From the UK Telegraph, with thanks to all who sent this in.
The group portrait of British Muslims painted by YouGov's survey for The Daily Telegraph is at once reassuring and disturbing, in some ways even alarming.The vast majority of British Muslims condemn the London bombings but a substantial minority are clearly alienated from modern British society and some are prepared to justify terrorist acts.
The divisions within the Muslim community go deep. Muslims are divided over the morality of the London bombings, over the extent of their loyalty to this country and over how Muslims should respond to recent events.
Most Muslims are evidently moderate and law-abiding but by no means all are.
YouGov sought to gauge the character of the Muslim community's response to the events of July 7. As the figures in the chart show, 88 per cent of British Muslims clearly have no intention of trying to justify the bus and Tube murders.
However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.
Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.
Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.
A substantial majority, 56 per cent, say that, whether or not they sympathise with the bombers, they can at least understand why some people might want to behave in this way.
YouGov also asked whether or not its Muslim respondents agreed or disagreed with Tony Blair's description of the ideas and ideology of the London bombers as "perverted and poisonous".
Again, while a large majority, 58 per cent, agree with him, a substantial minority, 26 per cent, are reluctant to be so dismissive.
The responses indicate that Muslim men are more likely than Muslim women to be alienated from the mainstream and that the young are more likely to be similarly alienated than the old...
One in four British muslims (oxymoron) approve of muslim bombers.
The other three are concealing their true feeling!
The title should be revised:
"Though aware that Infidels would be keenly interested in the results, nonetheless one in four British Muslims admitted to sympathizing with those who murdered their fellow (Infidel) citizens)."
And if Muslims were not schooled in lying about what they believe or what Islam teaches -- the religiously-sanctioned dissimulation that is so much a part of Islam, and comes so naturally to so many Muslims, as does the rhetorical argument known as Tu-Quoque. Since so many outwardly plausible and "moderate" Muslims deliberately mislead Infidels about Islam, and are great practitioners of Taqiyya and Tu-Quoque -- everyone from well-known columnists whom one would have thought fall into the "Muslim-for-identification-purposes" class of Muslim, to a Harvard Divinity School professor -- isn't it obvious that the 25% figure is far lower than the real figure.
I would reverse the percentages: I would say that at least 75% of all Muslims in England sympathize with the "motives" of the mad-dog killers. But even 25% will do to make a point: how much physical insecurity, how much expense of constant monitoring and enduring changes in one's free society, how much unpleasantness of every kind, how much time spent merely rebuttring the most transparent of untruths, must be endured by Infidel societies, because a few decades ago, their leaders criminally negligent about the permanent texts and tenets of Islam, began to allow in a steady flow of Muslim migrants who, unlike all the other migrants, cannot and will not fit into Infidel society, but wish to extend the range of Islam until it dominates, and Muslims rule. This has been a permenant feature of Muslim teachings, derived from Qur'an, Hadith, and Sira. It explains the Muslim conquest, by varied means, and subjugation of various peoples (Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Buddhists, and others), in widely-varied latitudes and longitudes.
The real figure -- 75% or so -- is too much. The stated figure, from those irreducibly truth-telling Muslims who do not care what the Infidels think (they haven't yet learned all the arts of dissimulation and "moderation"), 25% -- is too much. So would be 5%, or 1%.
With one case of Mad Cow Disease, millions of cows are regarded as so dangerous as to require the banning of their meat, and the destruction of large numbers of herds. If for every 100 Muslim immigrants, 1/4 of them admit to sympathy --even immediately in the wake of the horror of the attacks and the fear of your fellow Infidel citizens --of murderous attacks designed to kill Infidels, and terrorize them, and their governments, well -- at what point does one recognize the problem, identify it truthfully, and decide to do the only sensible thing, which is to halt all Muslim immigration, expel all Muslims who can be expelled (as non-citizens), and work to force those remaining to either give up on Islam, or to find their lives as Muslims so constrained that they will voluntarily leave. There is no obligation for Infidels to allow those who do not wish them well, and a good many of whom wish to permanently subjugate them, and are busily working (through Da'wa, among other instruments) toward that end -- to remain among them. It makes no sense.
pismo wrote...One in four British muslims (oxymoron) approve of muslim bombers.
The other three are concealing their true feeling!...
Exactly. 1/4 told the truth, the other 3/4 said what they believe is in the best interests of protecting Islam. Thanks for the taqiyya. Can I have another heaping bowl of it?
I read the article. I know from taqiyya that
lying to infideals is big part of islam. I agree
the true figures are much worse. Surely Blair and
some of the other political leaders have read this
why don't they care about the britsh people does
he think the islamics will save him and his family
or is planning at some point to flee to some safe
haven? What is really going on? He can't be that
stupid as to not know the millions of deaths islamic
terroists will bring in a few years. What is
he waiting for? Islam is not goint to moderate
not if it is to be islam.
Of course they sympathize with the motives of the terrorists. To be Muslim, they must believe the mandates of the Koran to be true. Jihad against non-believers is an obligation and violence is one method of jihad. However, the bombers, in the view of many have jumped the gun, for British Muslims are well on their way in completing their non-violent Jihad and the bombers, we hope, have spoiled the pudding for them. Perhaps the British public has awakened to the reality of threat and will leave aside the suicidal notions that have allowed Islamification to proceed.
LONDON, England (CNN) -- Police say the man they shot dead at a London Underground station "was not connected" with this week's attempted bombings on the city's transit system.
"For somebody to lose their life in such circumstances is a tragedy and one that the Metropolitan Police Service regrets," the police statement said Saturday.
During a news conference following Friday's shooting, Metropolitan Police Commissioner Ian Blair said "this shooting is directly linked to the ongoing and expanding anti-terrorist operation."
The man -- whose identity has not been released -- on Friday emerged from a south London apartment building that had been under surveillance as part of the investigation into the attempted bombings Thursday.
Officers followed him to the Stockwell Underground station. The man's "clothing and suspicious behavior at the station added to their suspicions," a police statement said.
He challenged police and refused to obey orders, before he was shot and killed Friday morning, Blair said Friday.
Meanwhile, police said Saturday that a second suspect had been arrested in connection with the attempted bombings.
The man was arrested in Stockwell on Friday night by anti-terrorism officers in connection with the failed attacks, police said.
I can not blame the police in the case bearing in mind the situation.Stockwell stition is the next stop from The Oval,so the jerk should not have run,when the police demand him to to stop.
Dumb fooker is all I can say just now
Hugh, while I agree that the no-immigration-plus-deportation policy is right for Israel (where the Arab support of terrorism is closer to 99%). But even if we (the U.S. or U.K.) did exactly what you propose, that still wouldn't stop home-grown wackjobs like Jose 'Dirty-Bomb' Padilla or John Walker 'American-Taliban' Lindh or Richard 'Shoebomber' Reid.
The Islamicidists seem to have a large inferiority complex with a large culture-of-blame to compensate. There are plenty of born-bred-raised losers in the U.S. who are more than happy to buy into a world view like that.
I don't have the answer, I just think that what you describe is not the complete answer either.
"I just think that what you describe is not the complete answer either."
---- from a posting above
But I never offered the "complete answer" to the problem of this world-wide Jihad, especially with Muslims now in our midst -- nor did I even think a "complete answer" such was possible; I don't even know what that means. In 1939, or 1941, what was the "complete answer" to the Nazis and Japanese militarists? In 1946, or 1950, or 1960, what was the "complete answer" to Soviet Communism?
To insist on having something that could be labelled the "complete answer" is to prevent intelligent discussion of all the variious things that might be done, no one of which, or even all of them together, guarantees anything. There are so many things that could be done right now, should have been done yesterday.
Let us, for example, walk back this particular cat and ask what has already been the result of not understanding Islam over the past few decades.
There are two main results of the previous failure to understand Islam -- which, it must be repeated, has not changed in its essential teachings, and all that has changed is the ability of Muslims to conduct Jihad, employing far more instruments of warfare than mere combat.
Here are two results of that failure to understand, in time, the nature of Islam:
1) the failure to understand permanent Saudi malevolence, and the belief that Saudi Arabia as a "staunch ally" would work to "moderate" oil prices so that all we need to is stay in the good graces of Saudi Arabia, and what happened was that for the last 1/3 of a century, we have been unable to figure out that the Saudis are not our friends, never were our friends, never could be our friends, and that we should long ago have put a tax on gasoline that would steadily rise, in regular and known-in-advance increments, and taxed oil for other uses, and plowed the money into the development of other energy sources and energy conservation. But instead, we kept relying on our Saudi "friends" because we never learned about Islam. And those who benefited from the Saudi connection -- all sorts of businessmen, and fixers, and Washington pimps of every kind -- were not about to let anyone in the government warn about the Saudis, Islam, and their inevitable support for JIhad.
2) ignorance of Islam led the countries of the Western world to allow into their midst large numbers of Muslims who have not behaved as guest workers, but settled in, brought over their families, in only a very few cases abandoned Islam, and are in the second and third generations proving to be, as was perfectly predictable (and indeed the last generation of Western scholars of Islam had deep forebodings about this, but they were replaced by others who were apologists or near-apologists. That last category may even be said to cover, in a sense, Bernard Lewis, whose policy recommendations and bizarre presentation of modern Iraq demonstrate that he really does not fully comprehend the centrality, the permanence, the full malevolence, of the Jihad, and did not realize that what changed everything was not a new doctrine, imported from outside, but the ability to act, to acquire the wherewithal to pursue the Jihad, that OPEC oil money, and millions of Muslims behind enemy lines in Western Europe, made possible. That was what Lewis still fails to understand. His refusal to see the war against Israel as a permanent Jihad, and his belief, for a while,that somehow compromise was possible, led him to be an enthusiast of the Oslo Accords (he squired a number of left-wing Israelis around New York), and his refusal to see the need not for "democracy" so much as for weakening and demoralizing Islam, led to his falsifying of Iraq's recent history, his insistence that Islam was not inimical to "democracy" but that in fact had long been practiced, in a sense, inthe Muslim world, proved to have terrible consequences on impressonable policymakers who had come to believe that Lewis was the fount of all wisdom, a truth-telling Englishmen, with a pleasing and yet at the same time reassuringly authoritative manner, which hid all sorts of doubts, semi-truths not mentioned in public but reserved for private conversations. Lewis, who sometimes said privately what he would never say publicly, has been affected, in a way, by the behavior of those Muslims among whom he has had colleagues, acquiaintances, friends for so many decades. Lewis has been disastrously influential, both as an enthusiastic supporter of the Oslo Accords, and now, perhaps even worse, of the cockamamie "Light-Unto-the-Muslim-Nations Project in Iraq. He may be a giant compared to Esposito, but he still has failed, with all of his intelligence and supple pen, to fully comprehend what Islam teaches, to quite believe that it could be, for so many hundreds of millions, what it is, for he has in mind the Islam of the most sophisticated, the most Westernized, the most plausible, the most secularized, Muslims -- the very people he has had as friends or as colleagues or professional acquaintances. His defense of the "Sun-People" theory of the Turks, his refusal to accept that the Turkish and Kurdish massacres of Armenians constituted a genocide, his defense of Turkish manipulation of history, his belief that "compromise" by the Israelis beyond what they have already given up would lead to some kind of lessening of Arab Muslim hostility, when it will only increase it, and increase the likelihood of war -- all this posterity will not forgive Lewis. He has not extended any support or encouragement to defectors from Islam, such as Ibn Warraq and Ali Sina, and has seemingly belittled the significance of Bat Ye'or's scholarship (even going so far as to deny the existence of that condition that she called "dhimmitude"). Yet her scholarship has proven, in the end, to be more significant, by far, and more relevant, by far, and more permanent, by far, than his own.
In the same way, American policymakers were in the year before the war in Iraq clearly manipulated by various plausible Iraqi exiles who spoke good English, were affable and plausible, toned down or hid completely their inevitable opposition to Israel (some even hinted that Iraq would break with the Arabs and recognize Israel and even have friendly relations with it -- a truly preposterous idea, and no one should ever have placed any hopes on that idea. They were, and remain, past masters at telling Americans exactly what they know those Americans want to hear. This group includes Ahmad Chalabi, Feisal Istrabadi, Ambassador Francke, Allawi himself, and a good many others, who were mainly interested in getting the Americans to do what they could not have possibly done themselves, which was to overturn Saddam Hussein's regime.
Had the Western world understood Islam -- had the Israelis, for example, understood for themselves that they face a pemanent Jihad that is not a question of borders, and kept instructing the Europeans in the nature of that Jihad -- the Western governments would never have let in the numbers of Muslims they have allowed in, and made allowances for, and kept on the Western dole, and done everything possible to make Muslim-friendly, rather than Muslim-hostile, their own countries, thus creating a world far more unpleasant, expensive, and dangerous for the indigenous Infidels than it would otherwise be.
...their leaders criminally negligent about the permanent texts and tenets of Islam.
Not only criminally negligent but criminally advised by faux historians and those who sought only to profit from the unfortunate accident of oil under arab lands.
Winston churchill, however never considered an academic on addount of his poor showing at Harrow saw the problem clearly at an early age.
in the same manner that he later saw the problems of Nazi ideology whilst the rest of the upper crust sought only appeasement.
These are indeed lessons we refused to learn.
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”
—Sir Winston Churchill, from The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).
SHIVA
thank you for the info.
I had little doubt that this would turn out to be the case and this could not have happened at a worst time .
I am adding this unfortunate victim to the list of those murdered in the bombings.
posted on the 22nd
...And now for the fisrt time the security forces have been allowed to do something under a “shoot to kill policy”.
what have they done?
they shot a man FIVE times whilst he was on the ground in dubious circumstances.
NO wonder the lefties are going mad about protection of civil rights.
And what will that do to the cause of enabling the fight against islamic terror on the streets?
muslims "regret" the loss of life, BUT
muslims "abhor" all innocent deaths, BUT
infidels strike back, sh!t happens my man,
too f**kin' bad, NO BUTS, you hear me mustaffa?
TOO F**KIN' BAD
you want to dance, do you?
well we're some dancing M*****F****Rs
Perhaps the Brits can now ship back to wherever they came from the 1 in 4 who sympathizes with these murderous scum. They've tip-toed around the problem of the militant Islamists in their midst for too long, now they've paid the price in blood.
Ship thoise bastards back and give fair warning to the other 3 out of 4 that are left.
As far as the Brazilian who was gunned down, TOUGH!
This clown had lived in England for 3 or 4 years, surely he knew the meaning of the word "STOP", especially when issued by a police officer. Ahh, but the excuse being bandied around by this fool's relative was that he was afraid because the gangs in the slums of Rio often did that sort of thing. COME ON!! After living in England all this time, he should have figured out that was not the problem there.
It all reminds me of the SAS t-shirt I once saw on sale (sorry I didn't buy it). It had two SAS troopers in full gear talking to one another: the officer says "Trooper, why did you shoot that man 14 times?", and the trooper replied, "I ran out of ammunition". Perhaps the Brits will now start making use of these guys in the best possible manner.
Chevalier
Thank you for the Churchill quote and reference.