More government dhimmitude in the UK. "Ministers dithered on Islamist crackdown," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Sr. Soph:
GOVERNMENT policies failed to tackle Muslim extremism despite internal warnings that a “tougher political response” was required after the September 11 attacks, according to a former Foreign Office minister. Denis MacShane, who was in the post until May, has described how his attempts to push for a more hardline approach were rebuffed because of concerns that Muslims would be offended. Only after the recent London attacks have ministers, Muslim groups and officials “engaged in a higher gear”.“There wasn’t that sense of grip, of pulling together of departments,” said MacShane, who was directly involved in Britain’s policy response to the September 11 attacks. “Whitehall only moves if it is told in no uncertain terms, principally by the PM, ‘This is my priority, it is your priority’. You need very strong engagement by Downing Street.”
He added: “My generation of Labour MPs don’t want to indulge in anything that smacks of Muslim typecasting or hostility. And as we tried very hard not to be like Norman Tebbit or the more ugly tabloids, it’s fair to say we failed to work out an adequate political response to Islamist politics in the UK.”
But progressives worried that if anarchism grew to frighten the populace, it might "throw liberal men into the ranks of reaction" and thus doom the possiblity for liberal progress. In consequence they had to steer clear of reaction on one side and radicalism on the other, keeping a close eye on both, sepecially when a crisis lie the McKinley assassination roiled the already muddy waters of American politics. (Rauchway: 2003; p.90.)
The first time this scene played out it might have qualified as tragedy, but this time it's farce only from the side of the government. We're seeing today a repeat of the reaction from politicians in 1901.
This is like watching a speeded-up newsreel of the 20th century.
From the Times
About half of all Muslims are economically inactive (52%). That is higher than any other religious group.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-1785953_4,00.html
One can assume, that a further 30% have just one wage earner. As muslim families are very large, a single wage earner will find it hard to support all. They will need to supplement this by getting considerable benefits from the state. Thus at a minimum, some 80% of the muslim population subsists on welfare benefits.
Assuming that each muslim is given some £10,000 in cash, housing benefits and other such, we have a figure of £20bn, that the muslim community costs Britain, i.e., if one estimates the muslim population in Britain at 2m. This figure does not take into account free education, maternal benefits, ante- and post-natal care, security at airports and train stations. Muslims also figure to a large extent in crime and in prisons. It is difficult to make an estimate here.
A considerable amount of this money to muslims from the British taxpayer, finds its way to finance the Jihad. The same scenario must hold in all European states that have a considerable muslim population.
So here we are. We have given economic shelter and refuge to the most lazy bunch of people on earth, who think it is their right that the Kaffir support the mummin. And ss it is also their religious obligation take part in and fund the Jihad, we are in the ridiculous position of sheltering and feeding a population that is hell bent on destroying us.
Islam's people, from the very outset, were nothing but a collective to gain plunder and loot at the expense of other people's work. In the past, it was conducted by war, conquest and then pillage. Now it is conducted by immigration (invasion), begging or crime. Meanwhile muslim nations, are given huge loans (aid), which we and they know, will never be repaid.
Thus, from a purely economic point of view, Islam seems to be a collective of people who live by the ethos of "beg, borrow or steal".
So why do we, the capitalist countries, who do not believe in offering anyone a free lunch, subsidise the most lazy yet aggressive bunch of poeple on God's planet, who are bent on subverting our democratic system.
The nub is, how has it come about, that the natural progression of the most advanced civilisation on earth is towards stupidity?