particular if that’s supposed to be a reason to be “understanding” of Islamist terrorists. (Before you ask, I’m not saying you’re taking that position, Nic.)
Not only did the Muslim leaders in America or Europe not ‘step forward to unconditionally condemn Al Qaeda and add force to the words by issuing fatwahs against “perverters of Islam” ‘ but several are actually insisting that the US is behind the attacks.
Mad, bearded, aging, jealous, conspiracy theorist, neo-jurassic (the virgins are on earth, morons) + young impressionable men who perhaps have failed to encounter, on earth, even one of the promised 72 in the hereafter + available explosives + idiot liberal/left western public service/local councils = disaster.
You really have to wonder what happened in Britain to allow the situation to progress to this point.
This TV clip is simply astonishing.
In short it is an argument on Al Jazeera between a Muslim psychologist in America and a Professor of Politics. She wins a very important debate.
Who is “she”? The Muslim psychologist or the professor?
Posted by Andrea Harris, Administrator on 2005 07 31 at 07:44 AM • permalinkClick on “new search” and type in “783” in the clip # field. That’ll bring the video clip up.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 31 at 09:37 AM • permalinkOh, wow, captain. That psychologist has got it right. She is one brave lady, going on Arab TV like that. I have to trust the translations, but the sub-text, on both sides of the exchange is absolutely amazing. Thanks for the link.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 07 31 at 09:51 AM • permalinkBecause the Iraqi spirit has been completely crushed by two years of American presence. 30 years of Saddam’s rape, torture and murder couldn’t do possibly do it…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 07 31 at 10:15 AM • permalinkSo why, among the original 7/7 bombers, the next lot of recently captured bombers, and all the other people arrested in connection with the attacks, aren’t there any British Iraqis?
Because Iraqis aren’t buying into that victimized-by-the-West meme anymore. Nor do any sane people.
Great link, captain, and thanks for the help, JeffS. The lady psychologist makes a reasonable argument, and the academic answers it by jumping all over the place, throwing up completely unrelated topics. No wonder he was hysterical (although I’ve come to expect red-faced hysteria from Muslim apologists anymore).
PW, my point is that the answer to the question is pretty obvious. If you hate Saddam and are happy hes gone, then it doesnt make much sense to go and blow up people from the countries that got rid of him for you.
Terrorists are using Iraq as an excuse to blow more people up, and to gain more willing jihadists by making it look like an attack on Islam (which is absurd), when really the underlying cause is much different.
I think it is important to understand the terrorists, but only in the way you seek to understand what makes serial killers tick. There is no excuse for terrorism, and no reason to be understanding in a sympathetic way. But you must know your enemy before you can defeat it - I dont think we do, at least not well enough.
The concept of ‘understanding’, Nic White, is the biggest lie of the modern age.
It sounds good, but there is no benefit.
None at all.
The word ‘understanding’ has been used to justify - or to ignore - the most horrendous crimes, state-sponsored terrorism, dreadful inhumane behaviour and too many other unmentionable crimes to mention.
On encountering the word ‘understanding’ on the broadsheet pages, one should be immediately suspicious.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
because the theory is bollocks