| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
Notice this: when polls show that Muslims have lost confidence in non-Muslim authorities, those non-Muslim authorities are expected to do something about it. And when polls show that non-Muslims have lost confidence in the loyalty and trustworthiness of the Muslims among them, non-Muslim authorities are expected to do something about it. Never, never, is any focus placed on any responsibility Muslims might have to win the confidence of authorities and the non-Muslim population.
From The Guardian, with thanks to all who sent this in:
Most Muslims have lost confidence in Sir Ian Blair, the Metropolitan police commissioner, and do not accept that officers have the right to take action to pre-empt potential terrorist attacks when the intelligence could turn out to be wrong, a Guardian/ICM poll shows.
So it's better to be blown up than risk inconveniencing innocent Muslims. I see.
The findings, in a poll of Muslim opinion, starkly illustrate the lack of confidence in the police following the raid on a home in Forest Gate, east London, this month. Police, acting on faulty intelligence that a chemical weapon was housed there, shot a Muslim man.Fifty-four per cent of Muslims said Sir Ian Blair should resign over the Forest Gate raid, while 29% said he should not.
In the poll, carried out two weeks after the raid, Muslims were also asked: "Do you think it is right or wrong for the police to act to pre-empt potential terrorist attacks, even if the intelligence, information and warnings may turn out to be wrong?" Thirty-one per cent said it was right and 57% said it was wrong.
This view contrasts sharply with that held by the general public. When the same question was asked of a representative sample of all adults, 74% said the police were right to act and 17% said they were wrong.
Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said last night the respondents could be "reacting against the many hundreds of Muslims who have been arrested in high-profile raids across the country since 9/11"....
When Muslims were surveyed about their feelings in the aftermath of the July 7 bombings last year, their views offered scant comfort to the police, although the overall picture is complex. The poll asked whether their confidence in the police had increased, decreased or stayed the same since the bombings: 16% said it had increased, 29% that it had decreased, and 50% said it stayed the same.
Confidence in the police is higher in the south, which includes London: 23% say their confidence has increased. And there is more support for Sir Ian, too: 32% in the south say he should not resign.
Dr Bari said last night: "The police must, of course, have the right to act upon credible intelligence and try to pre-empt potential terrorist attacks against our country. They have a duty to maintain the public safety of all of us - Muslims and non-Muslims." He believed Muslims were reacting against the many hundreds of Muslims arrested in high-profile raids across the country since 9/11 - "the vast majority of whom were then released days later without charge".
He added: "The police must as a matter of urgency review the manner in which they assess the quality of the intelligence that they receive. Serious questions are being asked about how they have reviewed and assessed the intelligence, not just in the case of the Forest Gate raid, but many other similar raids since 9/11. This is a matter of professionalism and maintaining the trust of the wider society."
Posted by Robert at June 27, 2006 7:11 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Business Schools teach the Bob Theory. "If Bob has a problem with everybody then Bob is the problem." Just substitute Muslims for Bob.
Posted by: ARAKIS![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at June 27, 2006 7:37 AM
Of course muslims don't like it. They would prefer not to have publicity on their plans. It's easier to do jihad when no one is watching them.
This is just another signal to the world how dangerous this cult is.
The only ones these people have to blame, are themselves. If they are going to insist on being in a murderous idiotic cult, they are just going to have to deal with it. No one who is breaking the law (of mankind even) wants to be outted.
I say , let the police do their job. They have to be sneaky to catch sneaky people.
Posted by: freewoman at June 27, 2006 7:39 AM
Of course, the police as a general rule should not take rash actions, or act on shaky intelligence. But what about when British Muslims demonstrated with signs praising the Fab Four [subway bombers of 7-7] or "Wait for the Real Holocaust" and "Butcher whoever criticizes Muhammad" or whatever exactly they said, and this group, perhaps not representative, was not criticized by the rest of the British Muslims or their representative bodies? Then people, even the ever Muslim-loving Brits, are going to get suspicious. At least some of them.
What do the British Muslims expect?
at June 27, 2006 8:04 AM
Oh great here we go again another round of Muslim whining and striking the pose of victims and martyrs. Oh the poor dears!Oh poor creatures lets leave these pastoral innocents alone. If we just give in the world will be a new edenic wonderland. The evil westerners are being all extra mean and racist again.People got their wittle feelings hurt. Whatever!
Listen up Muhammedan sons and daugthers of hate, we don't want you in our societies because everytime we infidels turn on the old radio, or television or log onto the internet your kind has killed or is attempting to kill someone or threating someone. The heat comes off when the murder and terror ends. Got that? Its really simple you leave others alone and you get left alone. But since Muslims are nothing more than overgrown, children in need of adult supervision we can't leave you alone. Leaving you alone and ignoring your kind usually results in something blowing up and people dying. Lord willing the vise like feeling you feel will tighten until Islamic terrorism ends. Either step up or shut up, or better yet pack up your wives and your welfare babies and go bad to the glorious sharia friendly rot hole you crawled out of. Until your kind takes a little responsiblity get lost!!! Don't want to hear it. With love and interfaith understanding, my barbaric, juvenille, murderous parasitic,friends.
Posted by: abdulalshirk at June 27, 2006 8:10 AM
A poster above mentions a "rumor" of a "plan" by the "UNO" to ban all "formal, organized religions" by fiat, just like that, the plan apparently being prepared by "world governments" That unusual plural, "world governments," makes one realize that this was intended parodically, the target of the parody those of a conspiratorial, Lyndon-Larouchesque mental bent. The phrase "world governments" was the giveaway; it clearly alludes to the "Essai sur la pluralite des mondes" of Fenelon, with "mondes" replaced by "gouvernements des mondes."
Got it. A joke.
Posted by: Hugh at June 27, 2006 8:43 AM
How much trust do these muslims have now for the Iraqi police under Saddam? I bet they are just pining for the good old days when the police came at midnight and took away whole families never to be seen again. Yes, those awful British police need to take a lesson from Saddam's police or Syrian or Egyptian or Saudi or any muslim nation's police to see how best to do their job. Right?
Posted by: JanuaryMan at June 27, 2006 9:33 AM
Freewoman, you're absolutely right, obviously. The problem is that they have a gigantic army of sympathisers/traitors/fifth columnists/dhimmis in the media and the political establishment who will aid and assist them every inch of the way. This is why we will certainly lose this struggle, unless the people themselves are prepared to use violence to resist it.
My God, isn't it depressing?
Posted by: enemyofislam at June 27, 2006 10:32 AM
And after all that Ian Blair did to appease and to kiss up to these ingrates! Guess he'll just have to try a little harder to win their affection.
Posted by: Infidel33 at June 27, 2006 1:40 PM
americaningermany writes: "If the police came to my apartment wanting to look for bomb-making materials, I'd invite them in."
So would I--if that were all that happened. But it wasn't. The Forest Gate police broke into a Muslim's home and shot him through the chest--without first identifying themselves as police. Even though it turned out later he was innocent and was released without charge. Hugh, if you'll pardon my saying so, that's some "inconvenience."
If the cops actually shot me without warning, I would be outraged. I wouldn't excuse it by saying "Well, I understand you can't be too careful these days." I would demand somebody's head should roll for that.
Breaking in and shooting suspects with no prior warning may be necessary to stop a suicide-terrorist from setting off a bomb. But with that policy, the British police have to be able to assure the public that from now on, they will be absolutely sure--before they fire.
at June 27, 2006 2:38 PM
"Hugh, if you'll pardon my saying so, that's some 'inconvenience.'"
-- from a posting above
I never used the word "inconvenience." I didn't comment on this matter at all.
at June 27, 2006 2:56 PM
@Steven,
Next thing you're going to say is that the guy was framed by the Mossad...
at June 27, 2006 5:48 PM
Steven L, I always taught my kids that, if they are pulled over, and the police say get out of the car or lie down on the ground, to do it. If they lay down on a thorn bush or on a bunch of stickers , just do it.
It would probably have to be something pretty serious for the police to break down a door and then have guns drawn.
I don't know the story you told above, but I'm sure there was a reason why this guy got shot. I don't believe they busted down his door just to shoot him in the chest. I'm sure that guy had to do something to provoke the officer into shooting him.
If a guy is innocent and has nothing to hide, the police will go away and leave him alone. If he isn't , well, he's in for it.
I would rather see someone inconvienced a little than mass murder.
Posted by: freewoman at June 27, 2006 6:30 PM
In all fairness to americaningermany, it does sound like a 'Chinese whispers' distortion of suggestions made to ban, not religions per se, but any insults to religions the world over. Before you know it, you have black helicopters swarming all over the place!
Posted by: anti-uffe at June 27, 2006 6:35 PM
freewoman writes: "I don't know the story you told above, but I'm sure there was a reason why this guy got shot. I don't believe they busted down his door just to shoot him in the chest. I'm sure that guy had to do something to provoke the officer into shooting him."
No. The Forest Gate police acted on a tip from an informant that these men were assembling a terrorist bomb. That turned out to be absolutely false.
What is making this issue so grim, is that to stop suicide-bombers before they can set off the bomb, the police have to pounce without warning and shoot to kill. That's what Israel has been telling European police forces, based on their own hard-won experience: If you announce yourself ("Freeze! We're the police!"), the terrorist will have enough time to set off the bomb. You have to sneak up silently and shoot the terrorist before he knows you're there.
Which is apparently what happened to this Muslim man. He heard noises coming from outside his house (the cops skulking around). So he opened the door to see what was going on and a cop shot him instantly.
You have always told your kids to cooperate with the police, on your assumption that the cops will identify themselves and order your kids to pull over. But if the cops have mistaken your kids for suicide-terrorists who are about to detonate a bomb, they will just shoot your kids right through their heads, without warning. (Not through their bodies because that might set off the dynamite belts that suicide-terrorists typically wear.)
Posted by: Steven L. at June 27, 2006 7:27 PM
Steven L.-
Is the guy dead?
If not, let him sue.
Better a wounded potential bomber than a whole bunch of really dead people.
This is not a game of paddycake or hide and go see.
This is WW III.
Muslim informants who screw around with the police and get their fellow faithful wounded are the real problem.
Not the police. Who are acting rationally, considering the level of the threat.
Posted by: profitsbeard at June 27, 2006 8:27 PM
I'm hoping I've raised them up to NOT be a suicide bomber!!
I've tried to raise them to respect law enforcement. And to use their brains and not get stupid.
Posted by: freewoman at June 27, 2006 9:01 PM
According to the BBC the police acted in consultation with local community organisations before moving in to arrest those two 'males' in Bolton!
Posted by: wallyUK at June 27, 2006 9:28 PM
Steven L. — You're right, this is grim and ominous. I presume the anonymous tip was a bit of disinformation from real Islamists. In any case, all they have to do to escalate tensions in England to carry out a few similar stunts, assuming the police continue to act like police. On the other hand if the police are prevented from rising to the bait then the Islamists will also have won, because the police will have been emasculated. (Martin van Creveld has alarming things to say about counterinsurgency warfare which seem relevant here as well.) Probably the Islamists do not realize that the likely ultimate consequence of this kind of destabilization strategy, if that is what it is, will be to get draconian measures imposed on all resident Muslims.
Posted by: Mr. Spog at June 28, 2006 12:05 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)