WORLD opinion emphatically rejects the idea that Islam and the West are heading for an inevitable clash of civilisations, according to an ambitious poll of public attitudes across 27 countries, commissioned by The Age and the BBC World Service.””from this article
This “opinion poll” was commissioned by the BBC World Service. The American who conducted the poll and possibly even some of those who were behind it were just delighted with the skewed results, resulting from an absurd list of questions. The most absurd at all was the distinction that the questions offered simply took as a given: that there is a difference between disputes with a “religious” basis and those with a “political” basis. But this, in Islam, makes no sense. Religious promptings explain what for others, for Infidels, might be mistaken for merely “political” disputes.
The Muslims of Pakistan want control of Kashmir themselves, or at the very least want to end control by Hindu India of that part of Kashmir that is in Indian control (the rest is under Pakistani control). But is that a “political” desire or a “religious” one? It is, of course, a desire prompted by the tenets of Islam. It is wrong for lands once part of Dar al-Islam ever to be regained and ruled by non-Muslims. It is wrong for non-Muslims ever to dominate, in any way, Muslims. And if Kashmir were to be put in the hands of Muslims, that “dispute” would simply be ended and a new one pressed even more violently and firmly, with all the swelling triumphalism that the win in Kashmir would fill Muslim hearts: a claim to India itself, once under Muslim rule.
And is the Lesser Jihad to remove the Infidel nation-state of Israel political or religious? It is considered solely political at this point only by the incredibly ignorant (such as Condoleeza Rice), or the viciously antisemitic (such as Jimmy Carter), or the simply incredibly misinformed. Among the third group are so many in Western Europe, who over several decades have been subject to the drip-drip-drip of media propaganda, beginning with such phrases, dinned into everyone, about a “Palestinian people,” and a “West Bank,” and of course “occupied” Arab land, “occupied” “Palestinian” land, “occupied” Palestine, “occupied” this and “occupied” that. None of this talk shows any understanding of the legal status, and legal, moral, and historic claim, of the Jews to the territory they now possess, or indeed to the territory they surrendered so foolishly to Egypt, and to which their title is at least as good as that of most countries in Europe to the lands they won after World War II, or even after World War I — such as, for example, the Sudtirol that, with a population that was 97% ethnic German, was given to Italy and has become (quite rightly, by the way) the Alto Adige.
Take a look at this absurd poll and who did the polling, and the way the questions were phrased. The whole thing stinks from top to bottom. But what did you expect? It’s the BBC World Service. It’s John Simpson. It’s Judy Swallow of the hideous voice. It’s Ian Lustig. It’s Barbara Pleet, of the ready tear for Chairman Arafat. It’s so many of them. It’s the Foreign Office, which still has special authority for the BBC World Service. It’s Greg Dyke muttering about the truth-teller Mr. Aitken. It’s the Lord Haw-Haws and Tokyo Roses of Bush House, who become more incredible and more intolerable every single day. And not only in their absurd coverage of the deplorable — it’s wonderful, isn’t it, to hear the solemn “experts” interviewed by the BBC World Service, including Aziz Tamimi, the Hamas ranter, and the smooth Tariq Ramadan on “European Islam” and so much more that may seem at first to affect only the fate of Israel.
All this, of course, would be reason enough to deplore and be sick at what the unchecked and unhinged current BBC is doing. The nature of Islam, the teachings of Islam, the history of Islamic conquest and of subjugation of non-Muslims, is all being hidden from view. This effects the well-being and understanding of threats of Buddhists in Thailand, of Christians in black Africa, of Hindus in India, Bangladesh, and Pakistan, and of course of all those in the nation-states of the Bilad al-kufr of Europe, including Great Britain itself. They are being led astray by those Lord Haw-haws and Tokyo Roses of Bush House and points east, west, north, and south, in glib guardian-reading, robert-fisk worshipping little England. Little England that is ever littler, because ever more unpleasant, confused, physically insecure, and untrue-to-itself and its own civilizational legacy — which is a considerable one and not to be tossed out quite so carelessly as is the case now.