| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
One of the commenters on this article at the Evening Standard says, "A terror suspect should be treated as a suspect until proven guilty. Unmasking him now would only prejudge him guilty." But that has never been the case. The people on Post Office wanted posters are tried if captured, and are innocent until proven guilty. But the suspicion of their having committed a crime is enough for authorities to reveal their identities. This has never been a point in dispute until the advent of multiculturalism.
More UK dhimmi follies: "Terror farce over refusal to unmask 7/7 suspect," from the Evening Standard, with thanks to all who sent this in:
The war on terror has descended into farce after the Government refused to identify a July 7 suspect on the run from the security services.The Home Office insists the British Muslim, who describes himself as a 'Holy warrior', is such a grave threat to national security he must be under a control order.
But, despite the 25-year-old committing a serious crime by repeatedly breaching the order and making himself a fugitive, John Reid will not take steps to lift his veil of secrecy.
The Home Secretary's refusal to act is in spite of fears the man is a possible 'missing link' to the London plot.
Investigators have linked him to two of the four bombers who claimed 52 innocent lives last year - ringleader Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.
The Daily Mail knows his identity, his shocking links to terrorists and has a photograph, but is unable to publish.
Critics said it had reduced Labour's so-called war on terror to farce.
Posted by Robert at November 20, 2006 12:01 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
In naval architecture, there is a thing called a ‘righting moment’. Basically it means that if a properly designed ship tips to port or starboard, the further it tips, the stronger the ‘moment’ (force across a distance) that acts to bring the ship back to vertical. If you pass a certain point, the math goes out the window and the ship capsizes. In the instance of capsize, the rats run for air and civil order is limited at best.
Posted by: limes![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at November 20, 2006 12:59 AM
"This man is a terrorist, so we can't show you his face"
"What brand of explosive do terrorists use?"
"Show us, Ahmed"
Posted by: Xaragma at November 20, 2006 1:31 AM
Looking more and more like big gains for the BNP - they seem to be the only team with a clue on this issue. Labor have stumbled along with the policy-on-the-fly of banning veils - a peripheral issue at best - and the Conservatives are nowhere to be seen. Fortunately, the internet brings alternative players into the ring, and hopefully all will be forced to lift their game.
Posted by: Brett_McS at November 20, 2006 3:51 AM
In naval architecture, there is a thing called a ‘righting moment’.
Interesting analogy, Limey.
The question would be, then, is how long can a moment of interia endure, or, are we in an intertial moment at all?
It could be that the Marxists at the helm of UK are in fact pushing the boat all the way over on purpose, hoping for a moment of delverance. After over a 150 yrs of promises promises, they must be frustrated and looking for answers, and maybe Mohammedism is that.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 20, 2006 4:37 AM
"It could be that the Marxists at the helm of UK are in fact pushing the boat all the way over on purpose,"
Except that they're not "Marxists" -- if they were their ideology would be easier to deal with. I'm afraid it's a poisonous amalgam of old nonconformist conscience, liberalism, post-colonial guilt, neo-Thatcherism and political correctness.
Posted by: JFGR at November 20, 2006 7:21 AM
and anti-Semitism.
Posted by: philiph35 at November 20, 2006 7:55 AM
Why is neo-Thatcherism contributing? Is it because it is not as good as the real thing? I don't get it.
And this does not show that the BNP are the only ones with a clue, it just shows that either IngSoc (Labour) are, always have been, and always will be clueless, or that they not interested in defeating Jihad. Either way, if they manage to spin a good lie - which they do - then their pursuit of never-ending power is only aided.
Posted by: FREE LEE at November 20, 2006 8:11 AM
Well, what can one expect? Nobody in the West has yet to label Islam as the enemy of all mankind, Muslims included. Until we get some prominent people to do at least that, nonsense like this will continue endlessly.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at November 20, 2006 8:40 AM
More UK news:
New iman sparks 'potentially dangerous' Muslim prison stand-off
at November 20, 2006 9:31 AM
Except that they're not "Marxists" -- if they were their ideology would be easier to deal with. I'm afraid it's a poisonous amalgam of old nonconformist conscience, liberalism, post-colonial guilt, neo-Thatcherism and political correctness.
Political correctness is thought control through self-censorship.
Post-colonial guilt is was impelled Karl & Frederich to the top.
Liberalism is post-modern Marxism of the true cloth, all about Olympian council, intimidation, and other people's money.
Noncomformists are the first to take the mooch road. Just look at the ex-Hippies now stalking various Wetern legislators.
The neo-Thatcherism thing I can't compute. But I sure do miss the days when Ron & Maggie would meet. Those were the last days of limitless hope.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at November 20, 2006 1:41 PM
"Why is neo-Thatcherism contributing? Is it because it is not as good as the real thing? I don't get it."
"The neo-Thatcherism thing I can't compute"
Because Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society", which paradoxically legitimises multiculturalism. Uninhibited individualism breaks down a nation's culture and self-belief, which depend on a true community, e.g. the nation state, and eventually leads to cultural relativism (I know this is controversial and that many Americans won't agree with it.)Thatcher was a right-wing radical rather than a British conservative.
Posted by: JFGR at November 20, 2006 2:18 PM
No, the society thing is ALWAYS taken out of context. It's the thing they always bring up when they want to put dear old Maggie down.
The British notion of society has traditionally been individualism with responsibility to ones country and countrymen. It's the philosophy we share with the U.S.
The Nation state is a Napoleonic/Communist idea that was imported to Britain, and which they still want to foist upon us through the EU.
Thatcher was trying to beat that back.
Multiculturalism is an idea that belongs in the camp of those of the opposite side of the political spectrum to that of Maggie. It was supposed to put an end to our view that our culture was better than everybody elses (which it was) because the Lefties just hated themselves and their country, and everything it stood for. It's got nothing to do with Maggie Thatcher, and that's why you have confused some folks here.
Posted by: FREE LEE at November 20, 2006 3:59 PM
Alarmed pig farmer, you and your ilk are kissin cousins to the muslims and antisemites who see a Jew in every dark corner...in your case it is Marxists in every dark corner.
Pick up the cluephone dumbass. We live in a capitalist world, and money talks, and money walks..the corporate elite are fixated on Arab and Islamic money and markets.
That's why the elite kiss the arse of mooselimbs, both in Europe and in North America..
Just ask George W Bush and his Dad. Dubya got his start in business thanks to help from the bin Laden family.. and the law firm of Baker Botts has just three clients.. Exxon Mobil, the Bush Family and the Saudis (whom they also serve as a lobbyist in DC).
Get a clue dude and get rid of those ideological blinders.. the problem is left and right, not just left.
at November 20, 2006 5:49 PM
"The Nation state is a Napoleonic/Communist idea that was imported to Britain, and which they still want to foist upon us through the EU."
Now it's my turn to be puzzled. England from the sixteenth century onwards (arguably also much earlier) was a nation state, as was the Dutch Republic. The EU in fact is supra-national, is anti-nation state and is the true successor of multinational empires such as the Holy Roman Empire and the Napoleonic empire. See Scruton, by the way, on the value of the idea of the nation state as a bulwark against pan-European ideology.
And I would reply about Maggie: the thing about "being taken out of context" is always raised by uncritical defenders of Thatcherism. She meant it, though. Maggie was fine on foreign policy (Euroscepticism, defence of the Falklands, standing up to the Soviet Union), but her domestic legacy (apart from curbing the power of the trade unions) is not nearly as benign as some people suppose.
Posted by: JFGR at November 21, 2006 5:15 AM
This is nuts!
Their menacing muzzie mugs would be plastered in front of all our faces here in the USA!
What the hell is going on in the UK?
at November 21, 2006 7:51 AM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)