Midlands Mosque burnt to the ground by arsonists


by Sunny
29th December, 2009 at 2:29 pm    

Cheers to a readers for sending in this link:

A fire engulfed the Cradley Heath Mosque and Islamic Centre on Boxing Day destroying the building and the religious countless books inside.

Vasharat Ali, secretary of the mosque and education centre, said: “This is not the first time we have been targeted, there was a similar attack four or five years ago. “The building has been completely destroyed and all the books we use with the children have been damaged by water.”

Mmmm… I wonder what sort of propaganda spurred an arsonist to do that.
Update: Arsonists also attack new centre for immigrants in Calais.


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: EDL,Religion






58 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. pickles

    Blog post:: Midlands Mosque burnt to the ground by arsonists http://bit.ly/52pmVG


  2. Thomas Byrne

    RT @pickledpolitics: Blog post:: Midlands Mosque burnt to the ground by arsonists http://bit.ly/52pmVG


  3. Naadir Jeewa

    Reading: Midlands Mosque burnt to the ground by arsonists: Cheers to a readers for sending in this link.. http://bit.ly/5FcfzJ




  1. Badmash — on 29th December, 2009 at 2:57 pm  

    Probably the ones coming from Harry’s Place and Spittoon. I think we should start a new dimension in the terrorism industry – lets ask whether such websites are conveyer-belts for far-right terrorism. Do they provide the ‘mood music’ for bigots to flourish.

  2. DavidMWW — on 29th December, 2009 at 3:24 pm  

    Who needs propaganda?

    All you need to incite idiots like that is an idiot like this.

  3. Sunny — on 29th December, 2009 at 3:35 pm  

    David: that suggests you think the mosque has no one else to blame…

  4. oldrightie — on 29th December, 2009 at 3:40 pm  

    Probably the ones coming from Harry’s Place and Spittoon. I think we should start a new dimension in the terrorism industry – lets ask whether such websites are conveyer-belts for far-right terrorism. Do they provide the ‘mood music’ for bigots to flourish.

    Yup, right on the nail. Execute all opposition members. Very Iranian.

  5. DavidMWW — on 29th December, 2009 at 3:47 pm  

    David: that suggests you think the mosque has no one else to blame…

    Sunny: no more than your OP suggests that the mosque has only propagandists to blame.

  6. BenSix — on 29th December, 2009 at 3:58 pm  

    I think we should start a new dimension in the terrorism industry – lets ask whether such websites are conveyer-belts for far-right terrorism.

    I’ve seen your dimension and the answer’s no.

  7. Badmashi ka jawab — on 29th December, 2009 at 4:38 pm  

    Harrys Place is to blame? This passes for informed comment over here at Pickled Politics? Sunny has attracted some real class over here.

  8. Random Guy — on 29th December, 2009 at 4:44 pm  

    Propagandists better step up and take a proportion of the responsibility. They have been stoking the embers for quite a while now. Worthless sons of bitches that they are. Regarding the burning of the mosque, this action will only incite more violence somewhere down the road – nothing good will come of it.

    Nice to see the non-coverage of this in the MSM so far.

  9. Sunny — on 29th December, 2009 at 5:15 pm  

    Sunny: no more than your OP suggests that the mosque has only propagandists to blame.

    Who else should it blame? Should a Christian church be blamed if some nutjob Christian elsewhere does something? Are they all in it together?

  10. lfc4life — on 29th December, 2009 at 5:23 pm  

    Great, Jack straw must be proud idiots like him are the ones that kicked off this islamphobic/ hatred to all new level!

  11. BenSix — on 29th December, 2009 at 5:27 pm  

    Who else should it blame?

    Well – the arsonist, first and foremost.

  12. Sarah AB — on 29th December, 2009 at 5:47 pm  

    A depressing story – also the Calais incident.

    I think Badmash is rather unfair to HP – and my sense is that HP seems to be attracting fewer Islamophobes these days? But I suppose it’s inevitable that a blog which criticises groups such as HuT in a perfectly legitimate way will attract nasty types – just as an article criticising Israel, however fairly, will attract the approval of other nasty types.

  13. bananabrain — on 29th December, 2009 at 6:16 pm  

    oh yes, *obviously* over at the spittoon we are aiming to promote a sort of general kristallnacht for muslim communities rather than, say, aiming well-deserved and properly-researched criticism at islamist lunatics and sectarian rabble-rousers who are using those communities as human shields whilst at the same time conning money out of public funds.

    are you actually reading the site or are you merely working for that nincompoop at strathclyde university who runs “neocon europe”?

    do me a feckin’ favour.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  14. MiriamBinder — on 29th December, 2009 at 6:52 pm  

    Well, yes … the one to blame is certainly the arsonist/s but … All in all, a very sad day indeed. Bananabrain’s reference to Kristallnacht is not that far fetched. I’ve mentioned before, and probably will have cause to do so again, that the anti-Islam fervour stoked by the Islamophobes and their followers is very reminiscent of the anti-Semites that was flogged with every hiccough, dead cow and unproductive field during the height of pogroms and the like …

  15. marvin — on 29th December, 2009 at 9:33 pm  

    Of course the lumpen proles have been brain washed by BNP/Daily Mail/Murdocite/Harrys Place/Spitoon propoganda! There is no question!!1111!!! When will the others realise the TRUTH!??!!!

    NOTHING at all to do with the news of an attempt by a self-declared Muslim to blow up an airliner on Christmas day.

    None.

    Sunny’s knee-jerk judgement on this is reminiscent of his judgement on the attack on some Muslim students in London. Again BNP / Daily Mail / anyone who mentions IMMIGRATION!!221!! Except of course that the attackers were not white racist skinheads, as per Sunny’s running-battles-with-the-white-fascists fantasy. They were black lads! How many groups of black lads are buying into ‘BNP propoganada’???

    Sunny’s knee-jerk reaction is to blame “immigration proganda” and by extention white racist arsonists. This may or may not be true. But it’s a knee-jerk reaction without evidence. And the utterly meatheaded assumption that it’s right wing propoganda that spurned this – and not the news reports of 25 British Muslims learning how to blow up planes in Yemen.

  16. Laban — on 29th December, 2009 at 10:01 pm  

    “I wonder what sort of propaganda spurred an arsonist to do that?”

    Well, the Daily Mail must always be a suspect. Or maybe the perpetrators didn’t need spurring. But there’s always a chance that it was “the propaganda of the deed”.

  17. MiriamBinder — on 29th December, 2009 at 10:07 pm  

    So what do you suggest Marvin? Do you honestly think that it has nought to do with a resolution to adopt the same extremist, fanatical, narrow-minded, hate-driven stance; albeit directed the other way.

    Screeching about ‘knee-jerk’ reactions is all very well but in effect you really are not far off it with your suggestion that it may be related to an attempt by a self declared Muslim to blow up a plane on Christmas day or news reports of 25 British Muslims learning how to blow up planes in Yemen?

    If it is the latter, it is an excuse not a reason. The reason would be the hate driven propaganda and the sad excuses for human beings that buy into it ….

  18. Paul Garrard — on 29th December, 2009 at 10:18 pm  

    “I wonder what sort of propaganda spurred an arsonist to do that?”

    Propaganda, no. Screw loose, yes.

    Violence of any sort is the refuge of the insane. If people are so simple that they need religion in their lives they should not be denied it, even though it is ‘the opiate of the people’!

  19. damon — on 30th December, 2009 at 3:27 am  

    The attack on the asylum center is criminal for sure, but is (perhaps) of a slightly different order to the attack on the Mosque. The Calais situation must be an ongoing source of frustration and anger for Calais residents who really don’t want refugees living rough in their town.
    Relatives of mine in the Irish Republic (several years ago) reacted over plans to turn a hotel in their village (near a ferry port) into an asylum hostel as asylum seekers had been coming across on the ferries from France.
    They marched and petitioned untill the plans were dropped.
    They just didn’t want the young asylum seekers hanging about in their village (with nothing to do).

    It’s a bit shameful, but people were alarmed at the idea.

  20. Sunny — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:47 am  

    NOTHING at all to do with the news of an attempt by a self-declared Muslim to blow up an airliner on Christmas day.

    Interesting Marvin – that you’ve now started belivieng in causation – or is that only for Muslims.

    So when a Muslim says he blew up some building because the Americans invaded his country and killed his family – I’m sure you’ll be right behind him applauding him… right? Right?

  21. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:53 am  

    We can sit in the comfort of our Western homes, clad in the whiteness of our skins, enveloped by the smug superiority of Judeo-Christian values and surrounded in the relative security of our rule of law.

    There but for the accident of birth and locality … I know I did not have to fight to gain the vote. I did not have to worry whether or not the landowner was going to enclose the field on which my home stood, casting me and mine adrift. I did not have to watch my child starve for want of a harvest, die for the lack of medical attention, grow up illiterate for the lack of an education. It was all achieved before I was born by others. Those battles I do fight are merely for more then what I need to live, to be, to count.

    Whether we like it or not, there are people who do not see the world in the same way we do. There are people who value things in a different order of priority, have different aspirations, different expectations and different options. There are people whose only option is to caste themselves adrift on the world.

    Personally I hold that every time we refuse to accept that different doesn’t mean less, every time we turn our backs on need; essentially we devalue the efforts of all those who fought and endured and went without to ensure we have what we have now.

  22. cjcjc — on 30th December, 2009 at 9:30 am  

    Absolutely right.
    I’m sure if caught we will find that HP and Spittoon were top of the arsonist’s reading list, and that he was a regular at any Douglas Murray debate while obviously holding Ayaan Hirsi Ali in high regard.

  23. cjcjc — on 30th December, 2009 at 9:33 am  

    There are people who value things in a different order of priority, have different aspirations, different expectations and different options. There are people whose only option is to caste themselves adrift on the world.

    I assume that you are not talking about the son of one of the richest men in Nigeria?

    Or are you?

  24. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 9:42 am  

    @ cjcjc – you are free to make any assumptions you like. I dare say I couldn’t stop you even if I would like to.

  25. cjcjc — on 30th December, 2009 at 9:52 am  

    Well, you tell us.
    To whom were you referring?

  26. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 10:51 am  

    Okay cjcj … I’ll play your juvenile game while I wait for the kettle to boil.

    I refer to each and everyone in the post you took that single paragraph from. Read it in context, think about what you have read and you will see that it covers generalities rather then specifics and as generalities go, it would of necessity cover you as well as me as well as the son of a rich Nigerian ;)

  27. halima — on 30th December, 2009 at 10:52 am  

    Miriam Binder

    “There but for the accident of birth and locality ”

    Good point, so obvious and so easily forgotten.

    It strikes me that so many of us draw a sense of pride (prejudice) based on background, religion, nation-state, and at the end of the day – such preference and prejudice comes from something so artibitary as the accident of birth.

    Not earned really.

  28. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 11:18 am  

    I’ve been thinking on this and I don’t think we can actually see these two incidents, the arson attack on the Mosque and the destruction through arson of the shower block at the Calais as being of a different order; and not, I will hasten to add, because arson was the means by which both attacks were carried out.

    I think the reason for both attacks to be viewed as being of the same order is because both were aimed at facilities for the use of groups against whom much has been claimed and more has been hinted at. They are the latter day bogeyman.

  29. Dalbir — on 30th December, 2009 at 11:42 am  

    You sure it’s not an insurance job?

  30. bananabrain — on 30th December, 2009 at 12:01 pm  

    We can sit in the comfort of our Western homes, clad in the whiteness of our skins, enveloped by the smug superiority of Judeo-Christian values and surrounded in the relative security of our rule of law.

    miriam, if (as i assume) you’re jewish, i am astonished that you can make such a generalisation. speaking personally, i cannot refer to the first, i reject the concept of the second and i can see personally how the third is not something i can rely on for my protection. accidents of birth be damned, i know where i came from; what i take from this is not “smug superiority” – i thank G!D for the fact that i was born in london and not in baghdad like my ancestors or in eastern europe like my wife’s, i think that the along with the whole “smug superiority” thing goes an equally pervasive “cringing inferiority” thing which i reject equally vehemently. i *appreciate* the rule of law and the culture of the west, even if i live to a large extent within another.

    as for this argument about what the arsonists and terrorists are reading, i think it’s the smuggest argument of all – these people are not reading the daily mail any more than they’re reading the spittoon or pickled politics, this is nothing but the most conceited self-importance; such people, if they read at all, are the sort who would probably have to use their finger and look up the longer words. such people are moved by rabble-rousing speech, i don’t care whether it’s delivered at a pub lock-in or bought on DVD from a jihadi market stall. they’re certainly not interested in the proxy wars of the blogosphere. i aim to convince those who can be convinced and let them handle those who aren’t ready to talk. i will talk to anyone who will talk to me and i will not be the first to get nasty – and somehow i don’t anticipate that being a problem.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  31. douglas clark — on 30th December, 2009 at 12:24 pm  

    bananabrain,

    i aim to convince those who can be convinced and let them handle those who aren’t ready to talk.

    What does that actually mean? Who is this ‘them’ to whom you refer?

  32. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 12:42 pm  

    Dear Bananabrain, yes … I am Jewish by birth. The claim should be read in the context in which it was placed. The rest of the post from which you took that will show that I do not hold with the picture that paragraph, taken on its own, would paint.
    Further, there are means other then the Daily Mail/The Spitoon/Harry’s Place of spreading mistrust and hate-driven preconceptions.

  33. Faisal — on 30th December, 2009 at 2:21 pm  

    Further, there are means other then the Daily Mail/The Spitoon/Harry’s Place of spreading mistrust and hate-driven preconceptions.

    We do not spread “mistrust and hate-driven preconceptions” at The Spittoon. And nor do Harry’s Place, for that matter. We counter them, particularly those peddled by the network of supremacist religio-political systems and the political groups which aid and abet them.

  34. marvin — on 30th December, 2009 at 2:43 pm  

    Absolutely right.
    I’m sure if caught we will find that HP and Spittoon were top of the arsonist’s reading list, and that he was a regular at any Douglas Murray debate while obviously holding Ayaan Hirsi Ali in high regard.

    LMAO!

    …What a bunch of cretinous comments on this thread. If you didn’t know better you’d think it was satire.

    Interesting Marvin – that you’ve now started belivieng in causation – or is that only for Muslims.

    So when a Muslim says he blew up some building because the Americans invaded his country and killed his family – I’m sure you’ll be right behind him applauding him… right? Right?

    Causation for terrorism by self-declared Muslims is Islamist ideology. You may have some additional factors (excuses) that Guardianistas, really, really, want to be true, like The Iraq War or some shit, but that’s all bollocks isn’t it really? We’ve had France and Germany staunchly against the Iraq war and they have thwarted numerous Islamic terror plots on home soil. So much for “payback” for supporting the Iraq war.

    How many of these terrorists in Western targets had their families killed when they was just a boy when the infidels came to their village?!! Pretty close to zero! It’s left wing romanticism of terrorism. It actually turns out often to be British born doctors, teaching assistants and the like. Sunny seems to think this is an accurate portrayal of todays Islamist terrorists. LOL.

    Terrorists such as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are middle-class, University educated, and have become obsessed with hatred for the West – from actual propaganda and vile Islamist scholars.

    You have a Muslim trying to massacre 280 people on Christmas day, and the next day some boneheads burn down an Islamic centre the next day. So, err, obviously boneheads were not motivated by this. Douglas Murray has his tentacles all over this.

    You honestly think these boneheads are reading the Spitoon? They could be Sikh, Hindu, black or white. They could have also sorts of cultural perceptions fuelling their desire to burn down an Islamic centre. They may have just been watching the news and made a boneheaded connection. I’ve heard of stories from Sikh and Hindus I’ve met in London doing things like chucking a pig’s head over the wall of a mosque. But I’m sure they were reading the Daily Spitton’s Place before their silly provocative act.

  35. bananabrain — on 30th December, 2009 at 2:43 pm  

    douglas:

    it was perhaps inelegantly phrased. i mean that your average islamist would not have a great deal to say of interest to me and, presumably, vice-versa, but they would still talk to people who *were* in dialogue with me and might even be prepared to reconsider their positions.

    and, of course, what faisal just said.

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  36. damon — on 30th December, 2009 at 2:48 pm  

    MiriamBinder, the reason I said that is because one is an act of religious or race hatred against law abiding Britons, and the other is (maybe) an attack by people who are fed up with a situation which is outside of normal everyday living.
    A legal limbo exists in Calais, where Britain and France face having the rules of the asylum process being flouted by people who are genuinely trying to make a new life for themselves in the country of their choice (Britain) rather than than making it where the rules say they should. They don’t like the rules. (Seems fair enough to want to choose where you want to live).

    It’s the problem in Calais that needs to be sorted out.
    A youtube I saw is of young Iranians who took part in the protests in recent months. They want to come to England, (they don’t want to live in Turkey), and if that means living rough for some while and trying to break into lorries stopped at truck stops around Calais, so be it.
    Calais people are bound to be fed up with a problem that has been going on years.
    And I agree they have been demonised. Their numbers are potentially inexhaustible, so something has to be done.

  37. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 3:05 pm  

    Damon, they are both acts against facilities used by groups perceived as being ‘other’ by the arsonists. In that sense, they are of the same order.

  38. Sunny — on 30th December, 2009 at 3:39 pm  

    How many of these terrorists in Western targets had their families killed when they was just a boy when the infidels came to their village?!!

    Oh right. but you’re excusing an arsonist who may not have been directly affected by any form of terrorism…

  39. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 3:56 pm  

    It matters not one single iota whether they have been directly affected or not … whether by an act of terrorism or by a justified or not act of war. Nothing justifies acts of criminal vandalism/arson/harassment/intimidation … And that one person feels justified, for whatever reason still does not excuse another acting in the same manner.

  40. marvin — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:16 pm  

    I’m not excusing it, it’s wrong. I’m talking about putting 1 + 1 together and getting 2.

    If they had released some equivalent of martyrdom video, and they claimed it was in the Name of the Spitoon, and then I said, yeh, but really it was about Pants Bomber, payback, then I’d you’d be right in criticising my judgement as they’ve clearly stated their motivating ideas in their own words.

    I am saying that boneheads saw the news of Mr Pants Bomber, got angry, and set fire to the Islamic centre down the road. I think that’s far more likely an explanation than reading critical analysis of vile Islamists and their idiot defenders on the Spitoon or Harry’s Place. Which is one of the most ridiculous notions I think I’ve ever heard on here.

  41. Sunny — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:16 pm  

    Terrorists such as Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab are middle-class, University educated, and have become obsessed with hatred for the West – from actual propaganda and vile Islamist scholars.

    And the same goes for these arsonists. But you seem to have no problems attributing their actions to attempted terrorism which was not directly related to them.

    Double standards as always Marvin – thanks for displaying.

  42. Faisal — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:20 pm  

    Sunny

    Are you actually suggesting that it was the Spittoon and Harry’s Place “propaganda” which motivated this arsonist?

    I ask because you have left it quite open-ended in your OP and that seems to be way the discussion thread is debating it. And so far, there has been no clarification from you either way.

  43. Sunny — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:26 pm  

    Are you actually suggesting that it was the Spittoon and Harry’s Place “propaganda” which motivated this arsonist?

    are you on crack? Did I say that anywhere?

    I am saying that boneheads saw the news of Mr Pants Bomber, got angry, and set fire to the Islamic centre down the road. I think that’s far more likely an explanation

    So in other words – bonehead sees some extremists on TV which doesn’t directly affect him and sets fire to a mosque.

    In that case, you’re not blaming the bonehead but saying he’s affected by the wannabe terrorist.

    but when a Muslim sees something on TV and reacts then you start coming out with stuff about being middle class and left romanticism.

    Completely hypocritical. In the first case you don’t say the fault is entirely that of the arsonist and he shouldn’t be motivated by something that didn’t happen to him. And even if it did happen to him directly – would you say a revenge attack on innocents would be ok?

    Your hypocrisy is plain to see.

  44. marvin — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:27 pm  

    It matters not one single iota whether they have been directly affected or not … whether by an act of terrorism or by a justified or not act of war. Nothing justifies acts of criminal vandalism/arson/harassment/intimidation … And that one person feels justified, for whatever reason still does not excuse another acting in the same manner.

    It matters that you can analyse situations and see if it can reasonably prevented, Sunny seems to think this arson incident would never have happened if people stopped whining about immigration or terrorist supporters who happen to have Muslim names…

    In this case, it’s likely nothing or very little could have prevented it. Even banning people from mentioning Islamists on blogs.

    In the case of Abdulmutallab, as details emerge, it’s becoming very likely that different policies and procedures would have prevented his very close attempt of detonating his explosive laden Y-fronts and killing 280 people. Some answers are close to home.

    He is the fourth president of a London student Islamic society to face terrorist charges in three years.

  45. Faisal — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:32 pm  

    are you on crack? Did I say that anywhere?

    No I’m not on crack, but like I said, that has been the way the thread has debated it possibly because of the ambiguous way you worded your post. But thanks for the clarification.

    Sorry to be a pedant, but what is the “propaganda” you referred to, specifically?

  46. marvin — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:40 pm  

    Of course the bonehead arsonist or wannabe terrorist is entirely responsible for his actions and nobody else.

    If we are talking about motivating factors, in terrorism I’d say islamist ideologues are more of a motivating factor than an anti-US / Israel piece in the Independent by Robert Fisk or some piece of “anti-war”/pro-Hamas crap in the Guardian pages.

    If we are talking about motivating factors in burning down an Islamic centre, I’d say the primary motivating factor would be a basic hatred of Islam or Muslims, of which a sort of person could not inconceivably draw from simply hearing news reporting of actual or attempted terrorist atrocities by self-declared Muslims, rather than an opinion piece in the Daily Mail opining for an end to the ridiculous student visa system that allows terrorist types to easily enter the country.

  47. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 4:53 pm  

    We really need to differentiate between thought and action. To use rather emotive language … dead is dead and it matters not a single iota whether you are killed as a result of righteous indignation or misplaced religious fervour. The damage done remains the same regardless of the motives behind it.

  48. bananabrain — on 30th December, 2009 at 5:18 pm  

    look, sunny, you know something about economics, i believe. why not develop one of those econometric formulas for this? you know the sort of thing. here are some suggestions for variables:

    X = readership
    Y = socio-economic class
    Z = propensity to violence
    a = proximity to target community
    b = size of target community
    c = frequency of provocative acts (e.g. number of articles per week)
    d = harmfulness of provocative acts (e.g. number of people killed in incident)
    e = community support coefficient (for provocative acts)
    f = influence coefficient (the “channel to market” of journalist/blogger/community leader/mad preacher)
    N = vehemence of invective towards targets of criticism

    i am sure that something faisal or myself writing on the spittoon will come out as just as harmful as ahmedinejad denying the holocaust in the un general assembly, who will be not nearly as bad as mel phillips or robert fisk doing israel-bashing in the indy or muslim-bashing in the mail or whatever. let’s get some data points in there!

    b’shalom

    bananabrain

  49. Sunny — on 30th December, 2009 at 5:22 pm  

    Sorry to be a pedant, but what is the “propaganda” you referred to, specifically?

    Mostly national newspapers and neocons.

    Of course the bonehead arsonist or wannabe terrorist is entirely responsible for his actions and nobody else.

    Really? You don’t say that above. You actually said:
    And the utterly meatheaded assumption that it’s right wing propoganda that spurned this – and not the news reports of 25 British Muslims learning how to blow up planes in Yemen.

  50. marvin — on 30th December, 2009 at 6:51 pm  

    Boy are you confused. The fact that it happened the day after is almost certainly what spurned the arson attack, and it needs no Daily Mail opinion piece or Harrys Place expose.

    Perhaps you could explain how this statement absolves the bonehead of responsibility?

    Anger of anything in the news is no justification for any violence or criminal activity. One would have thought this statement obvious.

    Mostly national newspapers and neocons.

    Yup. In the same way that national newspapers and lefties have whipped up siege/victimhood mentality in the Muslim community and have helped catalyse their thoughts in to terrorist atrocities. Or the way the anti-Israel sentiment in left-world was spilling in to general hatred for anything vaguely connected to Israel resulting in assault, arson and hateful graffitic directed as Jews in January 2009.

    So are pieces in the Guardian and Independent responsible for attacks directed at Jews in January 2009?

  51. MiriamBinder — on 30th December, 2009 at 8:03 pm  

    Someone needs to get a grip … I don’t recall reading in any of the comments that anyone absolves the criminal arsonists from responsibility for the acts.

  52. Sunny — on 30th December, 2009 at 11:47 pm  

    The fact that it happened the day after is almost certainly what spurned the arson attack

    Right – so I’m glad you’re back to blaming other people than the attacker himself.

    So let’s get this straight. When Muslims get attacked, it’s the fault of other extremist Muslims.

    when whites get attacked, it’s solely the fault of the person in question.

    Have I got that clear?

    So are pieces in the Guardian and Independent responsible for attacks directed at Jews in January 2009?

    You let me know when they’ve published untrue stories about Jews which were tatamount to racial hatred and I’ll take you seriously.

  53. marvin — on 31st December, 2009 at 12:22 am  

    Sigh.

    Anybody, who does anything is entirely responsible for their actions, unless a) have mental problems or b) they have a gun or a metaphorical one to their head.

    You said “I wonder what sort of propaganda spurred an arsonist to do that”

    I am saying the spurn in question was BBC news reporting somebody has tried to blow up 280 people on Christmas Day. Arsonist thinks they need to ‘retaliate’ against Islam/Muslims by burning down a building. They may or may not be in to reading neonazi websites, but I doubt it’s the opinion piece in The Daily Telegraph or the catch-all, slightly mysterious, definitely well connected, “neo-cons”.

    Come on admit it, you think Douglas Murray has his tentacles all over this… Go on, you know you want to.

  54. DavidMWW — on 31st December, 2009 at 9:18 am  

    What the majority of commenters here have been trying to explain to you, Sunny – with varying degrees of derision – is that the potency of any propaganda spewed by the Daily Mail or the BNP pales in comparison to recent events in the news. So, contrary to the OP’s strong implication, propaganda is not necessarily a motivating factor in this crime. It is the obviousness of this fact which makes the original statement so unintentionally funny. I honestly thought you were joking at first – it’s a bit like the one when you blame your 12-pint hangover on a wine gum.

    Your two responses – that innocent people shouldn’t be blamed for the evil actions of others, and that terrorist outrages don’t absolve the arsonist’s crime – are both absolutely true on their own, but irrelevant to the point being made. They do not really detract from the joke.

  55. cjcjc — on 31st December, 2009 at 10:19 am  

    Mostly national newspapers and neocons.

    Damn those pesky neocons.

    I can just see those arsonists now…tearing themselves away from the latest American Enterprise Institute research paper, strolling along to a debate with Douglas Murray…oh yes, those guys have a lot to answer for.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.