A superb bit of anti-dhimmitude from Rod Liddle in The Spectator (thanks to Alistair):
Red Cross officials have been meeting in Switzerland to decide upon a new logo “” and presumably, by implication, name “” for their fine organisation. The logo in question is the red cross. And the problem with the cross is that it enrages Muslims. In the theatre of war, when most combatants see the red cross, they put their weapons down. Muslim combatants, though, have a tendency to pick theirs up and start shooting with even greater avidity. In recent years we have seen the emergence of the Red Crescent, which accords with Muslim sensibilities. We have also seen the Israeli equivalent, which is advertised by a red Star of David. Muslims shoot at that one, too, with unquenchable fervour. It is wholly understandable, given this profusion of competing icons, that the Red Cross, or whatever they will henceforth call themselves, should seek a symbol which is not immediately redolent of either an oppressive infidel religion or the Zionist cockroaches of Israel. They want a secular, neutral symbol and have hit upon the idea of a red “˜crystal”, or diamond. That shouldn’t offend anyone, should it? It’s what Jesus would have wanted.
I have heard no reports of Christian or Jewish combatants firing on Red Crescent vehicles. Our loathing of whatever enemy we are up against, it seems to me, is less visceral and far less rooted in notions of certainty. We are rather less inclined, these days, to wish hell upon an entire people. The totalitarian flavour of Islam “” the unshakeable belief in its own rectitude and a terrible paranoia directed towards serried ranks of enemies, real and imagined “” makes the thought of firing on an ambulance carrying wounded infidel soldiers at least permissible and quite possibly, according to Islam’s more rigorous disciples, a beholden duty. And this is where I believe our Prime Minister has got it the wrong way around: it is the core ideology of Islam that is the problem, not a handful of incendiary preachers. But maybe he’s beginning to realise that right now.
According to the Daily Telegraph, a Muslim barrister who “˜advises” the Prime Minister has said that Mr Blair is the victim of a sinister conspiracy between the Freemasons and the Jews, who control him and took us to war in Iraq. Ahmad Thomson, from the Muslim Association of Lawyers, has previously denied that six million Jews died in the Holocaust: that’s a “˜big lie”, he avers. There are quite a few people who think along similar lines to Mr Thomson, particularly in the United States. Mr Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma bomber, was one such. These people call the US government ZOG “” the Zionist Occupation Government “” and they tend to have rather too many canisters of weedkiller in their basements. You might have heard similar sentiments from David Icke, too, although David believes that it is giant lizards rather than Jews pulling the strings. My point is that these people are usually lumped together under the generic heading of “˜nutters”. And sometimes “˜psychos,” “˜weirdoes”, “˜loonies”, etc. But in Britain you can believe such paranoid, irrational gibberish and not merely be tolerated and excused the eponym “˜barking madman” but actually be invited to divulge your stupidity to the Prime Minister personally. Because you are a Muslim and such poisonous paranoia is sort of expected from you, instead of being sectioned and maybe having a spot of ECT, you get to have your fantasies indulged.
Read it all.