Of course, the entire global jihad is a media creation. Ignore those killings in Thailand, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, Egypt, etc. etc. etc. From the Muslim News, with thanks to Kemaste:
Islam is not a threat to the West, says former Tory Chancellor, Lord Lamont. He believed such a view is “foolish” but blamed the media for highlighting what he called a minority view on the issue.“There are attempts by some parts of the media, reflecting public opinion, to create a clash between the civilisations, the Christian west and Islam,” Lord Lamont told The Muslim News. But one cannot “regard a great religion like Islam, as being in some sense, the enemy of civilisation”, he said.
The Tory peer said he also disagreed with France, which perceives Islamic dress, the hijab, as a threat to their secularism. “When I was in Karachi I very specifically criticised the French ban of the headscarf in the state schools. I contrasted it with my experience in the part of London where I live, young Muslim women serve in the shops, they wear headscarfs, sometimes with a t-shirt and jeans, and I can’t find anything at all threatening about this”, he said.
In his exclusive interview with The Muslim News at his office in London, Lord Lamont said he believed that there is a problem of Islamophobia in this country.“It is a sort of fear of the unknown and I think things like interfaith organisations are very important.” He referred to some Muslims taking texts out of context from the Qur’an in the same way as some Jews and Christians do, but warned people not to tarnish the whole Muslim community with the same brush when reporting and talking on terrorism. “There are collective fallacies uttered - all Muslims are fundamentalists and all fundamentalists are terrorists, or that all Saudis are terrorists,” the former Chancellor said.
I myself have never said anything like that. Nor have thoughtful scholars such as Bat Ye'or and Ibn Warraq. But thus Lamont dismisses any and all who try to alert the West about the worldwide jihad.
I hope that, in 50 years time, when we're fighting muslims in the streets, that the comments of this idiot will be remembered, just as Neville Chamberlain's "peace in our time" is remembered.
Another strong candidate for the 'Dhimmi of the Year' Award!
"The Tory peer said he also disagreed with France, which perceives Islamic dress, the hijab, as a threat to their secularism."
This whole concept of a purely secular society frightens me. When we look back at Nazi Germany, it seems crazy that people were so diluded and gradually becoming ok with the minor injustices that eventually developed into throwing people into concentration camps because they simply 'looked jewish'...but to look muslim nowadays gives the government the right to deny them entrance into schools....what a minor injustice that is: it's abvious to see where this is going.
The Tory chancellor said nothing of Islamic Extremism being a casual threat....he states that Islam as a mainstream religion is not a threat to the West. There's a huge distinction between the two, as offered by Mr. Spencer, and I agree. Christianity is not a threat, neither is ignorance but it's the manifestation of any 'ideologies' in any extreme fashion that can lead to threatening individuals and sub-groups.
also, a quick note about the killings in thailand....the muslims were in protestation when they were piled up into a truck and suffocated to death. 78 died that way, and i guess because they were muslim, we will label them as extremist, fanatics, terrorists. after all, thats how things are defined here at dhimmi watch.
we shall then continue to insult every muslim, or non-muslim with an arab name, or country heavily populated with muslims. we'll then read other postings saying 'go back to your f*&^ing sh$thole' and gloat at how everyone agrees nastily. we will then beel better about our own faith and self worth somehow and continue our day, merrily.
Lord Who?
Islam has failed as a religion and has degenerated into a cult. Islam is evil. Islam is racist. Islam is our enemy.
Option 1: Islam is reformed and practiced like a religion, not a street gang.
Option 2: We keep doing the work needed to spread the true agenda of Muslims, ultimately eradicating Islam completely.
I wonder how much they're paying him to say that?
Norman Lamont, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was responsible for "Black Wednesday" when our economy suddenly plunged into the mire... and along with it, tens of thousands of jobs...
I don't know of any sane person who would take Lamont's views seriously!
Talk about a glaring example of idiotic moral equivalence: He referred to some Muslims taking texts out of context from the Qur’an in the same way as some Jews and Christians do...
Like we are seeing Jews and Christians referencing their holy scriptures and issuing the equivalent of fatwahs against their opposites or proclaiming the greatness of their God before anihilating unarmed non-combatants.
Wasn't there a Brit during WW II dubbed Lord Wuff-Wuff or something for being an apologist for the Nazis?
Watermelon52:
'Wasn't there a Brit during WW II dubbed Lord Wuff-Wuff or something for being an apologist for the Nazis?'
LOL! His nickname was 'Lord Haw Haw', but you were in the right ball park. That's really tickled me for some reason.
His real name was William Joyce. He was hanged.
Lord Wuff-Wuff. Excellent!
Nanette
The problem is that this view of Islam has been long-held or is increasingly being adopted by many British politicians who have power in the UK, i.e., Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Ken Livingstone, Chris Patten, etc., etc. Either they actually believe that Islam is not a threat or they are trying to avoid a bloody religious war in the streets of London and Birmingham, or they are simply interested in buying Muslim votes. In any event, they are willfully turning a blind eye to the inherently aggressive nature of the religion and the undisguised effort to subjugate the West through a combination of violence, immigration, and political influence.
The UK has become the heart of the ummah in Europe, home to a multitude of demonstrably dangerous Islamists and worse, an army of pandering politicians, pseudo-intellectual writers, and leftist academics who are willing accomplices to the destruction of Western values and culture.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=story_31-5-2004_pg4_3
http://www.islamic.co.uk/statistics/disadvantage.asp
When first I read this my heart sank thinking that it was Lawson, a man of stature , intellect and gravitas and also a previous Chancellor but then I realised it was Lamont, as useless with the economy as he is in understanding the Islamic threat.Happily he has no power and certainly no influence.
Interest'd:
Glad I gave you (and anyone else) a laugh in these grim times and thanks re: the correction (Lord Haw Haw). Been a long time since I studied WW II history.
As for the appearance of so many Brit pols being deluded about Islam... ...could be many things operating, from naivity, to latent Arabism (thanks to Lawrence of Arabia), to being cautious about offending a sizable block of voters... (aka political correctness in its most literal sense)
...or maybe it's just the politicians' version of kittman and taquiya (pardon the spelling), something that most successful politicians are very skilled at themselves. (Even Bush has uttered soothing words about the religion of peace.)
Lord Lamont of Lerwick makes his second appearance at Jihadwatch. His first, on February 16, 2004, was for a remarkable speech he gave to a Pakistani audience at the "Shahid Zulfikar Ali Bhutto" something or other, for which, no doubt, the Pakistanis made his trip, and speech, worthwhile. Same stuff, of course.
And this is the same Norman Lamont who, at Question Time, has deplored the American effort in Iraq and attacked Israel.
And this is the same Norman Lamont who, like so many others in the United Kingdom, has been on the Arab take. Some, like Jonathan Aitken, of the Conservatives, prefer their money from the Saudis. Some, like George Galloway, prefer to receive their money through those oil-vouchers that were being handed out as rewards for good behavior by Saddam Hussein, formerly of the Tikrit Palace and Baghdad, more recently, after a dilatory domicile in a pied-sous-terre near his former Tikrit home, now receiving guests by appointment only.
And Lord Lamont (the word "Lord" for some implies rectitude, and the name "Lamont" for some Americans may evoke thoughts of Corliss Lamont, the leftwing sport who was once quite famous, of the J.P. Morgan-connected Lamonts -- as in Lamont Library at Harvard)-- is in a third category. No doubt he has been thoroughly enlightened about Islam by his fellow peer, Lord Ahmad, who was elevated to the House of Lords, for his services to chutney. But there is more to it than that. Lamont, who is president of something called the "Oil Club" and also connected to "Le Cercle," has been linked financially to a certain Iraqi "businessman" with ties to Saddam Hussein, one Mr. Nadhmi Auchi. You know the Arab kind of businessman -- they don't produce Edwin Land, or Warren Buffet, or any real businessmen; what one means here are those adept at recycling petrodollars, paid for either by the arms dealers filling the entire Muslim Arab East up wtih weaponry (as Iraq has been discovered to be one vast arms depot), or by the corrupt rulers who need fixers to hide or invest the money they stole from their own countries. Khashoggi comes to mind; so does Rafik Hariri, and indeed the Bin Laden family does not exactly put one in mind of Western-style businessmen, now do they? I forget the anme of that rich "Palestinian" contractor who is the Lebanese equivalent of the Bin Ladens, who funded John Esposito's "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding," nor does one recall all the Arab countries that helped to fund the Georgetown Center for Contemporary Arab Studies, from which perch the plausible Michael Hudson -- remember him? He goes back a long way, in making sure no one really studied Islam, or jihad, or dhimmitude, but instead directed their attention almost exclusively to the Arab sense of aggrievement over Israel. There are thus those who get their money directly, or indirectly.
Billy Carter (Libya), gunrunning ex-C.I.A. agent Edwin Wilson (Libya), ex-C.I.A. agent turned "businessman with Saudi partners also connected to BCCI" Raymond Close (Saudi Arabia), -- oh, one could fill up the page, not to mention the Arab money that funds the "Council for the American Interest" of Eugene Bird, or Andrew Kilgore's outfit (or for that matter Mrs. Eugene Bird's own little remunerated effort to bring to America three women to discuss for American female audiences "Jerusalem" as a city "holy to three faiths" and why can't we all get along and what's wrong with those fascist Zionists when the Christian Arab and the Muslim Arab agree and even the far-left Israeli she managed to unearth also agrees with them, what do you know?).
Google, plese, "Norman Lamont" and "Nadhmi Auchi." And ask yourself what is going on, with the Aitkens, and the Galloways, and the Lamonts, and the Chiracs (and here you can list 20 other French bigshots), and the oil executives, and the arms company executives (remember that in 1980, with the AWACS battle, weven suppliers of hospitals such as Whitney, with big Saudi contracts, went to bat for our Saudi "allies,"), and the pseudo-academics who get their money indirectly, through supposedly disinterested funding, Hudson, Esposito, Rashid Khalidi at Columbia, tutti quanti. Absurd.
Am I suggesting that the entire Western world is awash in Arab hirelings, and that among these hirelings are ex-diplomats, former and present government officials, ex-C.I.A. agents, all sorts of people still aiding the Jihad by preventing us from understanding Islam? Is it being suggested that the campagin of misinformation is based only partly on ignorance, and a refusal to understand, or even to investigate the matter, but in some quarters mainly because people are bought and paid for?
Yes.
Nadhmi Auchi. Norman Lamont. Google to your heart's content.
Here's a site where veiled Western Muslim women are taught how to deal with the media:
http://www.islamonline.net/English/In_Depth/hijab_campaign/articles/04.shtml
Is it a "minority" of "majority" point of view that's being fabricated here?
Here is one article that came up (following Hugh's suggestion):
Elf Scandal of hundreds of millions in kick backs
On Auchi the article states,
"While he admits earning a "commission" on the deal, he denies charges of corruption and says he has always been willing to co-operate with police. His extradition to France could be embarrassing for Tony Blair's Labour government, which has close ties with Mr Auchi. He is one of Britain's richest men and owns General Mediterranean Holding, an opaque £1.2bn business empire ranging from shipping to hotels. He is believed to have been advising British ministers on Iraq and to have sought a role in a postwar Iraqi administration. A number of British politicians have served on the boards of his companies, including former Foreign Office minister Keith Vaz and former Conservative chancellor Norman Lamont.
And lots more where this came from.
As an American, I'm struck by the fact that this Lord Lamont belongs to what's considered the ideologically conservative party in the UK. I'm ideologically conservative and I think nothing like this fool concerning Islam. Maggie Thatcher must be shaking her head.
To any Brits out there: What would be the essential differences between British and American conservatism?
Joe D'H:
When you get far enough to the left or right and you get convergence -- anti-Jewish and pro-totalitarian (a la Pat Buchanan for one... Lindon LaRouche...for another American example.)
And this ain't a new phenomenon. The far right and the far left both opposed US participation in the fight against Hitler (albiet for slightly different reasons) -- the former because they were isolationists who also sympathized with Hitler's hatred of Jews (e.g.: Henry Ford) and the latter because of Hitler's pact with Stalin, who also was virulently anti-Jewish.
Dear LukeMan,
Following on from your post, here are some questions that you might like like to consider:
1. What would the reaction be to somebody who "looked Jewish" who had entered a mosque anywhere in Egypt, Algeria or Saudia Arabia.
2. What is your interpretion of the following:
"And well ye knew those amongst you who transgressed in the matter of the Sabbath (Jews) and we said to them "be ye apes, despised and rejected". Sura 2:65
"Strongest among men in emnity to the believers wilt thou find the Jews and the pagans." Sura 5:82
Can this quote be considered Islamic extremism towards the Jews when it comes directly from the Qur'an?
3. Do you believe that the following is compatible with a modern day multicultural Western Society?:
"Ye who are believers: take not the Jews and the Christians as your friends and protectors as they are the friends and protectors of each other only, and those that turn to them for friendship are as one of them" Sura 5:51
If so, please explain how religious segregation will achieve religious integration?
4 In what article shown at DhimmiWatch (not the posts) have all muslims been labelled terrorists or extremists?
I could also move on to violent Jihad, apostasy, the rights of women etc but the above will do for now.
You can label everyone at DhimmWatch fascists and extremists to make yourself feel better about your own faith, and then go back to leading your life, merrily. I know however that I am not.
And if you are going to bother replying to this post then at least make an attempt to answer the questions above, or else the obvious conclusion will be that you can't.
We must cease thinking in common political categories; this struggle is about defense of basic human rights and freedoms fundamental to both 'right' and 'left' political perspectives; the good, bad and ambivalent are on both sides of the political fence. And the willingness to sell one's soul by its nature holds very loose reigns on ideology.
And as the jihadists consider just about anything that furthers the cause of Islam in some way 'friendly' to their position (crude means/end thinking, which makes for strange bedfollws, e.g. imams and greenies) so too, I think, anti-jihadists should be open to alliances with a broad spectrum of folks to combat jihad (with certain moral constraints, of course).
The stakes are too high.
Joseph D'Hippolito.
American conservatism follows the ideals of the Founding Fathers. Almost all of them were of the "British liberalism" train of thought. The Tories were not consevative in the american sense until Marget Thatcher took over the party's lidership. Before Margert there were no american style conservative party in Britain. In the rest of europe our conservatism is called by its proper name, e.i.Liberalism and our liberalism is dully named Socialism/Communism.
Why am I not surprised that Islamic appeaser Lord Lamont leaves an oil slick trail back to an Iraqui oil tycoon being investigated for corruption?
Oil products pollute the air we breathe, the oceans that sustain our planet, and produce the petro-dollars that pump up the global Jihad.
It also makes nodding donkeys out of our politicians and supposed defenders.
Here's how UK Conservatives compare with US Conservatives--
UK Cons
Lady Thatcher: friend of the oil companies.
Dennis Thatcher: (husband) oil millionaire.
Mark Thatcher: (son) 'something in oil.'
Lord Lamont: (forner chancellor) oily.
US Cons
George Bush Snr: oil millionaire
George W. Bush: well oiled
Dick Cheney: pump jock
Add as many names as you like to either list. There are plenty of them.
Did someone mention Grover Norquist?
The fact is we're never going to get the jihadis or wahabis off our backs as long as they're funded by oil money. (See how far they'd get if the Jihad were funded by dates or macadamia nuts!)
And we're never going to kick the oil habit as long as our politicians are getting their a***s greased by the oil companies. It doesn't take a Michael Moore to see that.
If we had clean, alternative energy sources we could dump the Saudis & co in a NY minute and they'd have to go back to selling rugs for a living.
But that's not going to happen as long as our politicians are bought and paid for by the oil companies.
Politicians, oil companies, Arabs and jihadis - it's an ugly tight Gordian knot that somehow has to be cut.
Now if some helpful eco warriors, or even the Israelis, were to blow up the Saudi oil fields...
Benelux, couldn't agree with you more.
Bush is so deep in oil, so why do so many Americans trust him to fight the terrorists?
By the way, does anyone know how much longer the middle east's oil reserve will last? I'm counting the days until they run out.
"Bush is so deep in oil, so why do so many Americans trust him to fight the terrorists?"
You're right, Voltaire, Bush is so deep in oil, he could be a sardine.
But what's the alternative? The other prize 'catch' is like a toothless catfish. A tiddler at that. Best to throw him back, give him a chance to grow some more.
At least Bush is 'the devil you know', and he's had a few years to get some experience and grow into the job. Let's hope so.
I'm glad it's not a decision I have to make.
Arnie and Steve Seagal in 2008!
I'm not American and won't be in power to sway the election outcome Tuesday by casting a ballot,I will take the time on this site to make a very relavant point to the Bush-bashers and
Kerry supporters.
I noticed something the media never picked up on,while Kerry attacked Bush over the Vietnam issue it was Kerry's own admission that he supressed information about the War-crimes and atrocities against civilians he obeseved in the war,he didn't act to prevent any further harm to civilians and made a freewill decision to use the atrocities when it would help his "Anti-war"
cause once back in the USA.
Before you vote,ask yourself if your "security of person" rights in the Constitution will be valued by a man that has a speech problem and appears as a dolt,or the other filty rich white guy that saw Human rights violations and murder and yet chose to stay mute
while poor people suffered.
They both went to Yale,so what was it about
protecting the poor that Kerry didn't comprehend
after that exspensive education.
If I'm on a Airplane that's a target for a hijacker to cremate me against my will through Jihad,I want the dolt running the Counrty and not the war-hero that allowed people to be murdered
until it was an advantage for furthering his personal aims after he left the War.
Liars have to be really intelligent to remeber their stories,Bush is just stupid enough to
believe he must be telling the truth.
Kery was for the War before he was against it,he was against abortion before he was for it,he was against the gulf war but was for the alliance based invasion,and on and on with his flip-flop
logic.
Like a lot of choices in life, this election isn't about choosing between good or bad, perfect or useless - no, the choice here is more like - Bad or Worse?
If Kerry does get elected, we can only hope that he gets a strong dose of 'reality therapy' when he sits down at the president's desk and starts reading all those 'For Your Eyes Only' reports. Seems like he's got a lot of growing up to do.
What's really worrying is the total lack of any strong trustworthy leaders emerging either in the US, UK or anywhere in Europe. Professional politicians just don't seem big enough for the job.
Bush may be "deep in oil", but, aside from the fact that the US isn't as dependent on Middle East oil, as, say the French are... ...what is Kerry "deep in"? Theresa (the Terrible) H-K is scarrier than Dick Cheney any day of the week, and much less publicly accountable as she wields influence through the various charities she supports, like CAIR.
The political leaders currently in evidence fill one not with confidence, but misgivings. Whoever wins the American presidency, for example, will need to take tutorial in the nature of Islam -- or to be advised not by those whose mind-set prevents them from understanding, or even beginning to understand, this belief-system which, for a number of peculiar reasons (including the fact that is called a "religion" and has a large number of followers, and a vast army of apologists, not all of whom are Believers themselves), but from those who have taken the trouble to study Islam and the history of Islamic conquest. This cannot continue to be a forbidden subject. If the word "Islam" cannot be employed, then at least jettison the "war on terrorism" for a simpler phrasing that asymptotically approaches the truth: a war of self-defense against the Jihad, or: A War Against Jihad. The word "Jihad" will be the semantic stand-in for "Islam."
But first, all those who have directly or indirectly been receiving Arab and Muslim money, either through the contributions of Arabs to set up phony "chairs" at universities that can provide cover for such obvious propagandists as Rashid Khalidi (applauded, and feted, and given recognition, by others just like him, sharing the same views, inhabiting the same mental univese, in such tainted groups as MESA), or academic centers (as several at Georgetown, including the one that John Esposito and his loyal henchmen Voll and Haddad run, or the other one, with Michael Hudson and company). Follow the money trial. Find out who has been paying, for their services as "international business consultants," or paying high lecture fees, for all those ex-diplomats and ex-C.I.A. agents and ex- thises and thats who are recipients of Saudi, or Kuwait, or U.A.E. largesse. Norman Lamont is just one among many. Those who can be described as hirelings of the Arabs may, in addition, possess an animus against their own country, or suffer from one of the pathologies, such as antisemitism, that for obvious reasons reinforces any desire to promote, by disguising, the Jihad that has as one of its most immediate victims the tiny state of Israel. But money is enough to explain most such cases.
One wants the entire Western public to find out not only about George Galloway being on the Iraqi take, but to find out who is paying for such furtherers of the Jihad against Israel as the Council for the National Interest, which pays Eugene Bird, or who pays for Andrew Kilgore's little outfit, or who has been supplementing the salary of James Akins all these years, and what has Raymond Close been doing? Only a thorough Congressional investigation, and one in the U.K. that uncovers what certain M.P.' s and others have received (start with Jonathan Aitken, and Norman Lamont, then move on to Robert Fisk and others to see what might turn up). Surely the only way to stop this sort of thing, which continues unabated, is to do such damage, such public humiliation, followed by lawsuits that attempt to force former government officials on the undeclared take of the Arabs to disgorge all their profits (and a lawsuit based on their misleading the American government, while they were still supposed to be serving it, because they looked forward, if they played their cards right, to being rewarded in the future, should not be hard to prove).
Whoever wins, members of Congress of both parties, and journalists who should, at long last, begin to figure out how it is that the Wesetern world has allowed itself to be, for so long, bamboozled about Saudi good will, or the nature of Islam. That bamboozlement has had policy consequences, even among the supposedly "tough-minded" who may have believed that a "Light Unto the Muslim Nations" project in Iraq, rather than getting in, smashing the regime, disarming the country thoroughly, and then leaving it, perhaps to internecine warfare, a kind of "Somalia solution." This is by far the most intelligent procedure to now follow, so as to preserve one's power for the next assault, and to use a more intelligent, less expensive, and much more effective means to counter the Jihad -- beginning with an elaborate propaganda and education campaign in Europe to arouse Europeans against their own suicidal appeasement and islamization. Unfortunately, the formula "war against terrorism" is far too limited, for if we were to believe that "terrorsim" is the problem, we would not be alarmed by the "peaceful" spread of Islam in Europe and elsewhere. But we should be. Very.
Tell to to the families of those who have had loved ones killed by this culture and not the religion!!
The Qu'ran and the Sunna state quite clearly how to treat women and what place women have in an Islamic society - basically a field to be plowed!
This is so disgusting!
jihan