Monday, August 14, 2006
DEAD, DEAD, DEAD
"But even within the bleakest possible analysis of Mr Blair's foreign policy, it is still simply not true that the West is waging war on Islam. Just as it is not true that the CIA was really behind the 11 September attacks or any other arrant conspiratorial nonsense that enjoys widespread credence in the Middle East and beyond. It is also a logical and moral absurdity to imply, as some critics of British policy have done, that mass murder is somehow less atrocious when it is motivated by an elaborate narrative of political grievance.But will that be accepted? Excellent comments over at Flares Into Darkness, including this:
If young British Muslims are alienated, that is sad and their anger should be addressed. But anyone whose alienation leads them to want to kill indiscriminately has crossed a line into psychopathic criminality. Policy cannot be dictated by the need to placate such people.
British Muslim leaders are entitled, along with everybody else, to raise questions about the conduct and consequences of Mr Blair's foreign policy. But they have a more immediate responsibility to promote the truth: that Britain is not the aggressor in a war against Islam; that no such war exists; that there is no glory in murder dressed as martyrdom and that terrorism is never excused by bogus accounts of historical victimisation."
peter, it is not just Muslims. We have college professors in this country who try to blame 9/11 on Bush as well as calling the victims that day little Eichmans. It is more than religion.See also the comments at The Guardian on the original, and I think you will be appalled:
You forget, for example, that there were American soldiers in Saudi Arabia from very early in the 1990s, well before the WTC bombing.That is not the only such comment. While we pray for Lebanon, which is being forced into a civil war by Hezbollah, we should not forget to pray for ourselves. Can the west coexist with those who actively put these beliefs into practice? A commenter responds to the above:
You forget the vicious overdone sanctions and continual bombing of Iraq both of which continued throughout the 1990s.
You refer three times to 'war against Islam' or 'war on Islam' - the open letter which prompted your leader does not refer to any such concept.
You write of the absurdity of implying that mass murder is less atrocious when motivated by a sense of grievance. Who has implied this? Certainly not the signatories of the letter.
You, on the other hand, write such words as 'the conduct of the war in Iraq, regardless of the virtues of removing Saddam...has been riddled with error'. How would you react if someone were to say, 'the conduct of Al Qaeda, regardless of the virtue of protesting US aggression, has been riddled with error'? War in Iraq and terrorism are both criminal, not simply error-ridden.
If you're concerned about *mass* murder, about the number of killings, then Al Qaeda with a few thousand dead is to Blair and Bush, with hundreds of thousands dead, as Blair and Bush are to Hitler or Stalin or Mao, with tens of millions dead.
Al Qaeda's terrorism and Bush and Blair's wars are both equally unjustified.
Why are you being so defensive? It is absolutely true that Islamic terrorism is provoked by Western aggression against Moslem countries. Tony Blair does not act in the interests of the UK and its people. He doesn't even act in the interests of the USA, rather he acts in support of George Bush's mistaken policies.
Why is the Guardian leaping to his defence with, to use your own phrase, such 'arrant nonsense'?
So, WTC 1993 was understandable because American soldiers were in Saudi Arabia? FFS! They weren't occupying the country! They were there at the invitation of the Saudi government to protect it from any resurgence in Saddamite Iraq's power.And is hotly rebuked by the person who wrote the comment originally:
"Al Qaeda with a few thousand dead is to Blair and Bush, with hundreds of thousands dead"
Er, isn't it al-Qaeda and the ex-Ba'athists who are doing most of the killing in Iraq -- unless, of course, Bush and Blair are responsible for that too? I bet they even sold Zarqawi the camcorder to record his head-hacking exploits.
"It is absolutely true that Islamic terrorism is provoked by Western aggression against Moslem countries."
But the people involved in the latest plot are BRITISH citizens, as were the 7/7 bombers. Or do the grievances of a religious minority representing 3 percent of our country's population now trump the votes of everyone else when it comes to the government's foreign policy?
"So, WTC 1993 was understandable because American soldiers were in Saudi Arabia? FFS! They weren't occupying the country!"Note that the idea that citizens of a country should abide by the decisions of an elected government until they can succeed in changing that government is absolutely unknown. What this ideology (the open letter) represents is the right of anyone with a grievance to kill randomly as a matter of negotiation:
If you read statements from Al Qaeda you'll see that this was one of their principle grievances. You seem to think that cause and effect is in some way a moral relationship. It ain't necessarily so. You can disagree with your enemy, but it doesn't follow that you must refuse to understand the consequences of your own actions. The Guardian was implying that there were no grounds for Moslem resentment of the US during the 1990s. Reasonable or not, Al Qaeda believed it had such grounds.
"Er, isn't it al-Qaeda and the ex-Ba'athists who are doing most of the killing in Iraq -- unless, of course, Bush and Blair are responsible for that too?"
The invasion of Iraq removed the structure of the state which prevented such a descent into chaos. If I remove the beams of your house do I have no share in the blame when the roof falls in?
"But the people involved in the latest plot are BRITISH citizens, as were the 7/7 bombers. Or do the grievances of a religious minority representing 3 percent of our country's population now trump the votes of everyone else when it comes to the government's foreign policy?"
I don't recall being asked to vote on the war. I'm not saying that foreign policy should be decided by a minority, but at the moment it's being decided by one man who has subordinated the national interest to support of George Bush's ridiculous policies. Blair's foreign policy decisions have endangered national security. Whether we are attacked by British moslems, or by Saudis, or by the Irish, his responsibility is to act in our interests. He's not doing so. The open letter pointed this out. The Guardian got all hot under the collar and started misrepresenting it.
Prime Minister, As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens.Really? Allowing negotiation by terroristic tactics seems monumentally unlikely to make the UK safer. This is very serious, and so is the failure of the University of Wisconsin to prevent absolute, objective lies being taught to freshmen in its classrooms. A society that cannot forcefully say no to such a minority is dead, dead, dead. This minority most definitely includes our puling professors.
It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.
To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
The debacle of Iraq and now the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.
Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the Prime Minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion.
Such a move would make us all safer.
And the Left as its stated purpose is to destroy "Evil Amerika" by any means necessary. If you view our Left through that prism it's obvious. The seek to destroy our culture one step at a time.
When the elite cannot concede that the issue even exists, no consensus is reached upon a way to deal with the issue. In this case, the eventual result is going to be a monumental backlash against Muslims emerging from flyover country. No court and no politician will be able to control it.
I think there are a lot of Muslims in the west who don't have an animus against Israel. I don't think they dare say that, though.
This is just like the immigration problem, which is crushing the lower end of the earning spectrum. This split between the lawmakers, the talking heads in the media, and the people of the country isn't getting resolved by reasonable measures, and so you see increasing efforts by towns and local police to deal with it.
The DEAD, DEAD, DEAD people here are the Muslims in the west. They're being induced to continue down this path by the effete elite.
Links to this post: