That title is the Telegraph's own -- it seems the irony is lost on them.
Admiral Sir Alan West, the man appointed to the Lords by Gordon Brown to oversee security in Britain, has made a comprehensive assessment of the terrorist threat currently facing us.[...]
Like Gordon Brown, Sir Alan detests the phrase "war on terror", and has vowed not to use it. He thinks it is important to describe the terrorists as criminals, rather than to identify them by their religious affiliation.
If a change of nomenclature can recruit more British Muslims to the cause of defeating terrorism, we are in favour of it. As free and equal citizens of Britain, British Muslims are as much at risk from terrorist bombs as everyone else.
The Government's research suggests that British Muslims feel alienated from official attempts to combat terrorism when terrorists are identified as exclusively "Muslim."
That, as Gordon Brown and Sir Alan have recognised, could be a reason for Government officials not to refer to "Islamic terrorists" or "Muslim terrorism".
OK -- but what if terrorism is, well, Muslim? Too bad the Irish question is quiescent. Anybody have Gerry Adams's or Martin McGuinesses's phone number?
It is important, however, for no one in authority to be fooled by the change in language: the reality is that the threat comes from a perverted version of Islam. It is not Hindus or Buddhists or Polish immigrants to Britain who are trying to plant bombs here: it is men who claim to be Muslims.
But ARE they Muslims -- as in faithful adherents of Islam? Isn't that the question we need to ask? Anyone? Is this thing on?
I am not afraid to Make my Own bumper stickers and drive all over town revealing the truth to all that can read! My latest works very well indeed - no one has vandalized my car - all of you! I beg you to make one too It reads "Please Allah, Protect me from your followers". I got the idea from one of those bumper stickers that said "Please Jesus, protect me from your followers" Ha! Thot I, I have never really ever needed to be protected from any of his followers - what a realization that was for me! Please make more bumper stickers that well make people think!!
Because -- Muslims will murder you but a sane Christian won't
If racial profiling is baaaad according to the Guardianistas and now also the government then surely we must expect the Executive and Joe Bloggs to extend suspicion to everybody and anybody.
Instead of keeping an eye on shifty young men with long beards and prayer caps hanging around Finsbury Park mosque, will the Executive now commence undercover operations and raids on Romanian or Polish bricklayers' bedsits, or suspiciously examine Sikhs' bulging turbans or Frum Jewish women's askew sheitels for bombs?
Islam is a terrorist organization.
Please repeat after me:
Islam is a terrorist organization.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
Islam is a terrorist organization.
Oh, you mean "...on our side"? Good thing you didn't wait for Germans to join you in your war against Nazism, or who knows how that would have materialized.
Looking forward to the Telegraph versions of the Quran, as well as a compendium of authentic hadiths, and a completely normalized version of Mohammed's life. But even after that's done, they'll have the unenviable job of making all Muslims in UK - let alone worldwide - follow it, as based on that.British Muslims are as much at risk from terrorist bombs as everyone else.
Really, Sir Alan?
I'm sure the main reason why why one lot of Islamic terrorists targeted the 'Tiger, Tiger' nightclub and another lot have been on trial for planning to blow up the 'Ministry of Sound' nightclub is because very few of the clubbers were likely to have been Muslims.
If Jihadists are criminals, then what is the criminal motivation behind their murderous ways? - Money? Drugs? Paranoid Delusions?
No..
It has been frequently shown to be a pure desire to kill as many infidels as possible, to ensure that the killers go to heaven as martyrs.
Gordon Brown isn't stupid. So he's either ignorant about this fact, or he's doing it as a tactic to appease 'moderate' Muslims, by making them feel better by labelling it as a 'criminal' thing that anyone could do, not just a Muslim.
Yet we find that in every case, it is a Muslim.
Why can't they just call 'a spade a spade', and stop evading the truth!
Yes, Greg, it's on, and more and more people are hearing you loud and clear. Thanks for having the guts.
"It is important, however, for no one in authority to be fooled by the change in language: the reality is that the threat comes from a perverted version of Islam"
Er... I did not get it, the "perverted version of islam", I mean.
'British Muslims are as much at risk from terrorist bombs as everyone else.'
Really?
So the Glasgow airport was full of Muslims on the way to Mecca?
'British Muslims are as much at risk from terrorist bombs as everyone else.'
Thats islams version of 'friendly fire'.
The British Government has form at this sort of thinking. During the IRA terrorist attack on the UK mainland, and against the protestant community, they insisted for decades they were just common murderers, and criminals, completely denying the political motivation and feeling of grievance.
This went on for decades, until they entered into negotiations with them.
You don't generally find common murderers organising on mass, or buying arms by bulk(thanks America), or supported by large swathes of the population. This uncomfortable fact was, however lost on the British Government. Presumably when secret talks started under the John Major government, this was a tacit admission that they were in fact a organisation, not a band of murderers that had inexplicably decided to work together. I wonder if the talks were secret, to try and hide this turn around from the public?
In the euphoria of peace(everybody was getting exhausted), which to be fair has held, everybody seems to have forgotten a) the two decades of faulty tactics, and b) the fact that in the seventies the IRA was an extreme socialist organisation closely aligned to the Red Brigades.
Now, here we go again, attempting to reduce a political and religious movement, working towards a common goal, to a bunch of individuals who are common murderers. Except that this time compromise doesn't bare thinking about. Give it thirty years, and they'll get the right tactics. I just hope Trafalgar Square hasn't been irradiated by then.
By the way your spell checker is trying to change things to Americanese, you'll never be a truly great nation, until you learn when to use a 'z', and when to use a 's'.
They have to do something. Let the Israeli soldier go 1st to start. That would be the 1st thing they ever did. If they say they will. This is a MUST! That would show a start of they actually did what they said. It will be a real test. Can they recognize him as a jew an israeli soldier? Let's see. To save one man is like saving all humanity? Is that what they said?
Ian
I agree with much of what you say but the following notes may be of interest.
"The British Government has form at this sort of thinking. During the IRA terrorist attack on the UK mainland, and against the protestant community, they insisted for decades they were just common murderers, and criminals, completely denying the political motivation and feeling of grievance."
1.) The political grievances except "British rule" were removed very early on in the 1970's but this was taken as a sign of weakness.
"This went on for decades, until they entered into negotiations with them."
2.) They entered into secret negotiations with the IRA at the same time (1970) but the IRA demands were politically impossible/unacceptable at the time.
"You don't generally find common murderers organising on mass, or buying arms by bulk(thanks America), or supported by large swathes of the population. This uncomfortable fact was, however lost on the British Government."
3.) Not quite. At the risk of being branded a racist I would quote Enoch Powell MP when he represented a Northern Ireland constituancy. "The IRA and the British Government share the same political objective, a British withdrawel from Northern Ireland"
"Presumably when secret talks started under the John Major government, this was a tacit admission that they were in fact a organisation, not a band of murderers that had inexplicably decided to work together. I wonder if the talks were secret, to try and hide this turn around from the public?"
4.) See note (2)
"In the euphoria of peace(everybody was getting exhausted), which to be fair has held, everybody seems to have forgotten a) the two decades of faulty tactics, and b) the fact that in the seventies the IRA was an extreme socialist organisation closely aligned to the Red Brigades."
5) The IRA had the tacit and sometimes active support not only of leading Irish politicians but also Irish army and security services. I cannot put my hand on it at the moment but some time in the 1990's "The Guardian" of all papers, listed several TV documentaries the government had banned from being broadcast. It included one which investigated co-opperation between the Irish authorities and the IRA.
"Now, here we go again, attempting to reduce a political and religious movement, working towards a common goal, to a bunch of individuals who are common murderers. Except that this time compromise doesn't bare thinking about. Give it thirty years, and they'll get the right tactics. I just hope Trafalgar Square hasn't been irradiated by then"
6) You are quite right and I leave you with this uncomfortable thought.
I am no political guru but I remember the start of the IRA campaign and I do have a long memory. Some time in 2000 I said to a friend,
"There is something nasty coming with the Muslims"
"Why?"
"The press and television is full of reports saying how wonderful they are. That is what they were saying about Ireland and the Irish in the 1960's when the government was warned (In 1966 report made public 1996) that Northern Ireland was going to blow up!"
CONCLUSION
I just hope the government(s) do not share the same final political objective now as they did with the IRA then.
Tom :
"I am not afraid to Make my Own bumper stickers and drive all over town revealing the truth to all that can read! My latest works very well indeed - no one has vandalized my car - all of you! I beg you to make one too It reads "Please Allah, Protect me from your followers"."
I'm guessing you live in the US ?
I beieve that could get you 7 years in the UK !
Yes, they're MUSLIMS! My God, the dhimmi British Apologists are outdoing themselves!
Uh huh, Elephant and shiek - I would think the nightclub and the Glasgow airport would be FILLED, TEEMING, with Muslims! Esp. the nightclub!
Y'know for making that utterly ridiculous statement a child could figure out was disingenuous, Admiral Alan West should be sent to the brig. For a couple of years, or until he gets his idiotic dhimmi political correctness under control.
Whichever comes first.
Ian writes:
"By the way your spell checker is trying to change things to Americanese, you'll never be a truly great nation, until you learn when to use a 'z', and when to use a 's'."
:-)
I think you have it bass-arsewards, my British
friend. Recall your Classical Greek, and tell
again who has the endings etymologically correct.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_spelling_differences
"American spelling accepts only -ize endings in most cases, such as organize, recognize, and realize. British usage accepts both -ize and the more French-looking -ise (organise, recognise, realise). However, the -ize spelling is now rarely used in the UK in the mass media and newspapers, and is hence often incorrectly regarded as an Americanism,[27] despite being preferred by some authoritative British sources, including Fowler's Modern English Usage and the Oxford English Dictionary, which until recently did not list the -ise form of many individual words, even as an alternative. Indeed, it firmly deprecates this usage, stating, "[T]he suffix…, whatever the element to which it is added, is in its origin the Gr[eek] -ιζειν, L[atin] -izāre; and, as the pronunciation is also with z, there is no reason why in English the special French spelling in -iser should be followed, in opposition to that which is at once etymological and phonetic."[28] Noah Webster rejected -ise for the same reasons.[29]"
TrueBrit ! I don't think I would get seven years in England for my big bumper sticker that says, "Please Allah, protect me from your followers" because the main lie the Dhimmies and the Muslims have wedged into the Mainstream Poptalk is that "Allah" is just another word for "God". They think they have abundant evidence for this point of view and even the Christians agree ('cept me! ) So, the thing really says (according to manufactured convention) Please God, Protect me from your followers". He would be glad to do that as sane people know that sometimes God followers can be dangerous - it is a reasonable prayer and I always win the many arguments my bumper sticker causes - it is a sure thing!
TrueBrit! Cuz all the fools believe that "Allah" just means "God" But if it does mean God, it can only mean that Allah is Jesus Christ (from a Christian perspective) which is impossible - Allah defines Himself clearly, He says, "I have no partner or Son". Well! God without Jesus is not God according to all Christian Dogma.
But, TrueBrit, from any sane point of view, according to the precepts of Multiculturalism, Allah=Jesus Christ ! I said it, and I'm Glad I said it !!
TrueBrit - what if I had a bumper sticker that said, "Please Jesus, protect me from your followers" would that be against the law? Wife wants to know - she is amazed at idea of such censorship.
But, TrueBrit - I believe it is the way you guess it is cuz all over the world one must be "RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT" or one will be censored for sure - and I have been more 'en anybody! ask Caroline !
One of the many of Muhammed's perversions of Christianity is that "Allah is the same as our Judeo-Christian God." No way.
"Allah" is an imaginary "God," the pre-Islamic pagan Moon god Muhammed elevated in status from "god" to "God." Read the Koran. You will see that there are NO similarities between the only true God, the Judeo-Christian God, and the "allah" of Arab pagan lore. Their "God" is only a Murder-god, and imaginary, at that.
You might want to check out what ex-Muslim Ali Sina has to say about "Allah" on his FaithFreedom.org website.
So, stick to "Allah, save me from your followers." That is correct.
tom
Incredible as it may seem, ANYTHING which is likely to incite religious or racial hatred is illegal and the fact that what has been said or printed it is true is no defence.
If you're a member of a right-wing party like the BNP the chances are you'll go to jail, if you are journalist you'll probably get a warning that you would be wise to heed. If you are just an ordinary Joe you will get a warning visit from the police and if they think it's serious enough you'll probably lose your job. You will certainly never get a job in any government-sponsored organisation again.
Fred, holy shit! unbelievable! I'm shocked outs my gord! Damn!
tom
Incredible as it may seem, anything - that means anything - which is likely to incite religious or racial hatred is illegal. The fact that what has been said or printed is 100% true is no defence.
They are however very selective. If you're a member of a right-wing party like the BNP the chances are you'll go to jail, if you are journalist you'll probably get a warning you would be wise to heed. If you are just an ordinary Joe you will get a warning visit from the police and if you work for the government in ANY capacity you'll probably lose your job. You will certainly never get a job in any government-sponsored organisation again.
Don't know how that happened!
The second post or the erasure of British civil liberties?
I have an odd question. I thought that there is a park or green in London with a podium, and that anyone can stand behind it and say whatever he wants with impunity.
Does that still exist?
Darcy! of course what you say is true - but what I'm sick about is the fact that every christian church teaches that Allah is another word for God - so, from conventional perspective, Allah equals Jesus (not mine) ,ergo, it is OK to say "Please Allah, save me from your followers" and the Muslims will not find an excuse to murder you (as they also believe Allah is just another word for "God"
Using the word "perverted" again shows willfull ignorance, if not full on deception, of the true nature of Islam.
aynrandgirl - Yes, perverted, because the Koran is just a corrupt and ignorant copy of a much older and more carefully guarded book called the Holy Scriptures - much, much, older -- The koran is clearly just a perverted copy - but, thou knowest in thy heart!
Tom, you miss my point. By using the word "perverted", the author misleadingly implies that all the violence done in the name of Islam is an aberration, a corruption of Islamic teaching. That is a lie. The violence is not a "perversion" of Islam, it's a fulfillment of it.
atheling
You are thinking of Speakers Corner by Hyde Park, so far as I know it still exists but the Police have always monitored it. It is just a place you go to speak, there has never been any immunity from prosecution for anyone who says anything illegal just because they are there. Its just that they do not get prosecuted for obstructing the pavement.
BTW Many years ago an old communist friend told me that in the 1930's Sunday was the big day for speakers and the side streets nearby would be packed with police watching for trouble. Nothing changes.
Thanks, Fred, that's the place I was thinking about.
I don't know how I labored under the misconception that Speaker's Corner allowed free speech... guess I was misinformed.
This government has has passed absolutely reams of pointless, largely unenforceable laws. So why stop now.
A Muslim has just got 10 years for downloading bomb making materials and such like of the net.
They didn't actually prove he's involved in terrorism, or incitement, he got that for having the materials. Amazing. Of course they can do anything now, having weakened the rights of the individual
They've also made it illegal to own violent pornography, even between consenting adults, but how do you define what is violent, and what is fantasy?
The amount of people they'll actually catch is tiny, and it won't deter anyone, but hey, lets just keep passing laws.
Guess they don't get what the www the URL stands for. World Wide Web?
It beggars belief, yet another benefit of mass immigration is my right to download what I want of the internet. Guess I'd better be wary of downloading say pictures of guns, that could be construed as incitement couldn't it?
root_cause, lol, I defer to your greater wisdom.
Don't you mean "azz backards"?
"...every christian church teaches that Allah is another word for God..."
tom -- Not meaning to nitpick but I'd be surprised if that were true of *all* Christian churches.
Certainly any Baptist or Pentecostal churches I attended in the past would never say such a thing. Not only that, but my former pastors would have been open to reading the Koran, etc. (if they hadn't already) and then would have discussed the differences quite openly from the pulpit.
Many Christian churches do seem to have bought into the lie that Allah = God, however, so I am not by any means suggesting that you are completely wrong.
"British Muslims are as much at risk from terrorist bombs as everyone else..." if their timer malfunctions.
(I knew someone left off that last clause.)
I think Muslims are grasping towards God, or Allah, as they put it.
Remember, Mohammed cobbled together Islam from hearing snatches of Judaic and Christian religions. It's a distortion of the two.
So technically, yes, I think their Allah is God. But it's their perception of Him which is really screwed up.
Oh, and I should have said, that the entity which Mohammed alleges was an angel who gave him the Koran, was really a demon.
tom
Incredible as it may seem, anything - that means anything - which is likely to incite religious or racial hatred is illegal. The fact that what has been said or printed is 100% true is no defence.
Posted by Fred
How do they explain allowing rabid islamic clerics to hold open public forums fomenting hate, jihad, islamic supremacy, and threats to overthrow the British government? Why do they allow muslim protesters to march around with placards calling for "death to the pope"; "death to the queen"; "behead those that insult" islam; "islam will rule the world"; etc. etc. etc? Or do these ridiculous laws only apply to non-immigrant citizens?
I know that political correctness gets worse every day in the U.S. but it has reached what can only be called insane proportions in the U.K. I certainly hope the new lexicon for terrorism succeeds; denial and obfuscation always get right to the heart of a problem. Good luck; you're going to need it.
From now on we should just call Islamist Terrorism 'Christian Terrorism' or 'Religious Terrorism', everybody will know what that really means, in fact it will make people think about it more too...
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't call a spade a spade
Islamist terrorism
not related to Islam
.
Susanp
Could you tell me?
The police actually threatened to arrest members of the public who asked them why they were doing nothing during that event!
However one man who was pictured wearing a mock suicide jacket was a drug dealer on early release from prison. He was recalled as a result and ONE other man was charged and is currently awaiting sentence.
Sorry, that just sounds,,Muslims have to join the battle.?
Seems the majority is our battle! I am tired of being choked hold my muslims. Why is it allowed in our country? It is like a cancer in the system.
It starts to kill off what there is good left to function and then your system shuts down. Hypoxia!
"British Muslims are as much at risk from terrorist bombs as everyone else..." if their timer malfunctions.
(I knew someone left off that last clause.)
Posted by: profitsbeard
While I was LOLing over another one by profitsbeard I remembered that the "pakistanis" are also threatened by terrorists. Or so the MSM says. They have a circus going on right now with musharraf vs. the lal masjid clerics, only now they have "discovered" that the "clerics" were hijacked and it is actually the al qaeda that is running the mosque. I don't know what I will die of, but I suspect it won't be humour.
Is there no end to appeasement at the top? What do these stupid, gutless people hope to achieve by their nonsensical circumlocutions? The 'War on Terror' is fighting against the Jihad by any other name. Why are these politicians so craven?
Hey! Tired of nambie-pamby RELIGIOUSLY CORRECT watered down none sense about that mainstream religion called "MUSLIM"? WELL CLICK ON THIS LINK AND TURN ON THE VIDEO AND HEAR THE REAL CLEAR TRUTH ABOUT ALLAH AND HIS CLONES FOR THE FIRST TIME ON A BROAD SCALE INTERNET MEDIA EFFORT! http://hallindsey.org/
I can't believe that the Telegraph would be unable to see the irony in the title of the article. I'm sure it's deliberate, as if mocking the disingenuous exhortations for peace enunciated by some "moderate" Muslims recently.
Fred:
Incredible as it may seem, anything - that means anything - which is likely to incite religious or racial hatred is illegal. The fact that what has been said or printed is 100% true is no defence.
This is an exaggeration. The two BNP members - Nick Griffin and Mark Collett - were cleared of inciting racial hatred in their November 2006 trial. See:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/6135060.stm
Nick Griffin described Islam as a "wicked, vicious faith". Any sane person can see that criticism of a religion cannot possibly be incitement to racial hatred.
The attempt to prosecute the two BNP members was politically motivated - the New Labour totalitarians do not like dissent, particularly from those who oppose its suicidal policies of political correctness and multiculturalism.
The politically correct loonies who govern us wanted to introduce legislation to outlaw incitement to religious hatred, but I believe a watered down version is being introduced soon.
watling
I accept your point and was quite surprised to read recently that Nick Griffin said he had some support from the MSM during the case. I can imagine many journalists would not be happy at anyone facing seven years' imprisonment for remarks made at a private meeting. Particularly when they were collected and recorded by an infiltrator from a “charity” (searchlight) which is partly funded by the government controlled National Lottery.
However I was thinking of the BNP candidate in Glasgow at the last general election who put out a leaflet stating that “Asians” had been responsible for a particular event in Bradford. According to their website at the time of his trial, the judge accepted that what he said was true but as it was likely to cause racial or religious hatred it was illegal and he got 12 months. I don't think there was a word about this in the MSM.
I have also posted how our local paper was threatened with boycott organised by the Race Relations Board because it published a perfectly true story about the activities of some “Asians” in our town. There is also the case of the Times European correspondent, Anthony Browne who wrote an article critical of immigration a couple of years ago entitled “Britain is in danger of losing Britain”. No less a person than David Blunkett stood up in Parliament and said the article was “semi fascist” and if you know the British system of government this is very serious indeed. For someone of Blunkett's position to say this in parliament is a semi-official warning, effectively he told him “Watch your step or we'll have you”.
You might be able to find the article on the Web but one of the “semi fascist” things Anthony Browne wrote was that the level of censorship in Britain today was so appalling that sooner or later the dam must break.
I have also posted how a strictly non-political speaking Club I belonged to was infiltrated by searchlight because unknown to us one of our members was a BNP activist. As a consequence I almost certainly had an invitation to address a Rotary Club lunch on a non-political subject withdrawn and another member's attempts to join the police came to nothing. The BNP activist left shortly afterwards and he was obliged to sever his connection with the family business, which coincidentally was heavily dependent on an NHS work.
On the basis of all this I do not think my assessment is unreasonable.