Maybe someone should point out to this Dilpazier Aslam that nearly all the deaths of Muslims in Iraq are at the hands of other Muslims who are being deliberately targeted whilst the Allies try and painstakingly keep civilian casualties to a minimum. In fact the Americans aren't even the main target, its sunni against shi'ite, as well as anyone who co-operates with the occupation. For example a few days ago over 20 children but only one GI were killed when terrorists struck as sweets were being handed out.

Tragically the situation in Iraq today is almost identical to the one described by British diplomat Gertrude Bell in 1920 when she said that it was sunni versus shi'ite, Arab against Kurd, the Christian Assyrians getting attacked by all these groups, and there being a full scale jihad.

Posted by: Elephant at July 14, 2005 7:38 AM

Some 2,749 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. To discover the cost of "liberating" Iraqis you need to multiply that figure by eight, and still you will fall short of the estimated minimum of 22,787 civilian Iraqi casualties to date.

It's perverse in the extreme to suggest that Britain should be punished for Iraqi casualties by the very people who are causing those Iraqi casualties in their desperation to keep democratic government out of Iraq.

Posted by: Viking5 at July 14, 2005 7:50 AM

for another opinion, check out todays edition of the Saudi newspaper Arab News online at www.arabnews.com. loolk for the item titled
"london blasts: where the investigation must start"

Posted by: t-ham at July 14, 2005 7:50 AM

"Sassy"? His English needs work, morally and otherwise. And the English newspaper that has given him his little internship needs to re-think its hiring and editorial policies. Or that newspaper's readers and advertisers (who can be punished, in turn, if they continue to support this fellow) need to do so for it.

Oh, it's all a big joke, isn't it. Let's hire a Bright Young Muslim Thing, and he will give us "the Muslim perspective" and "we need that, don't we" (as if 90% of the writers in The Guardian were not falling all over themselves giving every conceivable excuse, even outdoing Blair, Prince Charles (why hasn't he converted yet? He is surely temmted), and the Anglican worthies who are so concerned about the mighty empire of Israel.

Listen, let's really make a joke of it. Hire the fellow, and here, let's rub the noses of all those fascists who have nothing good to say about wonderful misunderstood a religion-like-any-other Islam.

We'll call his column

The Fifth Column

Yes, that's just the ticket -- we'll make fun of their warnings, those lager louts who know nothing of the great history of Islam, and who so bitterly oppose the rich diversity, or is it the rich tapestry (I forget) of English life that is so greatly enriched ("rich-enrich" -- get me some line editor in here, quick, I don't know what to do) by the presence of these hardworking, decent, law-abiding people the vast and overwhelming majority of which.... oh god, do I have to continue with this, even I know its nonsense, and I'm his editor.

Posted by: Hugh at July 14, 2005 8:00 AM

I consider the Groaniad and it's groupie Guardianistas to be responsible for much of the dhimmitude that exists in British society. Not quite as much as the BBC because their writ is limited to those who feel minded to purchase a newspaper (as many who work in the public sector have to, as that is where the specialist job adverts are published).
The various campagains to allow hijab as part of school uniform and work dress codes, the allocation of precious office space for a muslim prayer room, etc etc etc ad nauseum were all down to the Guardian. Opinion influenced and moulded. The paradox of western feminists who brook no discrimination in their own lives but happily subject Muslim women to hijab, jilbab and chadour (and the beating and abuse that go on in private) is epitomised by The Groaniad. (No that's not my typo, it's an old joke about the Guardian's notoriously poor proofreading of the 80s)
Such comments, in a time of war are treason. I have heard it called that in the most surprising corners this week. The PC veneer is proving to be very thin. These comments need to be widely seen. As does the gloating video of the carnage currently floating round ogrish.com (of beheading video infamy)which I posted about last night. Can anybody say more about this? Those of you who have the right equipment and the stomach to plough past the other offerings?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 14, 2005 8:00 AM

It was only a matter of time before the Guardian and other far-left commies engaged in outright advocacy for the enemy. This probably but the tip of the iceberg.

Posted by: ted at July 14, 2005 8:36 AM

I think the BBC should start using the word 'sassy' instead of bombers. LIke, 'four sassies blew up the London transport system'.

Posted by: reset at July 14, 2005 8:53 AM

"I think what happened in London was a sad day and not the way to express your political anger."

He would have preferred to see some good old decapitation for the men, complete with cries of "Allahu Ackbar!", and stoning to death for the women. (But only with the correctly-sized rocks.)

Posted by: Doctor Phibes at July 14, 2005 9:07 AM

Tell me, Granny W... ...what kind of circulation is The Guardian enjoying these days? That kind of sh!t might wash with the likes of Sue Blackwell, but I have to imagine the average Brit, under it all, is nauseated.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 14, 2005 9:13 AM

And another thing, sassy is the 17th century English pronounciation of the word saucy, spelt phonetically. Which in those days meant rude, disrespectful and impertinent. The old pronounciation was kept in the US by the settlers while the English usage changed to something that sounds like sourceie, and the meaning became less severe and now just means cheeky.
So this young pup is really saying "We're much ruder, disrespectful and impertinent with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not." Which is more accurate.

Waterdragon, you have hit the nail on the head.
This is a link http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,19469-1570744,00.html to The Times article on the ABC figures for March 2005. The Guardian’s full-rate sale was down 3.8 per cent slipping below the benchmark 300,000 to 298,321, and their headline sale was the lowest since March 1978.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at July 14, 2005 10:37 AM

To borrow Robert Spencer style, the British Muslims are shocked, shocked at this violent hijacking of their peaceful religion.

Posted by: angry_kafir at July 14, 2005 11:01 AM

I cant believe this... To these guys Iraqis and other Muslims are near and dear than their own fellow citizens.. Some logic.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at July 14, 2005 11:02 AM

I looked at the profiles of the fatalities at the Guardian's site and noticed that the religion of the dead was only mentioned when it had been Islam.

Also I noticed that one of the deceased was a trainee at the Guardian, the same job description as Aslam. You might have thought that the Aslam would have had some sympathy for one of his colleagues dying.

Posted by: Elephant at July 14, 2005 11:37 AM

Indeed, why were the muslim victims so identified. Like the Guardian wants to make the statement "See, they kill muslims too!!" What is taht all about ?

Posted by: TooBad at July 14, 2005 12:14 PM

Jihad is fighting in "Allah's cause"..."Allah's cause", is whatever the Mullah/Imam/Ayatollah, say's it is...The Quran and Hadith have many negative statements about those who dont participate in jihad. Bukhari reminds that it is "every muslims "obligation", or they die a hypocrit...you know what that means...fire...
All PC artists over look that all important point...to everyones detriment...

Posted by: duh_swami at July 14, 2005 12:37 PM

Granny:

Thanks for the stats on The Guardian. Let's hope it's a sign that the pendulum of public opinion is swinging back toward the rational.

Sooner or later,people are going to refuse to pay to read sh!t like that and has much more impact on the publishers than letters to the editor.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 14, 2005 12:40 PM

Granny, Waterdragon: unfortunately I suspect that the lost readership of the Grauniad has simply moved over to the Independent, which these days supplies even more extremism and more style. The article did say that Indie sales had gone down, but it added that it was "for the first time since it went tabloid," meaning that for the last several months Robert Fisk's employers have seen their sales rise. The Grauniad has formed their minds, but now there is a supplier of purer dope around the corner, and the addicts are quitting the older and stodgier product for the journalistic equivalent of crack.

Posted by: Paolo at July 14, 2005 1:54 PM

Oh, Gawd, Paolo. Now you've gone and invoked memories of the greasy little reporter with the trench coat, notepad and working class accent on "Hot Metal".

Melanie Phillips had a thoughtful comment on the role of the mainstream media not long ago, reflecting on Stephen F. Hayes's reporting on new revelations about the Sadam - Osama connection:

"‘All of this is new--information obtained since the fall of the Hussein regime. And yet critics of the Iraq war and many in the media refuse to see it.’

They are on the wrong side of history - and history will eventually judge them."

...and the sooner the better! The same lot who keep denying there was anything significant about Sadam's long record of hospitality, aid and comfort with Islamists are the same lot who shriek Islamophobia at anyone who dares complain about the activities of Muslim fanatics and extremists and the extent to which they are aided and abetted by the larger population.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at July 14, 2005 2:16 PM

Second- and third-generation Muslims are without the don't-rock-the-boat attitude that restricted our forefathers. We're much sassier with our opinions, not caring if the boat rocks or not.

What really is worrying about this statement is the confidence this muslim has that as he is born in Britain, he can never be deported as the enemy alien that he really is. Future generations of muslims in the West, will be much more confident of their right as well as being in much larger numbers.

Let us consider the situation that all muslims at present living in the West, came out strongly against the jihad. They even went further and made the changes in their teachings of the koran. Such an outcome would no doubt come as a relief to many on this site, probably Mr Spencer as well. But I counter, that all such changes were being done merely to protect the ummah while it grows at ever increasing pace in the West. Once a near majority is achieved, that future generation of muslims will simply revoke any changes and return to the traditions of the koran. They will even praise this generation of muslims for having done what was necessary to protect islam.

Posted by: DP111 at July 14, 2005 8:05 PM

Further to my comment.

This is what the Guardian writer concludes

The don't-rock-the-boat attitude of elders doesn't mean the agitation wanes; it means it builds till it can be contained no more.

Which confirms my contention that future generations of muslims will feel no constraints whatever.

What is to be done? Though unpalatable, the answer is clear enough. Expulsion or an exchange of populations is what I have considered for a long time, to be the only humane way to solve this problem that has the potential to destroy all civilisation. Islam has to expand or else it will perish. Therein lies the Achilles heel of islam.

Islam's death will also release muslims from slavery and the end of the largest slavery organisation in the world. What more can one ask for?

Posted by: DP111 at July 14, 2005 8:36 PM

While driving to work on 13th July, BBC Radio news had these as the main items

1. Police have identified the bombers as British.

2. 60 police were injured in Belfast in clashes between Protestant and Catholic marchers.

Immediately after the news was a plug fpr Jeremy Vine's broadcast from Nigeria. Jeremy Vines along the lines.. Nigeria has an ethnic conflict in progress in which thousands have been killed.

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the BBC.

Posted by: DP111 at July 14, 2005 8:49 PM

You know, the last time we had to deal with a society of suicide bombers, we got out some pretty sassy nukes and chicken fried about 300,000 of their terrorist abettors over four days...

Posted by: jsla at July 15, 2005 3:09 AM

Mr Dilpazier Aslam writes:

“Some 2,749 people were killed in the 9/11 attacks. To discover the cost of "liberating" Iraqis you need to multiply that figure by eight, and still you will fall short of the estimated minimum of 22,787 civilian Iraqi casualties to date. But it's not cool to say this, now that London's skyline has also has plumed grey.”

Says Mr Dilpazier Aslam. Now that opened my eyes. I like this mathematical equation style reasoning, it’s easy to understand and it must be intellectual, since The Guardian published it.

But why to stop at the Iraqi war? Why not go a little further. Why not broaden our horizon a little, and look at Africa. There are literarily millions of Christians perished in the hands of Muslims in the last thirty or so years. Just look at Sudan. At least three quarters of the two million people there killed by the Muslim majority were Christian.
So does it mean, that in fact according to Mr Dilpazier Aslam’s equation Christians are in fact entitled to a huge number of Muslim lives?

Are the Armenians ‘entitled’ to kill millions of innocent Muslims – or rock the boat a little as The Guardian likes to call it nowadays?
Are all those nations, which used to be under Turkish occupation entitled to kill equal number if innocent Muslims to get justice for the terrible crimes the Turkish did during the brutal occupation of their land in the past?
Will tens of thousands of Indian and Thai families be entitled to Muslim house slaves to get even? After all many Muslim families (especially rich Saudi families) tricked their fellow countrymen into going to work for them, and then kept them as slaves?
In other words can we rock the boat a little too? Is it ok Mr Aslam?

Sarcasm off

THIS QUESTION IS VERY SICKENING, AND I DO NOT AGREE WITH IT AT ALL but this is what Mr Dilpazier Aslam proposes, and this proposal is worthy for The Guardian to be printed.

Posted by: Tiferet at July 15, 2005 4:54 PM