The anti-dhimmi scorn and derision these MPs received for their initial "change your foreign policy or we'll blow you up" warning has not made them alter their position one bit. They don't seem in the least concerned about the fact that lots of individuals and groups dislike various government policies, but aren't blowing anyone up because of that.
"Don't treat us like patsies, say Muslim MPs," from The Guardian, with thanks to JE:
Muslim MPs will warn John Prescott today that they will not be treated as "patsies" to defend unpopular foreign policies in Iraq and Lebanon.Their complaints, to be made in a meeting with the deputy prime minister, follow criticism at the weekend by government ministers - including the foreign minister Kim Howells and John Reid, the home secretary - of the letter signed by prominent Muslims warning that Britain's foreign policy stance had fuelled terrorist acts by alienated young Muslims.
Sadiq Khan, Labour MP for Tooting, signed the letter along with two of the other three Muslim MPs, Mohammed Sarwar and Shahid Malik. He said the MPs were particularly angry with comments from Mr Howells, suggesting that the signatories wanted foreign policy to be decided by fear of terrorism.
"Nobody is suggesting that foreign policy should be decided by six extremists in Dewsbury, but it is foolish to suggest or even expect us to go around defending government policy that is extremely unpopular in Muslim communities. We just would not have any credibility in trying to sort out the problems we are facing."
No. Foreign policy should be decided by the Muslim community, not only by those six terrorrists!!
You don't haev to defend the policy, but you could say to the Ummah that carrying out terrorrists attacks won't change anything (except in Spain).Notice how he uses the word "extremist" instead of the more apropriate word "terrorrist".
Secondly, many religious minorities around the world live in nations whose foreign policy doesn't suit them. I can remember the Jews in France. France is in the fore front of the Eurabian movement, and it's turning (even more) anti-semite. Yet, despite all this, we have NEVER heard of a Jew blowing himself up due to France's foreign policy. Even if there had been one, the Jewish comunity itself would raise its voice instantly against that, and not try to legitimize it, as the Muslims are trying to legitimize the terrorrists.
Three MP's do not a majority make. Muslim MP's - are not superior to all other MP's and make no pretence, the veiled threats delivered on behalf of the fascist malcontents lurking within their "communities" will only add to the hardening of normal, decent and increasingly outraged opinion against them. Middle England is stirring. Notice that accompanying the threats there is the usual bleatings of victim-hood, the poor poor souls! I have heard this record too many times and am sick of hearing it.
I read a comment somewhere the other day that the UK government rather than focussing on the reasons “causing” the radicalisation of Muslim youth (most of us already know the answer to that one), should be more concerned about the radicalisation taking place in the rest of the population.
Was this letter drafted by Oxfam ? if so it must surely breach their charitable status !
I can see the stain of sweat under their armpits
If I were the Brits, I’d tell these ungrateful maggots to go pound sand. They’re foreigners living in the country of another –deal with it and shut the hell up. If you don’t like that country’s foreign policies, you’re more than welcome to leave. Simple.
The rest of the world needs to borrow a page or two from the Brit’s playbook and countries should begin passing laws to make the lives of Muslims difficult in all non-Muslim lands. Let’s get rid of them from within all non-Muslim lands and let them go back to their piece of sh*t countries they came from.
Crusader,
"You don't haev to defend the policy, but you could say to the Ummah that carrying out terrorrists attacks won't change anything (except in Spain)."
How can anyone, even a non-Muslim, let alone a Muslim, say that to the Ummah now that they've received a clear message that carrying out terrorist attacks can change everything, can pay them high dividends? I mean the message conveyed to them by the ceasefire forced on Israel and the recognition given to Hizbullah as a state party and legitimate resistance movement.
Treat them like the religious Mafia goons they are. I think a nice long stay in Sudan or Somalia would be just the ticket. Anything but listening to their spew. Sorry, but I simply can't do that any more. I might become alienated and angry. That could drive me to extremism and it would be their fault.
"We just would not have any credibility in trying to sort out the problems we are facing.""
The "problem we are facing" is ISLAM.
Go ahead, blow yourself up, make my day.
One would think, given the pro-Arab bias of the Foreign Office, and of course the highly successful impersonation, by the BBC, of a close relative of Al-Jazeera, that Muslims in Britain would have little to complain about. Alas, they do, for any Infidel state (Israel) attempting to defend itself from annihilation (more missiles rained down on Israel in six weeks than V-2 rockets rained down on England over seven months) must be shown no quarter. And in Iraq, the presence of English troops, even if they are there to do such terrible things as drain the port of Umm Qasr and maintain some semblance of civil order in Basra, and to distribute more and more of those Infidel gifts to the local Muslims, whether money to "Iraqi" contractors (who checks on their work? who knows what they do once the money is handed out to them, or some tribal sheiks, each more cunning and greedy than the next, asking for, whining for, screaming for more, more, more from the British, as from the far richer, and far more lavish in their largesse, Americans in the north, in Baghdad and those other, luckier former vilayets, where the $45 billion or so put into projects has dwarfed that in Basra). But no matter: Infidel troops, like an Infidel state, must not be permitted even where they are keeping the peace, even when they are spending a fortune to make things better for the local Muslims.
And what would happen, tomorrow, if the British decided to sell military supplies to India, now finally aroused by the Mumbai bombings, or to Thailand, now attempting to deal with the Muslim murders by Muslims of Buddhist monks, farmers, schoolteachers, in southern Thailand, or to help train Filipino troops in counter-insurgency methods, for use against the Muslims of Abu Sayyaf? If Muslims are to dictate a policy of appeasement in the MIddle East, they will dictate a policy of appeasement everywhere.
What, for example, will keep them from demanding that Great Britain withdraw from NATO, because NATO is dominated by that impossibly Infidel land, the United States? Or what if NATO began to turn its attention to the threat, within its member states, fo Muslims determined to infiltrate into the armed forces, as into other areas of life, and to ultimately gain access to modern weapons systems -- or even to receive, as members of NATO"s armed forces, training in such weaponry, and familiarity with how such weapons can be made or obtained, all to be put to use by Muslim states or groups, against those Infidel nations -- or against, in a future civil war, the local Infidels who remain determined to fight a Muslim takeover? What would the Muslims in Great Britain do if they got wind of such a change in NATO's interests?
These are not theoretical problems. They are real problems. They are simply not yet detected, because the Early Warning Systems of the Infidel nations have not yet been turned on, or their sirens apparently require a keener sense of civilizational hearing than our present political masters, and others in the media who share the duty of instructing and thereby protecting us, possesss.
And if there is to be dictation in matters of foreign policy, then of course why not, as well, at the same time, in domestic policy? Why not in matters of free speech and free exercise, forbidding mockery of Muhammad, and forbidding those who are born into, or become Muslims, from ever leaving the Army of Islam, of which they are to be treated, on pain of all kinds of things, as permanent recruits?
Why indeed?
"We just would not have any credibility in trying to sort out the problems we are facing."
LOL! As if they have any credibility.
This Muslim treachery is why I always post that Muslims make the absolute worst immigrants. To admit them in your nation is admit the entire Muslim world. Because that's who they hook up with, ally with and compare themselves to.
And US newspaper editorials agree with the Muslims: change our foreign policy pronto.
http://ocregister.com/ocregister/opinion/atoz/article_1239866.php
Another triumph of multiculturalism, our civic religion.
Not only are they trying to blackmail us into changing foreign policy, they are using their 'victimisation' and 'alienation' and not-so-veiled threats of terrorism to try and get sharia onto the UK statute books:
Let us adopt Islamic family law to curb extremists, Muslims tell Kelly
Muslim leaders have urged Ruth Kelly, the Secretary of State for Communities, to support Islamic family law in Britain to stop youths joining Islamic extremists
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article1219289.ece
I watched the FOX allstars yesterday and what I found interesting is that the liberal panelist compared the complaints of the Muslim MP to complaints made by members of the democrat party.He seemed clueless to the true nature of what these Muslims had said.
The Muslim community as pretty much put its game plan on show for all to see this week. On the one hand you have the fast jihad Muslims plotting to cause as much terror and mayhem as possible, and on the other hand you have the slow burn jihad Muslims who use the actions of the former to progress the Islamification of Britain through politics. So how can respectable members of the Muslim community including MP’s be working to the same goals as a Muslim terrorist?
The key to this is in how they responded to the recent alleged attempt to blow up planes travelling to America. Instead of an open letter of outright condemnation of the plot without reservations, they use British foreign policy as a kind of justification with a veiled threat implied. The open letter nearly says ‘If you change your ways we will change ours’. The letter was rightly put down by parliamentarians and newspapers alike.
Secondly and more importantly was yesterday’s behind closed doors meeting between the government and the ‘respected’ Muslim leaders. During this meeting a number of suggestions were made by both sides to ease the tension between our communities. The next bit I have stolen from the excellent Western Resistance website and it relates to the meeting I mention above:
‘Dr Syed Aziz Pasha, of the Union of Muslim Organizations of UK and Ireland, said: "We are willing to cooperate but there should be a partnership. They should understand our problems then we will understand their problems."
So far, fairly mundane and likely to achieve absolutely nothing apart from a few halal buffets in the future at Westminster.
But what is totally bizarre is the news from the Independent, which states that Pasha had asked for a little more than co-operation.
Pasha has asked for the recognition of holidays for Muslim festivals, which is fairly normal. CAIR have been badgering school boards in the United States for such things since they were first active, even though it would be strange for a school in a non-Muslim area to be celebrating Eid or Mohammed's birthday. Muslims make up less than 3% of the population of Britain.’
But Dr Syed Aziz Pasha actually went further than that. He also asked for the limited implementation of Sharia law applying only to Muslims in cases of divorce and other areas not covered by criminal law. To back up his case he used the example of Scotland’s differing legal system.
In my opinion Pasha is the embodiment of the fast and slow jihad at work. The Muslim on the street creates the panic and the Muslim with a doctorate uses it to accomplish the aims that the terrorist alone cannot accomplish.
It becomes clearer still if you dissect what he is saying. He claims that we are willing to cooperate but only in a partnership, what is his proposed partnership? In this case I would guess he is saying we are willing to cooperate if we get what we want at the moment. And in no way is he saying he wants a Muslim community that is integrated into society like the Sikhs etc. How could you want to integrate if you want separate laws, live in closed communities and want the entire nation to take time off to celebrate your holidays?
Muslims want to live the Islamic life in all its dubious glories, but they wish to live it here instead of in a country that as no welfare state or education opportunities such as Britain. So let’s take the benefits away.
I was opposed to biometric identity cards, but if they were introduced and then banished when the threat is over then I would support them. Just like they did in WW2 would be fine. I would use security profiling on trains, planes and automobiles because a stop and search of Grandma on the way to bingo is a waste of time.
Finally I would offer everybody including Dr Syed Aziz Pasha and Tony Blair the chance to sign a declaration of loyalty to the state. If they refuse to sign they are not eligible for state welfare of any kind. If they sign and break the agreement by plotting against the state then they can leave with their family who as received no benefits when they finish their time in jail. Why should the majority pay for those who wish to harm it?
And let’s close the borders until we are sure that everybody who shouldn’t be here as left.
You cannot force out 2.7 million people because some are criminal, so you need to find ways of making Britain such an horrible place to be for those who wish to harm it that they decide to leave because it benefits them. So study what makes them stay and take it away from them.
Mert,
Excellent analysis of the Muslim version of good cop/bad cop. I also agree with the idea of making living in the West unpleasant for Muslims, so that many will leave and few will want to immigrate.Given conditions in the ME how many how many Westerners would want to live in Syria, Iran or Saudi Arabia? Most Muslims don't even want to live there.
On a different topic. I watched with interest a segment on FOX Dayside in which there was a discussion of the need for Muslim profiling. I'm sure CAIR will be upset by the repeated applause from the audience for the ideas of Muslim profiling and separate lines at airports for Muslims.
"Nobody is suggesting that foreign policy should be decided by six extremists in Dewsbury, but it is foolish to suggest or even expect us to go around defending government policy that is extremely unpopular in Muslim communities. We just would not have any credibility in trying to sort out the problems we are facing."
That statement is completely beside the point. It's one thing to disagree with foreign policy. But to use this as an excuse for the activities of terrorists is a despicable and obscene argument that it should be considered a crime to make, especially in a climate like the present one. Despite the grave injustice of internment committed against Canadian and U.S. citizens of Japanese ancestry during WWII, this population remained loyal to their countries and committed no violence against their fellow citizens or their national governments. Nothing can ever conceivably give Muslim citizens of Britain or any other Western country the right to do otherwise.
Their duty within the Muslim community is to denounce terrorism and violence. This has nothing to do with representing any particular constituency but with the a priori demands of informed and enlightened conscience.
I think its time for a reexamination of the standards of what is or is not acceptable free speech in a free society. Perhaps one way to do this is for the government of the U.K. (if they have the guts or the brains) to bring some sort of charges against them under British law.
In meetings with British government officials, the Muslim activists have amped up their demands, just like any common blackmailer. Now they're also demanding to live under parts of the law of sharia:
as the Muslims are trying to legitimize the terrorrists.
Posted by: Crusader at August 15, 2006 07:45 AM
... good point, except, 'moderate' muslims (you know.. the Lords, MPs etc..) are conniving with their terrorist muslim brothers, by playing the 'good cop' to alter British policies, with their muslim brothers playing he 'bad cop', all for Umma Al-Islamia to further the political agenda of Islam, for you-know-who....
Good point, none-the-less.
Mert writes:
As I understand Islam (and Hugh, please feel free to correct me on this), no true devout Muslim can ever pledge loyalty to a "government of men by men" (i.e. a secular government).
So if Britain insisted on a loyalty oath, my guess is that many devout, honest and decent Muslim citizens would say that in good conscience, they simply cannot take such an oath; their religion simply prohibits it. Then what are you going to do with them? Jail them? Since they're citizens, you can't deport them.
This is probably part of a campaign to introduce Sharia law which has already begun. About three years ago with the approval of the Labour government the British trade unions and accepted in principle that they would campaign for special privileges for Muslims. If I remember correctly this was to include prayer room’s, prayer time and the right not to handle pork products. I forget exactly but there was a lot more and if you know how the British political system works the significance of this cannot be underestimated. If in a few years' time the government was to write these measures into law their first defence would be to turn round to the public and say “What is all the fuss about? These measures had been accepted and used in industry for years now”.
As to the introduction of Sharia law this is a fact in many Muslim areas and the government has been ignoring it for years. There are many examples but a BBC radio 4 discussion about four years ago talked about the treatment of Muslim women in Britain. It included a police spokesman from a city in the North of England who sang the traditional refrain. “Of course we will act against anyone who breaks the law when we have evidence, but there is no evidence”. Believe it or not there are such people as moderate Muslims and one such is Susan Amalli Brown. A Ugandan Muslim married to an Englishman who has campaigned for the rights of Asian woman in Britain. She has spoken out so much she said she gets more hate mail from her fellow Muslims than from right-wing organisations. This song was just too much for her she virtually screamed at the police spokesman “No evidence!” “No evidence!” What is happening across the range of Britain’s northern cities is unacceptable in any civilised society.
To give just one example of our increasingly dual legal system. Recently a Protestant clergyman presented the prize to a child in a school assembly and kissed her on the forehead. The outcry was such he had to resign from the board of governors and the child's mother thought he should have been prosecuted. However a report on the BBC some years ago stated that there were 3000 cases a year of little girls suffering genital mutilation as a result of female circumcision, mainly in the Somali Muslim community. The BBC's stated that the health authorities had been instructed to deal with these “Sympathetically”.
Steven L,
Ok let’s rephrase that statement of loyalty and make it one that asks for loyalty to the rest of society.
But how many religions are asking for special religious rights in a modern secular Britain and hoping to attain them because they put their claim to divine inspiration before the laws and principles of the land in which they live.
In my Britain I would completely detach the role of religion from the state and therefore even in good principle no person would be able to claim that an imagined God of any description takes precedence over the day to day running of a country. Tony Blair was a fool when he said he was inspired by God. In effect he is saying that he is guided by an entity with less scientific proof of existence than the ability to travel through time using wormholes.
So if a Muslim in good faith cannot say that they wish to join our society fully as others do then regardless of their ideas they cannot.
If you can't put the stability of your country before your God then why should the majority pay for your upkeep?
It looks like very soon the majority of peaceful law abiding Brits will have to become anything but..., the British Government needs to understand something, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE THIS MUCH LONGER.
Have a good look at the BBC Have your say now that the BBC weenies are not censoring those critical of Muslims. Doesn't that tell them something.
Islam is a total threat to our freedoms, we understand that, now start acting on that or watch things explode!
Haha yeah,
This morning when Al-BBCeera gave 15 seconds of airtime to what Dr Syed Aziz Pasha had to say I dived out of bed and fired off as many injectives at anybody I could find deserving as possible, then sat back and felt useless.
We need a movement people can join that can't be ignored. 200,000 people walking through London telling them to shove it would be nice.
Why did the UK need to create a Muslim community in the first place? What national interest did it serve? Just curious.
Enoch Powell asked that question too.
Mert writes:
You may not realize this, but requiring "loyalty to the rest of society" is the fundamental principle of socialism.
I would never sign such an oath myself.
And after you have a chance to fully think through the implications of "loyalty to society" yourself, I'll bet you wouldn't sign such an oath either.
On the dot, dennisw. Muslims have a close affintiy with, and only with Umma Al-Islamia. No matter how much they appear to be friendly, gentle, giving, religious and supporting, the underliyinng current of UMMA is the overthrow of everything un-islamic (including democrartic governments) with Islamic concepts (including Sharia laws). Umma will never work to support Infidels, much as they appear to be. But you have touched the tip of UMMA! Things only get scary from there.....
"Nobody is suggesting that foreign policy should be decided by six extremists in Dewsbury, but it is foolish to suggest or even expect us to go around defending government policy that is extremely unpopular in Muslim communities. We just would not have any credibility in trying to sort out the problems we are facing."
The veiled threat is obvious. Instead of saying, "Muslims are citizens, too. They vote. their legitiamte concerns shoudl be considered." They resort the veiled threats.
They want those statements to be understood as threats, but be able to defend the language by parsing it as having harmless meanings.
Clearly, these are very bad people.
The Brits did not clear the snakes out of their back yards when they first began making noise, now they are in their houses, their beds, their cupboards, biting the children. If they don't call an exterminator soon the snakes will end up taking over the house.
If I was asked to sign to say that I have loyalty to the rest of the people around me who make up this nation and that I would not try to harm them then yes I would sign whether it is socialist, new age traveller celebration for the love of hills or Hollywood fad of the week.
Do you really think we are just going to hire Stagecoach to send buses into Blackburn to collect jihadis by the thousands and stick them on boats with enough fuel to get to Pakistan?
As I said we should study ways of making life uncomfortable for those who wish us harm so they will leave by themselves. I want to give ideas that are in some way useful instead of the usual boot them all out crap that is never going to happen.
If you disagree then at least you are talking about a new idea.
denisw
To admit one Muslim into your country is to admit them all.
Admit one Muslim, then his spouse, then children then other family also come in, and before you know it, you have a Muslim community.
Then anything you say, write or do in your own country that is offensive to that community, becomes a matter for the Ummah. And they will raise merry hell to intimidate the Infidel.
The antidote to the problem is defined by the problem itself - start reversing muslim immigration. All we have to do to stop the Jihad for good, is to start deportation of Muslims from the West. Initially illegals, then followed by those who do not have citizenship.
Once this process begins, the Muslim Ummah that has been at our throat, will instead be begging at our feet.
J*sus on ice skates. Has it really come to this? Next they will start banning topless beaches in Europe and I am really going to be depressed.
"Admit one Muslim, then his spouse, then children then other family also come in, and before you know it, you have a Muslim community."
That is how rats and cockroaches infest homes too. Start with just one..............
"So if Britain insisted on a loyalty oath, my guess is that many devout, honest and decent Muslim citizens would say that in good conscience, they simply cannot take such an oath; their religion simply prohibits it. Then what are you going to do with them? Jail them? Since they're citizens, you can't deport them."
-- from a posting above
Oh? Why can't a government deport those who refuse to offer it their loyalty, and to mean it? Citizenship in the advanced West is a privilege, not a right. Rules for stripping people of their citizenship exist (for those conviced of treason in some countries, for example); those rules can be written to fit the case, the unprecedented case.
Why do you think we are free to make laws, but not free to change them? Why do you think we are forever hamstrung by naive attitudes that we are free to change? Why do you think Benes and Masaryk and the Czechs felt justified, and all Czechs since have agreed, in implementing the Benes Decree that led to the expulsion of 3 million Sudeten Germans, after the demonstration of large-scale disloyalty and danger posed by that community, before and during World War II? And not a single major European statesman or moral figure of that time, or in the sixty years since, has ever objected to that Benes Decree.
You think we are not able to take the most elementary steps to protect not only ourselves (we're not so hot, I agree) but also our posterity, and our legacy, the legacy created by others and handed down to us, a legacy that could not for one minute have been created in the Dar al-Islam, and that would not last, for one minute, in a state where Islam were to dominate, and Muslims were to rule.
Surely our lives, the lives of our children, and that civilizational legacy -- that art, that science, that development of thought -- is worth a Benes Decree or two.
You are wrong.
I often send e-mails to BBC programmes, usually in response to something a Muslim speaker has said: although they never read them out, it has a cathartic effect. They actually read one out on air yesterday. It was about the letter sent by the three Muslim MP's to Tony Blair saying that his foreign policy helped fuel Muslim radicalisation. It went:
"There should be no question of a community that constitutes, at most, 5% of the population, exercising a disproportionate amount of influence over British foreign policy as a result of threats of violence emanating from within their number. The MP's who wrote that open letter to Tony Blair came across as sinister, threatening blackmailers,"
It got read out on air as a balancing view (typical BBC) to a message blaming Blair's foreign policy for all our ills - except that the presenter changed the last phrase to "came across as blackmailers" - the way he paused led me to think he made the alteration ex tempore. Perhaps I did overdo the emotive adkectives.
Guys,
Their behaviour will not change even a bit, how much education and funds u dump upon them to integrate them. Thast a fact of life what can britian and toher infedel countries do is to restrict the birth in Muslims to one child..
IS this the first time that Muslims have blackmailed a GOVT..NO , havent u watched the muslim protests often violent in infedel countrie this is pure balck mailing.
BNP may be worst, but if u want the British culture and civilization to survive, only they can do it. Put ur money in Labour adn conservative, they will facilitate the growth of isalm giving out concessions after concessions, for their votes....
And Muslim immigratio has to stop it not only endangering the Native populations of infedel countries but, it is also effecting those non muslims who immigrated to other countries due to this very problem(muslim) in their home countries.
"Have a good look at the BBC Have your say now that the BBC weenies are not censoring those critical of Muslims"
Yes, isn't it encouraging? I make sure I go in and add my recommendation to all the good messages, and I hope everyone here does the same.
Steven L says
"Then what are you going to do with them? Jail them? Since they're citizens, you can't deport them"
and refuses the loyalty oath idea suggested by Mert.
I'm not sure what to think about this idea myself but one advantage I can see in it is that it might provide a strong indication as to who should be kept a closer eye on. Authorities ought to be capable of distinguishing, based on the obvious differences in profile between a Muslim and a libertarian, the differing motives and intent behind the refusal of the oath.
Context is everything here. The threat is from Islamic militancy, not Steven L's libertarianism.