The prime minister who has overreached in his fanciful definition of the "real Islam," and fallen in line with jihadist propaganda by calling Gaza a "prison camp," continues his losing streak in comments on Islamic jihad and foreign policy.
Evidence of Pakistan's double game far predates the WikiLeaks affair, which makes Cameron's response dismally understated in light of the severity of Pakistan's long-standing pattern of conduct.
And even what Cameron does say is verbally bubble-wrapped with the usual assurances that "our interests are your [Pakistan's] interests," and of course, his prior insistence that this has nothing to do with Islam. "Cameron: We won't tolerate 'export of terror' by Pakistan," from CNN, July 28:
New Delhi, India (CNN) -- Britain's prime minister delivered a sober message Wednesday to Pakistan: Don't export terror.
"We want to see a strong and a stable and a democratic Pakistan," David Cameron said in Bangalore, India, "but we cannot tolerate in any sense the idea that this country is allowed to look both ways and is able in any way to promote the export of terror, whether to India or whether to Afghanistan, or anywhere else in the world."
Cameron made several remarks in a speech and a question and answer session. A transcript of his comments were posted on the prime minister's website.
"The relationship is important, but it should be a relationship based on a very clear message that it is not right ... to have any relationship with groups that are promoting terror. Democratic states that want to be part of the developed world cannot do that, and the message to Pakistan from the U.S. and from the U.K. is very clear on that point," he said.
His remarks come as the military documents divulged by WikiLeaks include indications that Pakistan's spy service, the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or the ISI, may have been helping militants in Afghanistan, an assertion strongly disputed by Pakistani officials.
The United States has been working to help bolster the Pakistani government's efforts to battle Taliban and al Qaeda elements in the country. The NATO-led command has been focused on insurgents operating along the Afghan and Pakistani border, and India has long been concerned about militancy in India that comes from Pakistan.
He said that when it comes to protecting their mutual citizenry, developments in Afghanistan and Pakistan can't be "overlooked."
"Let me state clearly: your relations with those two countries are a matter for you and you alone. But let me also say we, like you, want a Pakistan that is stable, democratic and free from terror. We, like you, want an Afghanistan that is secure, free from interference from its neighbors and not a threat to our security. We, like you, are determined that groups like the Taliban, the Haqqani network or Lashkar-e-Tayyiba should not be allowed to launch attacks on Indian and British citizens in India or in Britain. Neither should they be able to do so against our people, whether soldiers or civilians, from both our countries who are working for peace in Afghanistan. Our interests are your interests, so let us work together to realize them."
When asked about Cameron's remarks, a spokesman for Pakistan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs said Britain and Pakistan "have a robust and comprehensive partnership, including on counter-terrorism."
"Terrorists have no religion, no humanity, no specific ethnicity or geography. Terrorists' networks, as the U.K. knows full well mutate and operate in different regions and cities. The genesis of terrorism as a global phenomenon warrants close attention. Pakistan is as much a victim of terrorism as are Afghanistan, India or other countries," the statement said.
"Pakistan has done much more than any other country in combating terrorism. Our people and security forces have rendered innumerable sacrifices. We hope that our friends will be able to persuade India to view this issue objectively and the value of 'cooperation' in counter-terrorism."...
"Pakistan has done much more than any other country in combating terrorism." Given the behavior of the ISI, that's a little like lauding an arsonist for trying to put out his own fires.
The British 'Conservative' Party has been massively subverted by Islamists, see links under 'Tory Party Subverted' at http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/muslim-subversion-sedition-and-social.html
Wow, Mr. Cameron seems to resemble a leftist liberal and not a conservative. Terrorists don't have a religion? Really? What about Osama bin Laden? Al Quaida? Hamas? Hisbollah?.... They don't have a religion?
Mr. Cameron is either an unashamed lier, willfully ignorant or plain stupid.
Great Britain needs a new Churchill.
well id rather trust osama than trust pakistan. what they say is just the opposite of what they intend. its just unfortunate that we have to be their neighbours for life. im just happy that the world is coming to terms with this vicious terror state. ofcourse there are moderate pakistanis who want peace but the majority are all hate mongers who would love to see india fail in their secular ideology.
And I though that Brown was an fool.
Just from where do you find these idiots?
I am starting to believe that the main prerequisite for a politician is a prefrontal lobotomy as nothing else can explain the absolute ignorance which diarrhoeas from their mouths.
Poor UK citizens. You are in deep effluent I think. Perhaps a new "peasant revolt might be needed as you certainly cannot even trust parliament now. poor old Oliver must be rolling around where ever his disposed pieces were dumped.
Cumbria, Lancashire & Yorkshire: the latest outposts of the new caliphate.
"Marooned, marooned, marooned
In a blizzard of lies."
-- Dave Frishberg
"Terrorists have no religion, no humanity, no specific ethnicity or geography.
A sure sign Cameron is educated beyond his intelligence...
@Bhigr
In fairness to Mr Cameron, it was the spokesman for Pakistan's Ministry for Foreign Affairs that spouted that crap about terrorists not being religious.
Sorry Venkat that was supposed to be generally directed...
Your right, it was not Cameron...But educated beyond his intelligence still holds...
Just wouldn't be cricket, you know.
Yes, "terror" to Cameron is something that is "exported" from distant places. Has he forgotten the attack on the London buses and London Underground on July 7, in 2005? Has he forgotten the two Muslim doctors, working for the National Health Service, and their terrorist attack? Has he forgotten the plot to blow up a half-dozen airliners over the Atlantic, all leaving from Great Britain for America? Has he forgotten the "little" attacks, the many dozens of other attacks plotted, and foiled only at the last minute by the British security services, , that like the attack on the London buses and Underground, were not "exported" from Pakistan but committed by people who lived in Great Britain. Oh, yes, those people varied. Some where what the camerons of this world might call "British," for they reduce the idea of citizenship to mere formality, and pretend to believe what the evidence no longer allows us to believe, that the mere acquisition of citizenship makes someone, in any deep sense, "British" or "American" or "French" or truly part of any other Infidel nation-state. If you are the willing adherent of a Total Belief-System that inculcates in you the idea that your loyalty -- all of it, for there is to be none left over for anything else -- to Islam, a Total Belief-System, and to the Shari'a, which in letter and spirit contradicts in every important way not only the American Constitution, but the laws and customs, the legal and political institutions, of every advanced Western nation-state, if you offer a blind loyalty to Islam and to fellow members of the Umma but only, and only occasionally, when absolutely necessary, a feigned loyalty to, and sympathy for, the Infidels in the Infidel nation-state within which Muslims have been permitted - or their parents been permitted -- to settle, and even to make aggressive demands for changes in our laws and our ways, and to create a security risk that does not diminish with time, then in a certain sense Cameron is right, but not in a way he cares to recognize, a way he would ever admit.
Yes, when Pakistan is allowed to send people to Great Britain, it is helping to "export" terror. They need not be members of Al Qaeda or any of a dozen groups. They may merely help enlarge the sea in which Muslim terrorists swim. They may pursue the same goals -- the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam -- by means other than terrorism, or than qitaal (combat), though aggressive demonstrations, when Muslims attack non-Muslims, and even dare to noisily demonstrate against returning British servicemen -- that too helps to intimidate, and to create an atmosphere among the indigenous non-Muslims, of distress, one felt keenly too, by other non-Muslims who may themselves be immigrants, or descendants of recent immigrants.
Pakistan "exports" terror to Great Britain when it exports Muslim Pakistanis to Great Britain.
It is now clear to everyone who can think in Great Britain, as in France, as in Italy, as in Germany, as in Spain, as in the Netherlands, everywhere in Western Europe, that the large-scale presence of Muslims has created a situation for the indigenous people, and for other, but non-Muslim immigrants, that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous than would otherwise be the case.
Some, however, react with a despairing "but what can we do?" or "there is nothing we can do" while others know there are many things that can be done.
And among those things -- changing immigratin policy, cleaning up the Islamic lobby that rules the BBC, halting the transfer of Saudi money, and that of other rich Arabs, into our countries where it used to promote Islam, through the building of mosques, madrasas, the support given to campaigns of Da'wa, and the funds given to armies of Western hirelings, especially influential people (journalists, businessmen, public relations specialists, former diplomats to the Arab countries) who are nothing but hirelings of the Saudis and other rich Arabs, and who over the past thirty or forty years have continued to make the countries of the West blind as to their own reality, that is the reality of what Islam inculcates, what Islam means.
But the cameron cringe and whinge, the one so visibly on display in Turkey, where his speech showed a shallow and callow homo purely economicus, who thought only of Turkey as a market, an economic "partner" so badly "needed" by Great Britain, one which Cameron also felt the West should be so grateful to because of Turkey's military role. He was referring, I presume, to the 3,400 troops that Turkey sent to Korea nearly 60 years ago, which was accompanied by all kinds of rewards from the Americans (still in thrall to two ideas: one, that Islam was a "bulwark against Communism" and that was all one had to know and two, in any case, Turkey was becoming more and more like a Western country every day in every way, a smug assumption that Erdogan and his party should have destroyed). And perhaps he was also referring to the 1,500 Turkish troops in Afghanistan who, were, after all, committed by the Turkish (secular) army before Erdogan's counter-revolution, his reactionary attempt, so far successful, to undo Kemalism at every level -- Cameron did not ask himself the calculations behind the sending of such troops, or whether or not if asked today, Erdogan would send more, or whether they were actually sent to fight fellow Muslims or there in another capacity -- for him, Turkey has been a great military help. Apparently Cameron, who let slip that he forgot the United States had not entered World War II in 1940, forgot that in that year the Nazis had overrun theContinent and Britain faced Nazi Germany alone -- for young master Cameron, whose appearance and facial expression suggest a perennial seventeen-year-old, albeit a spoiled one who has no real experience of the world, cushioned as he always has been by a life of privilege -- and Churchill provides an example of someone who despite even greater privileges used every minute wisely, even out of office, to study, to travel, to read, to learn about men and events from direct observation and, wisely, also from the study of history -- is vague on history, and if you think he is ignorant of Islam, and of the Middle East (he has no idea what the Mandate for Palestine was all about, or what its express provisions include, nor does he have any knowledge of the demographic and cadastral history of the area; all he knows is that the Foreign Office, and the BBC, keep using this term "occupied" as a Homeric epithet for territories assigned quite properly by the League of Nations to the tiny area set aside for the Jewish National Home), you are right, but he is also, more telingly, unaware of the history, recent and ancient, of Great Britain.
He's a cheap salesman for British goods, the apotheosis of all that is wrong with those who think only in terms of money-making, and not of preserving the cultural cohesion and the political stability, in short the civilisation, of Great Britain, or Europe, or for that matter North America.
He can't say -- but everyone else can say it for him-- that part of the "export" of terrorism by Pakistan is the export of Pakistanis. That is something that David Cameron, if he cared to, could stop.
But does he care? Can he begin to learn enough, understand enough, not only about Islam, but about his own country and how over slow time it developed institutions that have nothing to do with, and are undermined by, Islam and those who either right now, or potentially in the future, take it deeply to heart?
What do you think?
Here is an article, just published in Great Britain, by a Hindu citizen of Great Britain. Such an article, or an article in the same appreciative vein, could never be written about British rule by any Muslim, whether from Pakistan, Bangladesh, or India itself, or descended from such people.
It deserves to be widely known:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_display.cfm/blog_id/28826
You will never find an analoguous statement about the American attempt to bring something like Good Government to the lords of misrule in Iraq. you will not find, written by any Muslim Arab, anywhere in the Arab lands, anywhere in Iraq, statements of intelligent gratitude for the American attempt to bring decent government and a decent life to Iraqis. If there was "failure" in Iraq, the "failure" was that of the Iraqis to take the chance to slough off, if they could, the kinds of attitudes, the refusal to compromise, the aggression and violence, the submission to authority, the refusal to think and penchant for conspiracy-theories that somehow always manage to implicate, and then blame, the Infidel Americans or other Infidels, none of this will ever be recognized as it should be by Muslims writing of this period. Those who have left Islam, or those who are careful to insist that they are purely "cultural Muslims" which is another way of saying "I reject Islam" but I can't do it openly, may be able to recognize what the Americans were attempting in Iraq. What was being attempted was not economic aggrandizement; the venture in Iraq had nothing to do with making money from "oil" as some on the far-left continue, with an air of great knowingness, to insist. It had to do rather with messsianic sentimentalism, about dealing with Islam by thinking that one could
"bring freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in Iraq and then that experience would be so obviously impressive that other (but Sunni-ruled) Arab countries would find their own rulers and peoples eager to emulate the Iraqi example. The venture was, and is, that dumb.
In Iraq -- don't forget for one minute, or allow anyone else to do so -- it was the United States that was doing all the spending, and that venture in Iraq will, by the time everything settles, have cost long-suffering American taxpayers, who have had to endure the squandering that is a result of their own leaders not caring to learn enough about Islam and to sit still long enough to take it in, about two trillion dollars.
"that the mere acquisition of citizenship makes someone, in any deep sense, "British" or "American" or "French"
Exactly. Muzlims in the West are Muzlims with pieces of paper saying they're citizens. In no other way are they emblematic of the Western culture in which they're residing.
Muzlims don't assimilate with the Western culture, they're only here to eventually take over demographically. And we're letting them, due to imbeciles like Cameron (and Blair and Brown before him, and let's not forget Muzlim Hussein Obama).
Frankly, this is the first time I've seen Pakistan acknowledged by ANY politician to be a terrorist state, or to have anything to do with terrorism.
With regard to Iraq: Are you in favor of Americas conquest and effort to change Iraq? Was it a good idea to conquer Iraq as America did? Does it serve the American interests for security in the middle east in an effective manner? Is it likely going to lead to a free and democratic society in the middle east?
In my opinion, this war is a mistake. Yes, Saddam Hussein was a criminal, he is gone now. But still, the country is divided among sunny, shiite muslims. As soon as the American forces leave the country a civil war will most likely break out. So the killing will go on. This war will diverge Saudi and Iranian resources from funding jihad in other places in the world. But, this is pretty much the only positive thing about a civil war in Iraq. Neither the economic nor the humanitarian situation in Iraq is going to have improved. I hope my prediction won't come true, but the recent events in Iraq seem to support my view.
I think America should pull out its forces as soon as possible. There are better and more effective ways for fighting Islamic supremacism in the world. Stop the Islamization of America. Stop supporting countries like pakistan or saudi arabia. They are foes not friends. Stop muslim immigration from these countries. Stop saudi money from funding wahabi mosques in the US.....
Every Muslim is a little payload of misery - whether they have a suicide belt strapped around their waist or whether they have a CAIR lawyer next to them - nothing but a universally negative influence, even on each other.
If you had any familiarity with this site, you would know that I decided, at the beginning of 2004, that now that Saddam Hussein had been captured, his sons Uday and Qusay killed, and the game of Fifty-Two Pick-Up had ended in the arrest or killing of not all, but almost all, the major figures in Saddam Hussein's regime, and -- above all-- because by that time it was clear that there was no WMD to be found, a conclusion formally announced by David Kay in, I think, January of 2004, it was time to leave.
I have written about the folly of the Iraq War in dozens of articles and more than a thousand (out of 30,000) postings, about why the Americans should have left Iraq as soon as the WMD question was cleared up, and the Sunni despotism could not reconstitute itself.
I also added that -- had I not believed there was a reasonable chance, despite all his bluster and blague obviously intended to scare the Iranians -- that Saddam Hussein did have or was about to acquire such weaponry -- I would never have given even the lukewarm, begrudging, well-if-you-must-you-must, support I did to the original invasion.
When it comes to Muslim states, the best way to weaken them, to divide and demoralize them, is to have as little to do with them as possible, to do nothing -- certainly not to send aid of any kind -- that will enable Muslim states and societies to continue to avoid recognizing what we Infidels should understand and speak and write about, that is, tha the many failures (political, economic, social, intellectual, moral) of Muslim states and societies are a result of Islam itself. If we are present, we will inevitably be inveigled into further transfers of wealth -- it never fails to happen, when Muslims schooled in all the arts of wheedling money out of Infidels come into contact with those Infidels, especially with naive, goodhearted, can-do Americans (I have had my fillof listening to departing National Guardsmen expressing their delight at going over there "to help the people rebuild their country").
And if there must be military action, as with the Islamic Republic of Iran's nuclear project -- that is far more important than anything going on in Iraq or Afghanistan, let it be non-invasive surgery, damage wreaked mostly from on high, with here and there perhaps, some quick ground actin but only if absolutely necessary. And no sticking around, and certainly no "rebuilding" of anything. And no aid, which merely is diverted by Muslim rulers, and in turn that obvious corruption causes resentment which, in turn, increases the allure and lure of the most fanatical Muslim groups. No corruption, or a lot less, if there is no loot supplied by the Americans to be corrupt about.
Cameron would do better to concentrate on something under his control. Rather than worry about Pakistan exporting terrorism, he should be doing his best to keep Britain from importing [more] terrorism. Every additional Moslem allowed into Britain is another potential terrorist. In his remarks above, Hugh provides a nice summary of the attempts, failed attacks, and successful attacks carried out in the last few years by Moslems who are already residents and citizens in Britain. Allowing the entry of even more of them is sheer insanity.
We should be backing India to the hilt in its current conflict with Pakistan - that is unless, the leaders in Pakistan can destroy its terrorist element, India should be given full leeway to do what it needs to do.
http://crossmuslims.blogspot.com/2010/06/deserve-victory.html
Britishers had and have great love for Muslims. This was true when they ruled India and always favored Muslims over Hindus. after independence they opened the floodgates for Pakistani Muslims(probably Indian Muslims also) to migrate to UK in droves. Now they are paying the price for their folly.
How long would it be before Britain is divided in two - giving Muslim majority areas independence???? Clock is ticking!!!
UK needs another Churchill to save them!!!
Britain's prime minister delivered a sober message Wednesday to Pakistan: Don't export terror.
..................
Ha ha ha! Silly Kaffirs! Not only will we continue to export terror, we will do so on your dime—or whatever unit of currency you Britishers are using.
Well thanks Hugh for responding to my questions. I haven't read your articles. I think we both agree on the topic of IRAQ.
i know my comments werent relevant swamy but im just happy that the whole world has began to acknowledge the duplicity of the nation state called pakistan . we have been sayin these for eons but nobody cared. what scares me the most is that the taliban has targeted india has their next destination becos i think that is goin to lead to lot of blood shed becos ours is such a incompetent country that any terrorist outfit with decent plan can inflict massive damage here. i also beg to differ on the general opinion of muslims here. i mean indian muslims arent that bad they have not even demonstrated against israel as yet for cryin out loud. hatred against muslims or any other religion in a immature illiterate country like india can only lead to civil war which we dont want do we?
i know my comments werent relevant swamy but im just happy that the whole world has began to acknowledge the duplicity of the nation state called pakistan . we have been sayin these for eons but nobody cared. what scares me the most is that the taliban has targeted india has their next destination becos i think that is goin to lead to lot of blood shed becos ours is such a incompetent country that any terrorist outfit with decent plan can inflict massive damage here. i also beg to differ on the general opinion of muslims here. i mean indian muslims arent that bad they have not even demonstrated against israel as yet for cryin out loud. hatred against muslims or any other religion in a immature illiterate country like india can only lead to civil war which we dont want do we?
Apparently the PM plans to continue Importing the problem, just not from Pakistan. Mabye Pakistan has maxed out it's quota and GB needs to spread the opportunities around to be fair to all Muslims.
Hugh,
While I am no less appreciative of the positives of British Indian rule for Hindus, I think the article you have quoted is an over-romanticized version of history. Much as we respect the British (more than we express), of course of a different variety than the present day business and political leaders, say, men like Sir James Princep, Sir Thomas Munroe and William Elphinstone, racist humiliation too was as much a part of the Indian experience of British rule as was the building of lasting institutions and creation of civil society.
This is a very sensitive and controversial subject with Indians, especially Hindus. If you ever visit India, you will find that the subculture of India that was the most loyal to the British rule, is now most closely allied with the jihadists. And most of those who fought the British rule vehemently, violently or non-violently, were the cultural ancestors of Hindu nationalists, now engaged in the political battle against the jihadists and Pakistan.
While I too would not seek an apology from the British, after looking at both sides of the ledger of the British rule in India, I would not ignore the British racism and it's use of virulent jihadis to counter Indian nationalism. Perhaps selective apology for most brutal incidents, such as Jallianwala Bagh massacre, would not be unappreciated by Indians too, though most would not demand it with any degree of insistence.
In sum, it is better to acknowledge the wrongs of the British rule too while showing appreciation for all that the great empire builders did, rather than make things look one-sided, as the article does.
Sanjay
But I think your central point was that Muslims would never acknowledge anything good of an infidel, especially if the infidel used political power to spread the good, in the manner that many Hindus are willing to do.
That point is incontrovertible.
Sanjay
Yes, Sanjay ,that was the main point. But I also think the article by the Hindu Englishman to which I gave a link above needed to be written, and, given the spirit of the age, in order to be taken seriously, had to be written by someone of Indian descent. Unforunately, an exaggerated sense of Western guilt over colonialism happens to play into Muslim hands, even though the European powers never entered the interior of the Arabian peninsula, and even though a handful of British garrisons on the coast were there merely to keep the peace between warring tribes and also, in conjunction with the use of naval power, to put a stop to the Arab slave trade that brought Africans (and Indians, too) to the slave markets of Arab Islam.
Supporting material for some of the assertions made can be found in Ibn Warraq's "The Defense of the West," where he discusses how the British, beginning with William "Oriental" Jones, helped Indians to rediscover their own history, and engaged in their own study of Sanskritology, as under Muslim rule the pre-Islamic or non-Islamic history of India, Bharat, save for the lone and early exception of Al-Biruni, regarded by Muslims with not merely disinterest, but hostility. Much of Ibn Warraq's book focuses on India, and compares what the Muslim masters did, and what the arrival of the British meant for the re-discovery of India which, as Naipaul noted, under Muslim rule had become a "wounded civilization."
And then there is Nirad C. Chaudhury's "The Autobiography of an Unknown Englishman" and "Thou, Great Anna:" I cannot now remember in which part of which book he lovingly and at length describes his education in English literature, in Indian schools, and offers the written equivalent of reciting from memory -- Shakespeare? Keats? Wordsworth? -- he had the kind of education in English literature that American children must envy -- and both his articulate and witty defense of that education, and the scorn he expressed for those who scorned it, have stayed in my mind.
Then, after another poster commented that “[o]ne of the key differences between Muslim and British rule in the subcontinent is that there was no Muslim equivalent of William Digby or Edmund Burke.”
I then added:
"There was no Muslim equivalent to Sir William Jones, no Muslim Henry Thomas Colebrooke, no Muslim Horace Hayman Wilson, no Muslim James Prinsep, no Muslim Montstuart Elphinstone, no Muslim Grant Duff, no Muslim William Bentinck, no Muslim This and No Muslim That . And, aside from list of Englishmen who helped non-Muslims in India to re-discover their own history, languages, culture, antiquities, there was never -- inside or outside India -- a Muslim William Wilberforce."
If pakistan exports terror , why does uk accept pakistanis ?
It's the people who export terror with their 'ideals'
and their willngness to use violence .
It must be obvious that amongst the pakistanis exported to uk , there must be some terrorists .
Is Cameron so stupid he believes the things he says about the muslims - it's difficult to believe - but he has his orders like all the politicians ( sorry , Mr Wilders and your ilk - not you )- it's a done deal for the eu to merge
with the muslim world . projections are that Europe will be 25-30% muslim by 2050 , I believe . Someone can correct me if I'm wrong but I think those are the figures .