Sunny Hundal website



  • Family

    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sunny Hundal
  • Comrades

    • Andy Worthington
    • Angela Saini
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Cath Elliott
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Dr. Mitu Khurana
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feminism for non-lefties
    • Feministing
    • Gender Bytes
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Statesman blogs
    • Operation Black Vote
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Ta-Nehisi Coates
    • The F Word
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Douglas Clark's saloon
    • Earwicga
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Rita Banerji
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • Southall Black Sisters
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head

  • Can liberals deal with extremists?


    by Sunny
    3rd November, 2006 at 2:45 am    

    Through David T, I find some notable bloggers are having a discussion on an argument by Melanie Phillips that the only way top stop the “Islamicisation of Britain” (what else does Melanie Phillips talk about?) is through a resurgence of Christianity. According to her secularists and liberals are doomed because, “It’s better to be dhimmi than dead”. In other words no one is going to risk their life fighting Muslim terrorists.

    Her premise is hilarious to the point of absurdity. Though, you probably knew I was going to say that. Let me explain why.

    1) As Shuggy points out, she is basically advocating the growth of something (Christianity) that she herself doesn’t believe in. And she doesn’t explain what would happen if Christians decided to express their faith by turning the other cheek. Or worse, given that Christians have persecuted Jews for longer than Muslims, what if it lead to increased anti-semitism in the UK?

    2) Chris Dillow makes a succint point: more people move from Muslim-majority countries to Britain than from here to there. So clearly Muslims too prefer the secular and safe environment the UK offers compared to their own countries.

    3) Norm points out that plenty of people have been trying to re-Christianise Europe and Britain anyway, with little effect, so why should this change?

    Actually I believe that London is becoming increasingly Christianised and will continue to do so; but not on the back of white Britons but African immigrants.

    4) David T says:

    Moreover, liberal values, we believe, are a crucial precondition to our ability to innovate, and find solutions to social, philosophical and technological problems. By contrast, highly conservative societies are stultified: the dead hand of tradition stifles all. That is our advantage. So, in the medium and long term, we win, and they lose.

    I agree with this too. I have a few of my own points to add.

    5) As David T alludes too, it doesn’t look MP believes in liberal and open societies anyway. Rather like religious extremists she wants a conservative, religious and closed society that is very much focused on preserving strict moral values. So what is she doing here? she hates this place.

    6) There is also the implication that liberals and secularists are wimps. Bollocks, as David T also says. We should be defending free-speech, civil liberties, free-expression (incl that of religion or atheism) and treating everyone the same. There is no evidence to suggest this is a losing fight. If anything, my experience has been that since 7/7 an increasing number of British Muslims want to differentiate themselves from religious extremists and defend their free rights.

    The problem is that debates around free-expression and civil liberties are framed around the veil or Danish cartoons. If you frame debates on civil liberties and free-speech around being able to criticise the government or being able to wear religious dress - one finds that Muslims will rapidly come on side, as I recently pointed out.

    7) Open, secular societies that provide people the freedom to express their religion while ensuring the law is equal and same towards everyone, offer Muslims the best way to express their religions right now. Even the MCB admits this, while there are secular Muslim groups here and in India.

    8) The whole “Islamicisation of Britain” narrative itself is a fallacy based on no evidence other than a few anecdotes that MP herself selectively highlights. She wrote of house in Windsor allegedly “wrecked” by Muslim youths with her usual indignant self, without later retracting the story when shown to be false.

    As I stated in my review of Londonistan, Melanie Phillips has simply latched on to Muslim religious extremism because it fits within her narrative that British society is decadent, immoral and about to collapse. She hopes that people will believe the answer lies in becoming like the Christian version of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Hah!

    9) The only “threat” we face is from the small number of extremists willing to blow themselves up. Not all Muslims, though I’m sure MP believes the latter. It is relatively easy to deal with this in a police state - you simply round up any suspects and bang them up indefinitely. If things keep getting worse that is where we will end up.

    The trick for liberals is to find a way of isolating and dealing with religious extremists while stopping a slide towards a police state. It is harder but not impossible. But Melanie Phillips sure ain’t going to help us towards that goal.

    Update: Ministry of Truth also joins the fray, as does Not Saussure.


                  Post to del.icio.us


    Filed in: Civil liberties,Religion






    77 Comments below   |  

    Reactions: Twitter, blogs
    1. Defending British values against Melanie Phillips « Not Saussure

      [...] Sunny, at Pickled Politics, provides a useful round-up, including Shuggy, Chris Dillow and Norm; Unity also has some excellent things to say on the matter. Sunny adds, to my mind, one of the best coments of the lot, saying, Melanie Phillips has simply latched on to Muslim religious extremism because it fits within her narrative that British society is decadent, immoral and about to collapse. She hopes that people will believe the answer lies in becoming like the Christian version of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Hah! [...]


    2. The Sharpener » Blog Archive » Melanie Phillips is Laughable

      [...] (Note: Mad Mel’s article has also been commented on by Chris Dillow, David T, Ministry of Truth, Norman Geras, Shuggy and Sunny) [...]




    1. anti-knee-jerk — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:26 am  

      What a presumptious question! As if to say there are no liberal extremists for there no doubt are many. Who is dealing with them?

    2. razib — on 3rd November, 2006 at 8:04 am  

      And she doesn’t explain what would happen if Christians decided to express their faith by turning the other cheek

      when has this every happened with a christian majority society in a position to impose their will on others? (the christians who were conquered by muslims don’t count since they were generally monophysites who were at tension with the melkite elite who were decapitated by the invading arabs). so that is a moot point.

      Or worse, given that Christians have persecuted Jews for longer than Muslims

      this is a strange point since christianity predates islam by 600 years, and was a religion of imperium for about 250 years before the rise of islam. the christian emperors up ’till theodosius had relatively amicable associations with jews compared to the later tensions (early christians detested jews for religious rivalry reasons, but even theodosius the great maintained good relations with the leaders of the jewish community around 400). overall christian nations have an atrocious record in how they treat jews, nevertheless, the past few hundred years have been better (though there has been concomittant secularism).

      more people move from Muslim-majority countries to Britain than from here to there. So clearly Muslims too prefer the secular and safe environment the UK offers compared to their own countries.

      :) come now, they prefer secular environments? yes, safe, surely, who doesn’t? economically vibrant. large and secure welfare states. a right to express themselves however they wish. but this doesn’t mean that the root values of liberalism which we presume lead to all these goods are things that muslims, or humans in general, truly support. they certainly don’t support them back in the homelands. this does not mean subsequent generations might not have different more liberal values, but i am skeptical about the 1st gen. though perhaps i’ll look up survey data.

      Actually I believe that London is becoming increasingly Christianised and will continue to do so; but not on the back of white Britons but African immigrants.

      phil jenkins makes this point in the next christianity.

      There is also the implication that liberals and secularists are wimps.

      liberal and secular societies are fearsome and unstoppable in war against pre-modern societies. it isn’t about implementation, it’s about will.

      The trick for liberals is to find a way of isolating and dealing with religious extremists while stopping a slide towards a police state

      agreed, i pray for you on that side of the pond….

    3. David — on 3rd November, 2006 at 9:59 am  

      Lberals and secularists are wimps? I’d easily kick Melanie Phillips’s ass in a fight. Probably.

      Good post, Sunny.

    4. Leon — on 3rd November, 2006 at 10:39 am  

      Actually I believe that London is becoming increasingly Christianised and will continue to do so; but not on the back of white Britons but African immigrants.

      That depends on whether the demographics hold up. London is roughly 40% BME. In our life time the biggest ethnic group within that will be mixed race people.

      Mixed race people tend to be less religious and more secular/atheist than the other bme groups (the most recent polling I saw showed they place religion about 7 of top ten concerns compare 1,2 or 3 for the other ethnic groups).

    5. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 3rd November, 2006 at 10:45 am  

      The only “threat” we face is from the small number of extremists willing to blow themselves up.

      … and those that fund them, and those that hide them, and those that nod agreement when one complains about the moral corruption of the west, those that agree that the holocaust memorial is to exclusive, those that agree that women invite rape, those that believe violent retribution is appropiate if one feels insulted, those that believe homosexuals should be perscuted, those that say “something should be done” but distances themselves from those that listen, agree and act.

      These people are all as much of the problem to liberal society as the extremists that kill.

      TFI

    6. TheFriendlyInfidel — on 3rd November, 2006 at 10:52 am  

      what else does Melanie Phillips talk about?

      Just like PP she has an obsession with political Islam and talks about it a lot, and just like PP she has an obsession with Melanie Phillips, but unlike PP she has no interest in PP.

      TFI

    7. soru — on 3rd November, 2006 at 11:32 am  

      It kind of depends on what you mean by ‘liberal’.

      In economic terms, the classic 19C laissez-faire liberal believed that the rules of the market are fair, and that right or wrong was a simple matter of whether you followed those rules. Property was the polar opposite of theft.

      As a consequence of the market being fair, it followed that if someone was poor, that fact proved they were stupid, lazy, or robbed by someone who had broken the rules.

      Asking ‘isn’t unemployment a bit high’ was regarded as an illegitimate question, if that was what the rules said unemployment should be, then any attempt to change that would involve breaking the rules, which would be wrong.

      Those beliefs lead to the Great Depression of the 1920s, and a widespread rejection of any kind of support for a market economy at all, with communism rejecting the idea of property and fascism rejecting the idea of rules.

      Keynsianism, social democracy and the US version of them (‘big government’ liberalism) turned out to be the answer to the problems of the 1930s, not rejecting the market, but making the attempt to place it under at least partial democratic control.

      I think there is a correspondence now with a certain type of legalistic liberal who regards the legal system today in the same way as the laissez fair liberals of the 1920s regarded the market system: as a set of rules that defined, instead of supported, what was right.

      So if the legal system says someone is innocent, then that fact is proof that they did not commit a crime, are not dangerous, or were wrongly acquitted by someone breaking the rules. Asking what the conviction rate for rape is is an illegitimate question, if that was what the rules said the rate should be, then any attempt to change that would involve breaking the rules, which would be wrong.

      There is some kind of danger that that kind of selective blindness could lead to an equivalent populist rejection of the legal system, probably taking the twin forms of a police state and campaign of rebellion, with each feeding off the rise of the other.

    8. Nick — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:28 pm  

      Liberals like me and you may not be wimps, but I fear our politicians are. I think that’s the issue: for example as far as I am aware all the major parties are for faith schools, regardless of the divisions this will promote in our society. Why? Because our “democracy” is finely balanced across a few marginal wards.

      True fearless liberal politicians would campaign on the separation of church and state, reform of the electoral system etc etc.

      I thought it was telling that Alan Johnson u-turned on faith schools after representation from 35 Labour MPs worried about losing their seats. Sod the country then!

    9. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:50 pm  

      We’ve seen too many movies. The bad guys are out of control. We need to hire a badder guy to sort out the problem. It’s time to let Kurt Russell & Nick Cage out the maximum security prison to chew bubblegum and kick ass… and they’re all outta bubblegum

      The very reason America is still in power. The greatest way to maintain power is to create a problem and an unseen enemy that scares the shit out of everyone, then convince them only you have the key to unleash kurt & cage on them to save the world

    10. Clairwil — on 3rd November, 2006 at 12:53 pm  

      Bloody hell! So are we all to pretend to be Christians to preserve democracy. The woman is mad! The only guarantee of religious freedom is a secular state that doesn’t seek to ‘make windows into men’s souls’.

      MP seems hell bent on creating an ‘us and them’ situation which will only end up pushing people into adopting extreme positions. Groups who feel under attack are not noted for their open mindedness or inclination to compromise.

      MP may get a thrill at the prospect of an all out religious war, I myself prefer trying to muddle along as peacefully as possible, after all we’re all stuck with each other. I can only suggest she challenges Hizb ut-Tahrir to a wrestling match to release a bit of that frustration and leaves the rest of us in peace.

    11. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd November, 2006 at 1:00 pm  

      Historically, Christians kick ass

      If this war is a religious one, I say let the Muslims & the Christians go to the fields of golgotha and kick seven shades of hades out of each other and leave the rest of us the fuck alone

    12. x Pixie Dust x — on 3rd November, 2006 at 1:09 pm  

      Hear hear Kismet.

      It’s all going to end in tears. This tit for tat nonsense… They’re all as bad as each other.

    13. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd November, 2006 at 1:18 pm  

      Here’s to a world where we all get tit without any tat

    14. Sid — on 3rd November, 2006 at 2:03 pm  

      From Nick Cohen’s review of Ian Buruma’s ‘Death in Amsterdam’:

      “For all his subtlety and seriousness, Buruma falls into the trap and is uncomfortable with brown-skinned people who take ideas of human freedom too literally. When Ayaan Hirsi Ali, whose film for van Gogh on the treatment of Muslim women provoked his murder, tells him that there can be no colour bar on feminist freedoms, Buruma says that “one can’t help sensing that in her battle for secularism, there are hints of zealousness, echoes perhaps of her earlier enthusiasm for the Muslim Brotherhood”. There is a revealing slipperiness in that sentence: the use of “one can’t help sensing” instead of “I think”; and the deft deployment of a “perhaps” to slip in the slur that those who believe in the emancipation of women are the moral equivalents of those who would keep them subjugated. Murder in Amsterdam is well written, well researched and often wise, but a faint whiff of intellectual cowardice rises from its pages none the less.”

      This points to the other extreme: The liberal fundamentalist who possess the same zealotry and displaced religion of hardcore religious fundamentalists. They’re usually lapsed religionsists, ex-Trots or ex-Communists who cannot help excanging one set of rigid beliefs with another. This is why Ian Buruma is correct and darling Nicky is, of course, wrong.

    15. Sid — on 3rd November, 2006 at 2:07 pm  

      sorry, ‘Murder in Amsterdam’.

    16. sonia — on 3rd November, 2006 at 2:45 pm  

      3. David :-) should be a fun fight to watch! ringside seats anyone?

      kismet good one. i suggest they all go to mars to have it out

    17. sonia — on 3rd November, 2006 at 2:49 pm  

      ‘rules of the market’ were fair. yes what a clever one that was - seems to have fooled so many people. oh right, some people can’t go to market - never mind that, it’s fair, right? the market ‘exists’ outside of our social institutions - so of course it’s fair. nothing to do with who’s powerful, so can buy and sell and set the price or the conditions, oh no, it all sorts ‘itself’ out.

      ha ha ha

    18. Leon — on 3rd November, 2006 at 2:50 pm  

      Sonia 17, yep and it’s up there with the amusing notion that markets are “free”…

    19. Bert Preast — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:02 pm  

      As a raving atheist secularist I’m unlikely to look to the christians for defence. They’re the biggest wussies of the lot.

    20. Dave Hill — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:02 pm  

      I’ve always been very reluctant to take the “Melanie is mad” line. A more substantial response to her arguments is more likely to defeat them. But, you know, she’s MAD isn’t she?

    21. sonia — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:11 pm  

      yeah leon! free and fair just like the elections in bangladesh.

      hyuk hyuk

    22. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:22 pm  

      re: 21. As the second cousin of ex-president ershad’s maid servant who worked for assasinated president Ziaur rahman’s brother-in-law who once sat on a rickshaw that drove assasinated president shekh mujhibur rahman from banani to gushan once, I have to disagree with what you said. I had a joke about martial law and judge dread but I’ve bored myself and I like you too much

    23. Uncleji being a liberal is not much use in a fight — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:39 pm  

      When the chips are down being a liberal is much use in a fight as while we are being tolerant, attempting to encompass all points of view, so crazy fudy/authorian type is hacking you to pieces. Plus it takes more shots to take down some dude fired up by paradise/heaven/Uncle Joe/Adolf then normal people.

    24. Uncleji Sings Lou Reed's "Beginning of a Great Adventure" — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:44 pm  

      What we need to do is to follow Lou Reeds advise and get ourselves a Liberal Milita.

      “Why stop at one, I might have ten, a regular tv brood
      Id breed a little liberal army in the wood
      Just like these redneck lunatics I see at the local bar
      With their tribe of mutant inbred piglets with cloven hooves

      Id teach em how to plant a bomb, start a fire, play guitar
      And if they catch a hunter, shoot him in the nuts
      Id try to be as progressive as I could possibly be
      As long as I dont have to try too much”

    25. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:46 pm  

      Agreed. I’m a liberal (read: pussy) but if I got into a fight, there’d be nothing clean about. I’m not stopping until eyes are gouged, testicles pinched and brain pulverised

    26. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:49 pm  

      PS: Shiniest, impalpable urinal is an anagram of Melanie Phillips is a nutbar

    27. Sid — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:50 pm  

      I’m prepared for everything but testicle pinching.

    28. Uncleji hoping not to meet Kismet in a Dark Alley — on 3rd November, 2006 at 3:55 pm  

      Ah you’re in the fine tradition of the physical force chartists http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/CHphysical.htm

    29. Uncleji fears a Very British Coup — on 3rd November, 2006 at 4:05 pm  

      What really worries me is the Army. Richard Dannatt, Chief of the General Staff, already interved in politics how long before the tanks are parked on Parliament Green to the joy of the Daily Mail.

      Its clear that the New Labour Revolution the Great Leader Blair & the Dear Leader Brown can only be defended against Reactionary forces with the formation of a Labour Party Millita.

      This would for the benefit of boosting the decling membership of political parties.

    30. Kismet Hardy — on 3rd November, 2006 at 4:45 pm  

      Um uncleji, I also hope I don’t wake up one day and find you ramming anything up my dark alley

      What happenned before was a mistake. And I thought you were auntiji so I let you

    31. Uncleji is Auntieji on Weekends — on 3rd November, 2006 at 5:01 pm  

      do the beast with two backs ?

    32. Bert Preast — on 3rd November, 2006 at 5:04 pm  

      #29 - The army being neither liberals nor extremists might be just the lads to pull us out of the soup here. What are the skiving buggers doing loafing about all over the world in our hour of need, damn their eyes?

    33. Uncleji is Auntieji on Weekends — on 3rd November, 2006 at 5:19 pm  

      Travelling the world meeting new interesting people and shooting them.

    34. Bert Preast — on 3rd November, 2006 at 5:31 pm  

      Well it’s high time they stopped larking about. Shoot them more quickly and get back where you’re needed.

    35. Uncleji is Auntieji on Weekends — on 3rd November, 2006 at 5:36 pm  

      Hmmmm problem the interesting people have a habit of shooting back.
      Military Coup don’t tend be a good idea unless their left wing like the Carnation Revolution
      Your’e not Dave 3 Para under another name are u ?

    36. Bert Preast — on 3rd November, 2006 at 5:39 pm  

      Only two things drop from the skies, matey. I am RGJ, not PARA. :froth:

      http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/Bert_Preast/image004.jpg

    37. Not Saussure — on 3rd November, 2006 at 5:50 pm  

      From the article in Brussels Journal that’s got Mel so excited:

      Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose

      Discuss, with particular reference to the Soviet Union during the period 1941 — 1945. Or Republican Spain, or Vietnam…

    38. Bert Preast — on 3rd November, 2006 at 5:58 pm  

      Not sure you can say communism isn’t a sort of religion. And Republican Spain lost anyway.

      A better example would be the UK in WW2 - from all accounts I’ve read religion was no motivating factor and everyone was happy to serve alongside jews etc., just not to lend them money. It’s been the same every time we’ve fought since, too. Thinking about it we probably qualified as secular in WW1, too.

    39. Don — on 3rd November, 2006 at 6:34 pm  

      ‘Secularists, it seems to me, are also less keen on fighting. Since they do not believe in an afterlife, this life is the only thing they have to lose’

      So religious folk are more keen on fighting? Isn’t that the problem in the first place?

      And ‘secularists’? Not all secularists are atheists; pea-brained argument.

    40. Not Saussure — on 3rd November, 2006 at 7:12 pm  

      Bert, while communism may well have characteristics similar to religion I’m pretty certain communists don’t believe in an afterlife, which was the point the chap’s argument. Nor, in point of fact, do I think many Russians necessarily saw themselves as sacrificing their lives for the eventual triumph of the communist revolution.

      Some doubtless did, but I’m certain plenty of them thought they were defending Mother Russia against invasion or dying in order to protect their families and friends, or because they’d got no choice in the matter so they might as well take some of the enemy with them or any number of other good secular reasons.

      I agree with Don; it’s a pea-brained argument.

    41. Bert Preast — on 3rd November, 2006 at 7:22 pm  

      “Nor, in point of fact, do I think many Russians necessarily saw themselves as sacrificing their lives for the eventual triumph of the communist revolution”

      I’d disagree rather strongly with that. Many nazis saw themselves as sacrificing for the reich, and many Britons saw themselves as sacrificing for king and country/empire. Same with Japanese, Italians, you name it. Why expect the Russians to be different? It was quite a common theme in those days.

      But as you go on rightly to say, most fought against invasion or to protect family and friends. In which case being secular or atheist isn’t going to affect one’s motivation much either.

    42. Anas — on 4th November, 2006 at 1:35 am  

      I’m not sure about extremists of Melanie Philip’s persuasion, maybe ignoring them is the best option. But if we want to root out Islamist extremism, the best resource this country has is is its Muslim population.

    43. Douglas Clark — on 4th November, 2006 at 3:43 am  

      Sunny,

      Of course liberals can deal with extremists. It’s what we do. It’s what you do. It’s what I do. It’s what on a good day Harry’s Place does. So long as there are enough of us.

      (PS: what happened to my article?)

    44. Chairwoman — on 4th November, 2006 at 11:51 am  

      Bert # 38 - What do you mean ‘just not lend them money’?

    45. Amir — on 4th November, 2006 at 4:18 pm  

      St. Sunny Aquinas, [& the Liberal Inquisition]

      The answer to your question – “Can liberals deal with extremists?” – is No. Let me answer your points directly:

      (I) “Or worse, given that Christians have persecuted Jews for longer than Muslims, what if it lead to increased anti-semitism in the UK?”

      That’s a preposterous piece of conjecture. Christians, generally speaking, are the doughtiest supporters of the State of Israel. I’m a Zionist – unashamedly so. Most of my Christian comrades are Zionists. So are a vast majority of America’s pious Protestants. Some of the finest Holocaust historians and post-Holocaust intellectuals are Christian. Cultural Marxism (aka, political correctness) is a much greater threat to British Jewry than a Christian revival. What is more, you are forgetting the real equation of multicultural-mayhem: Islamic immigration = more anti-Semitism; East European immigration = anti-black bigotry. So stop immigration. Very simple, innit?

      (II) “The whole “Islamicisation of Britain” narrative itself is a fallacy based on no evidence.”

      Oh really? Just consider the demographics. The number of Moslems in contemporary Europe is estimated to be 50 million. It is expected to double in twenty years. By 2025, one third of all European children will be born to Moslem families. Today “Mohammed” is already the most popular name for new-born boys in Brussels, Amsterdam, Rotterdam, and other major European cities. In the name of “diversity” and “tolerance”, Britain has accepted thousands of foreign immigrants who, just as in France, cannot be assimilated. Caught between Islam and unemployment, these washouts of the “Britain for everyone” policy are the perfect prey for ultra-conservative imams or Umma-nationalists. (Sunny’s frantic arm-waving of “racism” and “discrimination” is intended to make us grovel in the dirt and praise the “benefits” of immigration.)

      (III) “So clearly Muslims too prefer the secular and safe environment the UK offers compared to their own countries.”

      Wishful thinking. Polling data does not confirm this view.

      (IV) “Actually I believe that London is becoming increasingly Christianised and will continue to do so; but not on the back of white Britons but African immigrants.”

      Correct. One of the few, decent things to emerge from mass immigration is the presence of Nigerian Christianity. We need more of this, and less of this. Preferences should go to individuals who speak our English language, can contribute significantly to our society, have an education, come from countries with a history of assimilation in Britain, and do wish to become Britons. And as we remain a predominantly Christian country, why should not a preference go to Christians?

      (V) “Rather like religious extremists she wants a conservative, religious and closed society that is very much focused on preserving strict moral values.”

      Oh phooey. Trying to smear Mel P. with the “extremist” badge is so, so lame. Do you think the beautiful Amish are “extremists” too? Why the hell should the rest of us live in liberals’ filthy moral sewer?

      (VI) “The only “threat” we face is from the small number of extremists willing to blow themselves up.”

      With 500,000 illegal immigrants now entering Europe each year from North Africa, Islam’s preachers and practitioners are rapidly reversing the verdict of the Battle of Tours. Strategically, Islamic immigration is a far greater threat to Europe than Al Qaeda’s terrorism. Stopping the flow of legal (and illegal) immigration is going to be a lot more productive than butchering Iraq’s children or incinerating Pakistani families with daisy-cutters or bunker-busters. Is it any surprise that the “War on Terror’s” hottest-eyed supporters on both sides of the Atlantic are ex-Trotskyists who hate Christianity and the United Kingdom but have yet to lose their Leninist tendencies to worship naked state power and global intervention?

      (VII) “The trick for liberals is to find a way of isolating and dealing with religious extremists while stopping a slide towards a police state. It is harder but not impossible.”

      No they can’t. That’s the problem. Liberals do not appreciate traditional values and customs, along with churches and strong families, as an alternative to state-backed social engineering and managerial public policy. Without faith and without stable families, the development of conscience is stunted, private life is diminished, and the power of the state increased. By opposing tradition and embracing ugliness, undermining marriage and the tools of discipline, in rejecting absolute morality and legitimizing cultural relativism, “liberalism” is the ideological equivalent to taking a gun and blowing your brains out. Under a liberal regime, Britain will remain a very attractive target to aggressive and self-assertive Islamic colonizers. By supporting multiculturalism and mass immigration, liberalism hastens this process by up to 50 years. Period.

      Go ahead, blow your brains out.

      Amir

    46. ZinZin — on 4th November, 2006 at 5:29 pm  

      “So clearly Muslims too prefer the secular and safe environment the UK offers compared to their own countries.”

      Fair point Amir but its worth bearing in mind that not all Muslims are fundis. There are problems with Muslim integration as many incidents throughout europe have indicated.

      Also Amir why not aim your reactionary guns at the sexual liberalism and multiculturalism your attacks on liberalism are too wide ranging. In short you are throwing away the baby with the bath water. There are positive aspects of liberalism which you fail to acknowledge.

    47. Don — on 4th November, 2006 at 5:32 pm  

      Amir,

      ‘ Christians, generally speaking, are the doughtiest supporters of the State of Israel.’

      I don’t know if you watch ‘The Sopranos’ but I enjoyed a recent scene when the wounded boss is prayed over by evangelicals. Later, his Jewish consigliari’s wife says that whatever you might think about evangelicals at least they are friends to the Jews because of the whole Holy Lands thing. To which Hech murmurs ‘Just wait.’ Christian support for Israel is, largely, a temporary historical abberation. From a long term perspective christianity is anti-Judaism, if not anti-semitic, by it’s very nature. Which is not to say all christians are anti-semitic, but that the two faiths are incompatible.

      ‘ One of the few, decent things to emerge from mass immigration is the presence of Nigerian Christianity.’

      You will understand why I don’t share your enthusiasm for evangelical influx.

      ‘Do you think the beautiful Amish are “extremists” too?’

      Yes.

      “After he had pulled the last tooth,” Anna remembered, “my mom looked at me and said, ‘I guess you won’t be talking anymore.’ ”

      http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2005/feature_labi_janfeb05.msp

      ‘Liberals do not appreciate traditional values’

      Yes we do, we just don’t place them beyond questioning.

    48. Vikrant — on 4th November, 2006 at 6:31 pm  

      Amir I enjoy your comments here at PP. At time thoughts closely echo mine but then there are days like this when you dont seem to make sense. You are getting carried away with religion. Pinkos denigerate the majority religions of their own countries, thats a fact. Multiculturalism thrives at the expense of native British Anglo-Saxon Christian culture , just as Indian secularism entails uncritical minorititsm while Indian HRD Ministry is jelously busy destroying Hindu symbolism from public spaces. But nevertheless I wouldnt like to see “Hindu Rashtra” or a “Christian” government in UK. Take religion out of nationalism. For me my ethno-national origins rather than religion is my primary identity.

    49. Vikrant — on 4th November, 2006 at 6:34 pm  

      Amir i think you’ll be interested in this article which compares Indian (Pseudo-)Secularism and British Multiculturalism.

      http://acorn.nationalinterest.in/?p=2059

    50. Jagdeep — on 5th November, 2006 at 8:34 pm  

      Muscular liberals have got their muscles oiled up for bombing Iraq and starting wars. Wonder what else they have up their ideological sleeve.

      I notice nobody at Harry’s Place, unlike Norman Geras, Andrew Sullivan and the laughable Joanne (sic) Harri, have acknowledged their historic and colossal error yet.

      In the meantime, lets see what the bodybuilder liberals, oil dripping off their muscles, have to say about things (they were all on Melanie Phillips side over Iraq and Lebanon too, ya know!)

    51. ZinZin — on 5th November, 2006 at 9:15 pm  

      In the meantime, lets see what the bodybuilder liberals, oil dripping off their muscles, have to say about things (they were all on Melanie Phillips side over Iraq and Lebanon too, ya know!)

      Do Harry’s place posters have such physiques?

    52. Jagdeep — on 5th November, 2006 at 9:27 pm  

      I dont know. But they call themselves muscular liberals dont they?

    53. Anas — on 5th November, 2006 at 9:34 pm  

      Hey Amir, have you read the Melanie Philips piece on my blog? The link is http://anask.wordpress.com/2006/10/29/who-is-she/

      I’d like to know what you think of it given that you don’t think MP’s an extremist.

    54. Anas — on 5th November, 2006 at 10:47 pm  

      Amir is going around in logical circles: rather absurdly he’s trying to justify his anti-Muslim bigotry on the basis of his belief in widespread Muslim anti-Jewish bigotry.

      His endorsement of Nigerian Christianity is
      comical too, given the views of many prominent Nigerian Christian figures on homosexuality and sex before marriage which match those of the most intolerant Muslims.

      From http://www.petertatchell.net/religion/nigeria-akinola.htm:

      With the blessing of the Nigerian Anglican Church and its leader, Archbishop Peter Akinola, the government of Nigeria has tabled in parliament one of the world’s most comprehensive and repressive anti-gay laws.

      “The new legislation will strip lesbian and gay Nigerians of their already limited civil rights and outlaw almost every expression, affirmation and celebration of homosexu ali ty, including same-sex marriage and blessing ceremonies. It will also prohibit gay organisations, gay churches, gay safer sex education, the advocacy of gay human rights, and sympathetic advice and welfare support for lesbians and gay men.

      “It widens Nigeria’s already draconian anti-gay laws, to criminalise any expression, public or private, of same-sex affection or relationship. The mere attendance at a gathering to support the gay community or to learn about HIV prevention for gay people will become a crime.”

      And this from an article in Religion in the News giving a summary of a report in a Nigerian paper which detailed the grounds to the Nigerian Church’s objections to homosexuality and same sex marriages, which were:

      1. That the Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion)’s adherence to the scriptures from an evangelical perspective is nonnegotiable.

      2. That homosexuality and homosexual practice from the scriptural perspective is sinful and condemnable. (“While arguments in the West for decriminalizing homosexuality is supposedly based on Science, we would want to base our position on scriptures, which for us is definitive and primary.”)

      3. That the Nigerian church is not championing an insignificant minority view created from cultural biases but the view of a majority that has been held unceasingly for centuries by the church. Hence, it is unkind to accuse the leaders of the Nigerian Anglicans as suffering from homophobia.

      4. That a satanic, secularist, materialistic, self-centered spirit was behind the acceptance of homosexual practice and its promotion by certain Western Christians.

      5. That the church accepts and will minister to homosexuals, if they see themselves as having fallen short of biblical and Christian standards and seek repentance.

      6. That the Nigerian church considers the issue as very important and the acceptance of homosexual practice either as good or tolerable can lead to a split in the church.

      7. That the current homosexual debate is an attack on the church, which if not strongly resisted will pollute the church and weaken its power to preach the Gospel to a permissive society.

      8. That marriage as instituted in the scriptures is between a man and a woman. Anything besides this is a perversion of God’s instruction and an assault on the sovereignty of God.

      Hardly in the Western spirit of freedom, tolerance, democracy, and human rights, or indeed the spirit of modern Mainstream British Christianity and especially Anglicanism, is it? In fact if this is the kind of (foreign) Christianity (one that is unwilling to depart from a strict literalistic interpretation of what are after all extremely bloody scriptures) that is becoming more prevalent then doesn’t the Church itself begin to pose a threat to the freedoms that we all enjoy, Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews and Atheists?

      BTW. Melanie’s views on the permissibility targeting civilians seem to be quite close to those of al-Qardawi’s. That’s probably because as a religious Jew she’s heavily influenced by the book of Joshua.

    55. Katy — on 5th November, 2006 at 11:14 pm  

      Melanie’s views on the permissibility targeting civilians seem to be quite close to those of al-Qardawi’s

      No. I am not a fan of Melanie Phillips at all but you are completely misrepresenting what she says. Melanie Phillips does not condone the targeting of civilians. She disputes the notion that Israel “targets” civilians at all. What she says is that Israel targets gunmen who bury themselves in civilian communities because of self-defence; she argues that civilian deaths are inevitable because of the tactics of Israel’s opponents. You might not agree with that but it is not the same as condoning “targeting” of civilians.

      That’s probably because as a religious Jew she’s heavily influenced by the book of Joshua

      WTF? Honestly, Anas, sometimes you just lose the plot completely. What are you saying, that all religious Jews approve of the targeting of innocent civilians? How many religious Jews do you actually know? How do you know what does or does not influence them? As a Muslim I would have thought you would understand how it feels to have people who know nothing about your holy texts throw out of context portions back in your face as proof of what religious Muslims feel, think, believe or condone.

    56. Nick — on 5th November, 2006 at 11:37 pm  

      Yeah, there are lots more Muslims now but, um… has anyone noticed the 1,000,000 plus Eastern Europeans that have turned up in London over the past year?! Not many Muslims among them…

      Re demographics and the UK I think the current problem is more about the broader “social experiment” taking place by a bunch of Scots to whom London has always been a foriegn city, so who cares how much more foreign it becomes? But I grew up here and actually resent the rapid loss of its character and identity, regardless of what colour it happens to be.

    57. Clairwil — on 5th November, 2006 at 11:46 pm  

      Nick,
      If you think the ‘bunch of Scots’ in charge are working in our interests. I urge you to come up to Glasgow which has been governed by a seemingly indestructible Labour establishment. I’ll be happy to show you the sights. As for London being a foreign city, the union was agreed by a tiny elite, neither the Scots or English were asked for their opinions on it. Believe me nationality is irrelevant to any of the government, if it pleased the south of England they’d gas every last Scot outside government.

    58. Anas — on 5th November, 2006 at 11:48 pm  

      No. I am not a fan of Melanie Phillips at all but you are completely misrepresenting what she says. Melanie Phillips does not condone the targeting of civilians. She disputes the notion that Israel “targets” civilians at all. What she says is that Israel targets gunmen who bury themselves in civilian communities because of self-defence; she argues that civilian deaths are inevitable because of the tactics of Israel’s opponents. You might not agree with that but it is not the same as condoning “targeting” of civilians.

      Errr, Katy read the article I linked to on my blog. By acting as an apologist for terrorist actions such as those of the Israeli army that clearly targeted civilians (as per the findings of at least two high profile human rights organisations), she is ipso facto condoning the targeting of civilians. Just as I would be condoning targeting civilians if I claimed that Hamas’ actions were always justified.

      WTF? Honestly, Anas, sometimes you just lose the plot completely. What are you saying, that all religious Jews approve of the targeting of innocent civilians? How many religious Jews do you actually know? How do you know what does or does not influence them? As a Muslim I would have thought you would understand how it feels to have people who know nothing about your holy texts throw out of context portions back in your face as proof of what religious Muslims feel, think, believe or condone.

      LOL, that was my point exactly, Katy. BTW, there are religious Jews who believe that murderous Israeli actions can be justifed by the bible (just as there are Muslims who believe terrorism can be justifed by reference to the Quran). One was interviewed on the channel 4 documentary the Fundamentalists a few weeks back.

    59. Nick — on 6th November, 2006 at 8:24 am  

      Clairwill - well, never mind: you’ll be independent this time next year! BTW - for all the talk about independent Scotland, no one south of the border seems to have realised it will mean an immediate general election here: after all, half the government will be foreigners…

    60. Chairwoman — on 6th November, 2006 at 9:30 am  

      Anas - I think we can agree that seeing our fundamentalists airing their bizarre and obscure views on national televeision is, at best, an embarrassment.

      Nick - That’s an interesting point, and one I look forward to seeing our Scottish cabinet deal with.

    61. Bert Preast — on 6th November, 2006 at 9:53 am  

      Chairwoman #44,

      Sorry, been reading Spike Millligan’s war memoirs: “Lt. Joe Mostyn. This photo was circulated to all members of the Battery with a warning not to lend money”

    62. Electro — on 6th November, 2006 at 1:47 pm  

      Amir makes seom very good points. The article by the bishop of rochester, whose father was a convert from Islam, speaks volumes. It seems that every time so,meone says something truthful about extremists, no one is will;ing to listen to them.

      I’d even take issue with the term “extremist”. It is employed to hide and dissimulate rather than to enlighten.

      On this side of the pond, you’ve no idea how hilarious it is to listen to frightened Europeans invent euphemism after euphemism ( “youths”, “extremeists” etc) to describe a group of people who have a VERY definate name and identitiy and who invoke both all the time.

      At some point the absurdity of dismissing the views of an increasing number of intelligent and thoughtful reformers as “islamophobic” will become obvious.

      Anyone these days who is up to speed must necessarily be calssed as “bigot”, as “misinformed”, as “hate-monger”.

    63. sonia — on 6th November, 2006 at 1:52 pm  

      so - did people regard the Queen Mother as ‘foreign’ in london btw?

    64. Sunny — on 6th November, 2006 at 2:57 pm  

      I’d even take issue with the term “extremist”.

      How about the word terrorist? Seems to me, people such as yourself complain about the use of lanbguage to shut down debate when it applies to yourself, but are happy to confer labels on “the other side” quite easily. Yours and Amir’s position would be much more credible if you applies those labels consistently.

    65. bananabrain — on 6th November, 2006 at 3:41 pm  

      maybe the bish of rochester has done us all a favour by providing us with a useful indirect definition of the much-heralded “civil islam”: ie the sort of islam that will be accepted in the uk is the sort that can find a sharia-inspired reason *not* to execute the aforementioned bish of rochester for being an apostate! let that be the test, rather than the justly-maligned cricket test. if you can’t sign up to that, sling your abu-hamza-style hook and piss off to northern nigeria or baluchistan and lord it over us dhimmis in absentia.

      and anas, you really have lost the plot this time. a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. you clearly know crap-all about judaism, yet you seem to wish to hold yourself out as an expert on how all the evil stuff you go on about the israelis doing is inspired by the bible, or that stupid settler woman from the fundamentalists programme (she would be right at home in pizza HuT, they’re all alike, these born-again nincompoops) - let me tell you, i know far better than you where melanie phillips goes to synagogue, because i have up till recently been a member there myself . it’s a far more religiously-left-wing synagogue than you’d expect. far from sharing her political views, the rabbi is a famously inspirational, saintly, ecumenically minded and compassionate interfaith activist and the congregational mindset is notoriously intellectually rigorous and modern-minded whilst maintaining a robust attitude to religious law. you, by contrast, have absolutely no concept, whatsoever, of how jewish law works, or of what its relationship to the actions of the israeli government and argument may or may not be. you’re just slinging mud. now do us all a favour and pull your head out from where it is right now because frankly it’s making your breath smell bad.

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    66. Anas — on 6th November, 2006 at 4:05 pm  

      Bananabrain, read my reply to Katy. I was parodying the opinions of many of those who presume to be authorites on the relationship between Islam and terrorism, but who are completely (and wilfully) misinformed about Islam and how its core texts are usually interpreted. These authroties also seem to regard the interpretations of extremists and militants as the most faithful interpretations of the texts.

      I agree I have no “concept, whatsoever, of how jewish law works, or of what its relationship to the actions of the israeli government.” That was kind of the point of my comment: you’ve got to remember I was talking to Amir. I do understand that many orthodox mainstream Jews such as Jonathan Sacks (I don’t know how mainstream he is) reject these extremist interpretations of the torah — and who am I to argue with them.

      However, on a separate and not unrelated issue it is interesting in general to examine how easily prominent members of the British Jewish community can get away with justifying or apologising for brutal acts of terrorism, at least in comparison with the Muslim community(if you want more details then I’ve commented on this in my Melanie Philips blog entry). And no, to pre-empt the accusation, I don’t think there’s some great Zionist/Jewish conspiracy behind this. I just think some kinds of terrorism are more acceptable because they are perceived as being beneficial to Western interests.

    67. bananabrain — on 6th November, 2006 at 6:24 pm  

      jonathan sacks is about smack dab in the middle for me - in other words, about half the community thinks he’s a backward obscurantist and the other half thinks he’s a kowtowing assimilationist. his best stuff is published, not the puffery you get in the media. he’s a first class religious moral philosopher and an utterly shite politician/community leader, so actually i have great respect for him as a thought leader if not as a representative. i recommend the following interview for careful reading:

      http://www.ajn.com.au/news/news.asp?pgID=1868

      incidentally, however, you will be able to divine that despite his middle-of-the-roadness, he is unflinching in his support for israel as a state and a concept - if clearly not for everything their government and army get up to, now or previously. the sort of ignorant yahoos running round the west bank who think it’s big and clever to take the book of joshua literally as a guide to modern politics, unlike rabbi sacks, clearly haven’t read the last sentence in the book of judges.

      those who presume to be authorities on the relationship between Islam and terrorism, but who are completely (and wilfully) misinformed about Islam and how its core texts are usually interpreted. These authorities also seem to regard the interpretations of extremists and militants as the most faithful interpretations of the texts.

      and in that group you should not seek to include me. or katy for that matter!

      it is interesting in general to examine how easily prominent members of the British Jewish community can get away with justifying or apologising for brutal acts of terrorism, at least in comparison with the Muslim community

      oh, really. well, let’s see how many prominent members of the british jewish community have stood up and condemned recent israeli actions:

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/5154838.stm

      ooh, look at that. now, admittedly, the organisation that organised that (two of whose leading members i know pretty well) are not regarded as mainstream, but the signatories are pretty bloody prominent. in fact, they represent a vast section of the sort of people that are always held up as great examples of jews-who-have-succeeded-by-avoiding-being-religious. and what about george soros? prominent enough for you?

      now, let’s see how many “prominent members of the muslim community” have got up and condemned muslim-on-muslim violence, or even, heaven forbid, violence perpetrated by muslims on non-muslims? do me a fecking favour. nobody seems prepared to break omertá on that, do they? apparently, the only thing they’re interested in is muslims as victims - unless of course they’re victims of other muslims, in which case the ultimate fault is always someone else - the “west”, or the us, or the zionist bogeyman, or whoever.

      in fact, i’d go so far to say that if you’re not a victim, these days, you’re an oppressor. so everyone’s falling over themselves to become victims. it would be laughable if it wasn’t so disgusting.

      I just think some kinds of terrorism are more acceptable because they are perceived as being beneficial to Western interests.
      that’s called realpolitik - and if you think the same yardstick isn’t applied in the muslim world, you’re not looking. fine - if “terrorism” is the most evil thing nowadays, then tag anything the israelis do as “terrorism”. before then, you could tag it as “imperialism”, or “racism”, or “apartheid”, or “aggressive” - that’s straight out of the soviet playbook. anything done by soviet allies is characterised as “defensive”. the net effect is to remove the meaning of the word “terrorism”, the same thing that has happened in israeli politics with the word “nazi”, because it is just used as a cheap insult.

      i have a question for you, anas - in the two-state solution you presumably envisage, will jews be allowed to live in the palestinian state? or will they be described as “settlers” and fair game?

      b’shalom

      bananabrain

    68. Electro — on 6th November, 2006 at 6:28 pm  

      Which side would that be, Sunny?

      People keeep assigning me a “side” when the side I’m on has remained roughly the same for many years.

      Ditto for Melanie Phillips, by the way.

      Ditto for the Bishop of Rochester, as well.

      It’s a hoot that “people such as myself” ( what does THAT mean?) APPEAR to change sides if only because the official reps of the “side” I’m on are no longer on my “side”.

      There was a time when left-wing Jews such as Melanie and left-wing Catholics such as myself knew what “left” stood for. That “left” was a set of principles that transcended race and religious affiliation; it was a set of principles that could battle the far-right and the ubber conservative theocrats ( who were once composed only of Christians) and which adhered to FULL equality for all men and women.

      As a result, those of us who stayed true to leftist principles now APPEAR rightist.

      Those who claim to be on the left now endorse theocrats, the subjegation of women and inequality for gays.

      The probleme for most here lies in recognising that the far-right of yesteryear has been replaced with another far-right; one that is neither Christian nor western, and that switch-over has a lot of people confused.

      Rather than having the guts to entertain the notion that “brown” can be as fascist as “white”, or that “non-christian” can be as fascist as “christian” they prefer to embark into a series of *phobia-accusations* of one sort or another; a reflex born of laziness and a complete inability, or at least unwillingness, to think things through.

      Hence the label “Mad-Mel”; reasoned ideas and arguments of the kind that require basic brain power are now classed as mad.

      “I cannot understand your ideas, therefore you are mad”.

      Annas’ text immediately above is exhibit “A”

    69. Anas — on 6th November, 2006 at 7:22 pm  

      now, let’s see how many “prominent members of the muslim community” have got up and condemned muslim-on-muslim violence, or even, heaven forbid, violence perpetrated by muslims on non-muslims?

      Pretty much every prominent mainstream Muslim figure has actively condemmed terrorism by Muslims, especially in regard to 9/11 and 7/7. Check this link out:
      http://www.muhajabah.com/otherscondemn.php

      According to the 1990 Trust poll “only 1.9% of [UK] Muslims believe that it is justifiable to commit acts of terrorism against civilians in the UK. An overwhelming majority - 96% stated emphatically that acts of terrorism against civilians was unjustifiable”. Additionally, there have been countless fatwas by Muslim scholars across the globe denouncing Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, and any acts of terrorism that target civilians.

      And yes, I did mention that petition in my Melanie Philips blog piece, but as you say it was not the mainstream British Jewish position.

      that’s called realpolitik - and if you think the same yardstick isn’t applied in the muslim world, you’re not looking. fine - if “terrorism” is the most evil thing nowadays, then tag anything the israelis do as “terrorism”. before then, you could tag it as “imperialism”, or “racism”, or “apartheid”, or “aggressive” - that’s straight out of the soviet playbook. anything done by soviet allies is characterised as “defensive”. the net effect is to remove the meaning of the word “terrorism”, the same thing that has happened in israeli politics with the word “nazi”, because it is just used as a cheap insult.

      Correct.That’s why whenever you accuse some group or organisation of terrorist actions it’s important you back it up with evidence from as many objective sources as you can, and here I mean human rights organisations, UN resolutions, international law rulings, etc. So that therefore when I accuse Israel of terrorism in my article I base my accusation on reports from human rights agencies and other reasonably objective source.

      So for example, when you look at the Lebanese conflict, a lot of Western commentators would agree that Hezbollah are terrorists (I’m assuming you would too Banana), whereas they wouldn’t make the same claim about Israel, or the IDF. But as Gideon Levy points out in Haaretz:

      [T]he number of people Israel killed is not only almost 10 times higher than the number of people Hezbollah killed, but the number of soldiers Hezbollah killed is three times higher than the number of Israeli civilians they killed, while the number of Lebanese civilians killed by Israel is about three times the number of Hezbollah fighters. So whose arms are purer?

      At the end of the day, we cannot, as a society, go around accusing other countries or organisations of aiding or commiting acts of terrorism while doing the exact same thing ourselves (something which Britain did during the Lebanese war, and which through its silence it is doing with regard to the humanitarian disaster in Gaza now). Maybe we could in the past, but those days are rapidly leaving us.

      Personally, I don’t care what the British Jewish community thinks about Israel or the media’s portrayal of the views of those in the Jewish community, I only find it interesting insofar as it contrasts with the media’s portrayal of the British Muslim community. So for example, I don’t think any mainstream Muslim commentator could get away with claiming that the murder of hundreds of civilians (mainly women and children) was justified in the name of the Ummah — he’d be denounced as an anti-Western savage and extremist- so why is it OK when it’s in the name of Israel?

      have a question for you, anas - in the two-state solution you presumably envisage, will jews be allowed to live in the palestinian state?

      I hope so. Muslims and Jews have lived together peacefully in that part of the world for hundreds of years. However the priority now is to make sure that the Palestinians are able to realise their moral and legal right to self-determination.

    70. Electro — on 6th November, 2006 at 8:13 pm  

      According to the 1990 Trust poll “only 1.9% of [UK] Muslims believe that it is justifiable to commit acts of terrorism against civilians in the UK. An overwhelming majority - 96% stated emphatically that acts of terrorism against civilians was unjustifiable”.

      Define “civilian” and “terrorism”.

      Rape, for instance, is an act of terrorism, as is describing non-muslim women as uncovered meat who “deserve” it

      Correct.That’s why whenever you accuse some group or organisation of terrorist actions it’s important you back it up with evidence from as many objective sources as you can, and here I mean human rights organisations, UN resolutions, international law rulings, etc

      These are no longer objective groups.

      Were any of these groups “objective” they’d be denouncing the Muslim on Muslim atrocities that occur on a daily basis and that kill thousands of innocents

      I hope so. Muslims and Jews have lived together peacefully in that part of the world for hundreds of years

      Tell that to the Jews of Hebron who were brutally massacred or chased from their homes in 1929…..long before Israel existed.

      In fact, tell it to mahammed who murdered or enslaved the Jewish community of Medina.

      However the priority now is to make sure that the Palestinians are able to realise their moral and legal right to self-determination.

      If they could just summon the organisational skills to pay grade-school teachers when their salaries are due I,d be happy!

      ……humanitarian disaster in Gaza now……

      Anyone know if the Saudis have even contributed a few cents to the alleviation of this “disaster”?

      When you’ve nothing to offer the world, when you’re berift of any redeeming qualities as a culture, when your intellectuals and pols are so stupid, so incompetant and so corrupt as to be unable to motivate societies to move forward and grow, then you’re only option is to create, to stoke and then to rally ’round a “victim” case in order to keep the heat off.

      A solution to the Palestinian probleme would quickly lead to an implosion of radical Islam because the Palestinian “probleme” is simply all that’s left to prop it up……

    71. Anas — on 6th November, 2006 at 8:17 pm  

      Congratulations, Electro. That is probably the stupidest post I’ve ever read on PP.

    72. Vikrant — on 6th November, 2006 at 8:19 pm  

      That is probably the stupidest post I’ve ever read on PP.

      I beg to differ mr Anas. G

    73. Vikrant — on 6th November, 2006 at 8:19 pm  

      That is probably the stupidest post I’ve ever read on PP.

      How long have you been here anyways?

    74. Anas — on 6th November, 2006 at 8:27 pm  

      Not that long, Vik. I’d be impressed if you could link to stupider.

    75. ZinZin — on 6th November, 2006 at 8:32 pm  

      Congratulations, Electro. That is probably the stupidest post I’ve ever read on PP.

      I take it you got beat this time.

    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.