| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
The think tank Demos makes the error of thinking that Iraq is the cause of Muslim anger in Britain. They don't realize that if it weren't Iraq, it would just be something else, and that the agenda of Islamic supremacism would continue to underlie all the pretexts. "Policies 'aid Muslim extremism,'" from the BBC, with thanks to Teri:
British Muslims are being driven into the arms of violent extremists by official attempts to engage with them after the 7 July bombs, a study claims.
Amazing. Yet if they hadn't attempted to engage with them, they would be blamed for that.
Policies since the attacks in London have "driven a wedge" between Muslims and the wider community rather than isolate extremists, the report says.The study, by think tank Demos, accused ministers of failing to engage Muslims over British foreign policy in Iraq.
It called for "community relations to be at the heart of security policy".
'Resentment and alienation'
The report - partly funded by the Department for Communities and Local Government - described attempts to involve Muslims in the policy-making process as "rushed, conducted on the government's terms, failing to break away from 'the usual suspects', and with little follow through".
Liberal Democrat shadow home secretary, Nick Clegg, said: "There is little to be gained in the long term by providing our security and police services with extra powers to tackle terrorism if, at the same time, the conditions for ever-deeper radicalisation are not being addressed with equal vigour."
That is true. But Clegg and his colleagues continue to assume, in a bizarre obverse of the old "White Man's Burden" philosophy, that that ever-deeper radicalization is caused solely by British policies, and that the Muslims are helpless to do anything but react to those policies. The paternalism and racism of such assumptions are ironic in light of the horror that Clegg and the rest would no doubt show at the display of anything they themselves would identify as racism.
The report stated: "In the meeting rooms of Whitehall, ministers were assuring Muslim leaders of the need for partnership, but in press briefings they were talking of the need for Muslims to 'get serious' about terrorism, spy on their children, and put up with inconveniences in the greater good of national security."
Yes, and there is something wrong with that?
It also said that the government' s actions were breeding "resentment and alienation" among Muslims and "playing into the hands of the extremists"."By viewing Muslims as a single interest group the government has failed to draw a clear enough distinction between angry Muslim opinion and those that would seek to inflict violence and terror," it added.
"The result is that rather than being isolated, extremists are able to attract support from communities cut adrift from mainstream British society."...
What has made this possible? The repeated statements by Blair and the rest that they are sure that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are loyal citizens who fervently support the government?
Anyway, this is really just an attempt to mau-mau a foreign policy shift:
Rachel Briggs, head of Demos' identity programme, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme, that the think tank is recommending "a quite substantial opening up of the foreign policy-making process"."The grievances that are felt in some parts of the Muslim community about foreign policy, and especially about Iraq, are pretty cogent and pretty convincing are shared with others outside that community as well," she said.
Posted by Robert at December 4, 2006 5:57 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
How come the muslims are not upset when killers like Saddam/Assad and sons were brutally suppressing and terrorizing the Iraqis/Syrians?
Who is it doing 99% of the killing in Iraq of muslims? Other muslims of course .. so why ain't the Brit muslims upset about that?
Posted by: TheOmegaMan
![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 4, 2006 7:30 AM
http://www.demos.co.uk/people/rachelbriggs
She is currently running projects on communities and counter-terrorism, cultural diplomacy and public diplomacy for the London 2012 Olympic Games.
She has written a number of reports, which have impacted on government and business policy, including, The Business of Resilience: Corporate security for the 21st century (Demos); Joining Forces: From national security to networked security (Demos); The Unlikely Counter-Terrorists (ed) (FPC); 16 Days: The role of the Olympic Truce in the toolkit for peace (Demos and Demos Athens); Doing Business in a Dangerous World: Corporate personnel security in emerging markets (FPC), Travel Advice: Getting information to those who need it (FPC), The Kidnapping Business (FPC), Keeping Your People Safe (FPC), and Healthy Travel: Effective communication to improve travel health outcomes (Demos, The Nuffield Trust and FPC).
Rachel is on the editorial board for the peer-review journal Travel Medicine and Infectious Diseases and is an advisor to the charity Hostage UK whose chair is Terry Waite. She is a member of the Steering Group for the FCO Global Opportunity Fund’s Economic Governance programme, a member of the Academic Council of Wilton Park, and a member of the Council of The Risk and Security Management Forum (RSMF).
Before joining Demos she ran the Risk and Security Research Programme at The Foreign Policy Centre.
Now it is true that Britain's media and Govt are confused. One minute they are bending over backwards for Muslims and next they portray them in an awful light without any differentiation between ordinary people and superloons.
Ann Cryer, MP points out that half the Muslims in Bradford speak no English which is useful since that is a mere 10% population or 60.000..........I wonder why they have not taught themselves ? Obviously food and drink and medical care is delivered in non-English languages............why ?
It is hard to know whether Blair's Govt loves Muslims, fears them, or hates them. It kow-tows to militant loudmouths and shafts those who are quiet - but it does that with all groups in society irrespective of race or creed. Find a celebrity with a big mouth and Blair is there stroking them; anyone doing a worthwhile task without great self-publicity is kicked in the teeth
Posted by: Voyager at December 4, 2006 7:39 AM
If it wasn't Iraq it would be the palestinians. If not the palestinians then Iran. The Islamaniacs always have something to be mad about-it's their nature. They can never be happy-even if they ruled the whole world. It is part of the Muslim Man's Burden to be permanently mad while bringing the wonders of Islam to infidels like us.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 4, 2006 7:51 AM
Rachel Briggs, head of Demos' identity programme, told BBC Radio 4's Today programme, that the think tank is recommending "a quite substantial opening up of the foreign policy-making process".
"The grievances that are felt in some parts of the Muslim community about foreign policy, and especially about Iraq, are pretty cogent and pretty convincing..."
In other words, Ms. Briggs believes 2% of the population, most of whom were born abroad or are first generation immigrants, should dictate the country's foreign policy. How democratic...
at December 4, 2006 7:57 AM
Ms Briggs, perhaps we the democratic law abiding majority should now start behaving like the Muslims, perhaps then we will get listened to.
So for her violence and threats are the key to getting your voice heard, and community relations means doing what the fascists tell us to do, that is why I can only refer to Demos as a Non-Think Tank.
Posted by: Daffersd
at December 4, 2006 8:16 AM
Think Tank more like Stink Tank!!!
Iraq is just a catalyst to wake up the West to what murderous muslims really want.
They can't even agree amongst themselves without resorting to violence.
Longlive the anti-Jihad movement.
Posted by: raz at December 4, 2006 8:47 AM
More news from the UK:
Less Christianity, more Islam and Hinduism, schools ordered
Posted by: ummahnewslinks at December 4, 2006 9:32 AM
"Paternalistic" is a good description of the prevailing attitude. Compounding the problem is that the "parents" are thinking like adolescents. What I hear from friends in the UK, the BBC and studies like this one reminds me of how I was as a teen - smug, uninformed and culturally self-loathing - with little concept of individual responsibility.
I wonder why so many in Europe seem to be stuck in this adolescent stage for life?
Posted by: Jan Sobieski at December 4, 2006 9:38 AM
I wonder why so many in Europe seem to be stuck in this adolescent stage for life?
Socialism, there is no need to assume responsibility when the nanny state does everything for you including thinking.
Posted by: km at December 4, 2006 9:47 AM
The report "also said that the government' s actions were breeding 'resentment and alienation' among Muslims".
How ironic! I was under the assumption that resentment of and alienation from everything un-islamic (in this case, the British government and society) was prescribed by the koran! So what's the problem?
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at December 4, 2006 10:00 AM
Ungrateful, hostile, foreign thugs. Parasites of society. They don't deserve to live in Britain.
Posted by: americaningermany at December 4, 2006 10:40 AM
Hell, they don't deserve to live anywhere except in the land of the ummah. They made a mess of the ummah with their cult; let them live with the consequences. They want sharia-the ummah has plenty of it. Want a policy to be proud of? The ummah has that too. These people are nothing more than Stalin's "wreckers" come to life.
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at December 4, 2006 11:58 AM
Now if opposition to a nation's foreign policy doesn't prove loyalty to a foreign state/states, and lack of loyalty to the nation itself, I don't know what does. But in the bizarre Wonderland of liberalism, the solution is to modify the nation's policy to make it friendlier to the foreign state/states. Does Egypt set foreign policy by what the Copts think?
Posted by: godfreyofbouillon at December 4, 2006 12:30 PM
Isn't this the think tank run by Madeleine Bunting? The Madeleine Bunting mentioned in this story?
WSW
Posted by: Wild Slutty Womens at December 4, 2006 1:29 PM
Yegads, the "you made me do it argument", while rejected out of hand in the case of rape, murder and theft is accepted blithely and blindly when it is uttered by muslims.
The only way to deal with this insanity is to call them on it, and shove the hypocricy and stupidity in their face.. that would mean writing letters to the BBC, et cetera.. not lengthy, bombastic and demonizing tirades.. but short and to the point as in the above.
Posted by: Nariz at December 4, 2006 1:51 PM
I wonder why so many in Europe seem to be stuck in this adolescent stage for life?
Posted by: Jan Sobieski at December 4, 2006 09:38 AM
Do you suppose it might have anything to do with cradle-to-grave socialism? When people expect their government to handle every tiny aspect of their lives, why should they grow up? The nanny state breeds perpetual adolescents who are simply incapable of personal responsibility.
Posted by: Susanp at December 4, 2006 1:56 PM
"...in a bizarre obverse of the old "White Man's Burden" philosophy, that that ever-deeper radicalization is caused solely by British policies, and that the Muslims are helpless to do anything but react to those policies. The paternalism and racism of such assumptions..."
This crypto-racist paternalism has been around for a long time; it in fact attended the protracted process of the dismantling of Western Colonialism, and it has become the standard way of regarding Third World peoples in general. When the Rwandan genocide happened, for example, one got the sense that such PC MC paternalists were wringing their hands over the tragic destruction of two species of gazelle or zebra, caused, of course, not by the ethical responsibility of the Rwandan humans involved -- by which they should be judged and condemned --, but rather by the inept and/or evil policies of the West. The hand-wringing was distinctly directed at the West: "How could we, the West, have allowed these two beautiful species of animals kill each other? How did we fail them? How could we have made the natural habitat of their animal preserve better such that this terrible tragedy could have been averted?" Heaven forbid that Westerners should call any black Africans evil. And now this Third World paternalism has become more focussed, with respect to the Poster Children of the Third World, the Muslims.
Posted by: remote_control at December 4, 2006 2:37 PM
This is another twist on the letter to Blair, signed by three Muslim MP's, three Muslim peers, the MCB etc saying that British foreign policy was the cause of terrorism in te UK and the government had only to change it, for the problem to stop. It was obvious that representatives of 3% of the population seeking to dictate the foreign policy of the country using the threat of violence from within their community as their justification, amounted to a rather crude form of blackmail. Unfortunately for them, most of the public could see this. The Muslims realsed that they had gone too far at the time and didn't follow up wth a sustained campaign. The dhimmis at DEMOS are doing their job for them this time , whether off their own bat or, as is more likely, at the promptings of Muslims both within and without the group. There's an accunt of the original letter at:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1843114,00.html
Posted by: wallyUK at December 4, 2006 8:22 PM
How come the muslims are not upset when killers like Saddam/Assad and sons were brutally suppressing and terrorizing the Iraqis/Syrians?
Posted by: TheOmegaMan at December 4, 2006 07:30 AM
.. because all muslims belong to the "umma" (much like a criminal gang) in "Dar al-Islam" (world of Islam) and are called "muslim brothers and sisters". Holding a fellow-muslim accoutnable would weaken/defeat "Dar al-Islam".
Posted by: Alert at December 4, 2006 9:37 PM
UK study: Policies 'aid Muslim extremism'
The title is absolutely correct. When you have a government whose policies constantly pander to the demands of the minority Muslims, who in turn are hell bent on turning the country into an Islamic hotbed, then this is the result today - Londonistan I think they call it. You see, as the saying goes - give them a finger, they take a hand, give them a hand, they take an arm, give them an arm and they grab you by the neck and throw you out the window.
Posted by: GreekFrenchInfidel at December 5, 2006 2:31 AM
Really the Muslims have nothing to complain about in Britain, they come here, get given free stuff paid for by the taxpayer (even if they have not become citizens of the UK), the government bends over backwards to accomodate their unreasonable demands, and they post a significant risk to the safety of Brisih people. Yet they don't seem to understand the legitimate grievences of British people at all. How about: we don't want to be blown up. They've had everything they ever asked for and still find excuses to complain.
In my opinion, tolerance of intolerance is in itself intolerant of morality and common decency. It's about time that the British Government put it's OWN CITIZENS FIRST.
As for blaming our foreign policy for Muslim violence, that's just a sack of bullshit if I ever heard one. I wonder is Mr. Blair has bothered to read the Koran and the nastiness it contains? Because it is NOT our policy that's causing violence and extremism... it is the Koran, worst book ever written in my opinion. It's rivalled only by Mein Kampf, and last time we ignored such a doctrine, millions of innocent people died. We should not make the same mistakes again, it is like we forgot the lesson of WW2 already!
I would be in favor of the public getting an education on what Islam is really all about. That way it would make Islam socially unacceptable. Islam thrives on our ignorance, so remedy that ignorance and we can reclaim Europe.
Posted by: Truthseeker at December 5, 2006 3:06 AM
The only place I recalled "mau-mau" from was the movie "Deer Hunter," at the point where DeNiro's character is being held by the Viet-Cong in a cage, and an interrogator is shouting at him "Mau!!...Mau!!"
But from some website or other, I found the following:
After the Mau Mau, a secret society of Kikuyu terrorists that led a rebellion against the ruling Europeans in Kenya in the 1950s, from Kikuyu mau-mau, sound of the voracious gobbling of a hyena.
Also:
mau-mau (moumou) tr.v. mau·maued, mau·mau·ing, mau·maus Informal To attack or denounce vociferously, especially so as to intimidate: "In years past, [the civil rights leadership] ... would mau-mau the government or the corporate sector or the white community" Joseph Perkins.Posted by: traeh
at December 5, 2006 4:33 AM
It has been reported that elderly Muslim women now have a purpose in life .. to become suicide bombers. Apparently there are alreaady up to 70 old women anxious to blow up themselves, and others, and so become martyrs for Islam. How warped is the path to heavenly glory?
Posted by: meekee at December 5, 2006 7:15 PM
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.)