Monday, July 11, 2005

Will the British Learn From This?

Some of the things I'm reading suggest that, while all the right words are being said; "They will Fail" "They will not destroy the British Way of Life" etc. ,seem to be empty rhetoric. I'm concerned that the British Way of Life has so morphed under multiculturalism and liberal political correctness that the definition of the British Way of Life has become mushy.

The situation is the same here in Canada even though, now Muslim clerics are starting to speak out against these attacks, the suspicion lingers that these are half hearted if not mere dissembling remarks. Where are the Muslim clerics who demand the capture and trial of these vermon.

England has nearly 2 million Muslims living there. A large percentage of them don't consider themselves British, but rather Muslims living in Britain who have nothing but contempt for the British Way of Life. I believe Britain is going to have to suffer more such tragic events before the Liberal blinkers come off. Currently these liberals prohibit racial profiling. When the IRA were bombing the British mainland it didn't take long to figure out where they were coming from. How much more will it take for Britain to wake up to the enemy in their midst?

What follows is a commentary by Cal Follows that spells out my concerns.
Horrific reminder . . . with prelude
By Cal ThomasJuly 11, 2005
PORTSTEWART, Northern Ireland.

The words heard most often by political leaders, commentators and citizens after the London terrorist bombings were "shocked, but not surprised."

No one should have been surprised because Britain, like the United States, has created a welcoming atmosphere for terrorists and allowed them the fertile soil they need to grow and carry out their murderous acts among us. Just as a lifelong smoker should not be surprised when diagnosed with lung cancer, neither should Britain and America be surprised when people who refuse to adopt Western notions of pluralism, tolerance and individual liberty kill and maim innocent people they and their religious masters label "Zionists and crusaders."

In Britain, proposed "hate crimes" laws have sought to forbid even the few clergy still worth hearing from saying homosexuality is a sin. No such laws have been proposed to stop radical Islamic Imams from preaching hatred of Jews, Christians and Western values.

Leftist lawyers eagerly defend the radicals. They are more concerned about the treatment of killers at Guantanamo Bay and the "atrocities" performed on Abu Ghraib prisoners, who would kill us if they had the chance, than the seething masses eager to strap a bomb to their bodies and end their worthless lives while killing "infidels."

The pattern should be familiar by now. A terrorist act is committed. Western leaders condemn it in the "strongest possible terms." Pledges are made that the killers will not achieve their goals and our way of life will continue. Muslim leaders issue statements condemning the killing of "innocents." To them, though, innocents are people who are not "Zionists and crusaders," so the condemnation's sincerity is suspect.

The Times interviewed two young Muslim men in East London, a neighborhood with a large Muslim population. Nineteen-year-old Kadar Duale said he doesn't believe the London bombings were carried out by al Qaeda, but "by someone more powerful, like the Israelis." Such thinking is not isolated among a few radicals.

Amir Taheri, an Iranian commentator on Middle Eastern Affairs, wrote a column for the Times of London on July 8, in which he demonstrated the kind of clear thinking that seems to have eluded muddleheaded politicians and other self-deluded people who yammer for the TV camera: "You are dealing with an enemy that does not want anything specific, and cannot be talked back into reason through anger management or roundtable discussions. Or, rather, this enemy does want something specific: to take full control of your lives, dictate every single move you make round the clock and, if you dare resist, he will feel it is his divine duty to kill you."

A Sunday Times survey taken just after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States found 4 in 10 British Muslims (there are as many as 2 million) believed Osama bin Laden justified in his war against America. A similar number said Britons who choose to fight with the Taliban are right to do so. Another opinion poll for the Asian radio station Sunrise found 98 percent of London Muslims under 45 said they would not fight for Britain; 48 percent said they would take up arms for bin Laden [ed note: Times of London, Nov. 4, 2001].

In view of these beliefs and repeated acts of terror, the incitements against all things Western, Jewish and Christian in who knows how many mosques in Britain and the U.S., the teaching of seditious ideas in radical Islamic schools funded by our "friends" the Saudis, and the refusal of most Muslim communities to assimilate and learn the language, history and practices of their host countries, why do Britain and the United States continue to allow such things within their borders?

Unless we are prepared to accept continued terrorist attacks as "normal" because of some sick understanding of tolerance and pluralism, we had better do whatever is necessary to root out these people and forbid any more from entering our countries.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, Mohammed Abdullah, a 22-year-old accountant from Luton was quoted in the Times: "We don't perceive ourselves as British Muslims. We are Muslims who live in Britain. All Muslims in Britain view supporting the jihad as a religious duty."

In the face of such comments and actions like the latest terrorist bombing, Britain and America should consider what Mark Steyn wrote in a Daily Telegraph column July 8 (and in his column in today's edition of this newspaper): "If the governing class goes about business as usual, that's not a stiff upper lip, but a death wish."

Cal Thomas is a nationally syndicated columnist.


Brian H said...

Refusal to take the jihadists at their word, on the grounds that they can't possibly be as bloody-minded as they say they are, is key, I think. The obvious reason is that the unavoidable consequences of doing so are so drastic: immediate and vigorous purging of them and their organizations from the country. Temporizing unto death is somehow preferable.

Oh, btw, it's "vermin", not "vermon". :)

Pebble said...

Hi I sent a link to this post to a Canadian fighting in Afghanistan.
* Brian your so sweet to correct every living soul you come across
on the internet... what would we do without you!