Failed Terrorist Attacks

At times the effectiveness of the security services has been called into question. Happily it's the terrorists incompetence causing their own embarrassment this week in Britain.

Following three car bomb attacks, they've accomplished one parking ticket, one car towed away, one jeep burned out with severe burns to a terrorist, and two arrests on the scene. The police having captured some of the crew, were able to quickly follow with two further arrests.

Thankfully, no one has been injured besides the scum who perpetrated these attacks. I can only hope that this is a sign of the maturing terrorist network becoming as ineffective as most large organisations operating in Britain.

The sad reality is we cannot be so smug. According to the Telegraph, "The security organisation is monitoring 30 suspected plots involving more than 1,700 possible terrorists." That a hell of a lot of arseholes coming out of Friday prayers at the local mosque with murder on their minds.

I have not yet found any reference to Islam in the BBC's coverage of these three attacks. What the BBC is trying to pretend, I just can't imagine.

Islam and Islamism

In response to the Queen's speech, British MP Paul Goodman spoke thoughtfully in Parliament about the government and nation's approach to terrorism and security. (Hat tip to Melanie Phillips. The speech is not short, but worth reading.)

Interestingly, he makes the distinction between Islam - a great religion ...as various, as complex, as multi-faceted and as capable of supporting a great civilisation as Christianity.

... and Islamism - an ideology forged largely in the past 100 years...

• First, it separates the inhabitants of the dar-al-Islam-the house of Islam-and the dar-al-Harb-the house of war-and, according to Islamist ideology, those two houses are necessarily in conflict.
• Secondly, it proclaims to Muslims that their political loyalty lies not with the country that they live in, but with the umma-that is, the worldwide community of Muslims.
• Thirdly, it aims to bring the dar-al-Islam under sharia law.

I do not agree with this analysis. It seems to me that the Islamic religion is oppressive, aggressive and regressive. The 'moderate/radical' distinction is that so-called 'moderates' are influenced by the western style pick-and-choose belief system. They pay more attention to the nice parts of their religion, and wish-away the slay-the-infidel-wherever-you-find-em bits.

Those very committed to every tenet of Islam will of necessity oppose freedom and peace. Islamism is Islam's response to 'corrupting' and particularly, western influences. 'Moderate Islam' from a western point of view is really just 'back-sliding Islam' from the committed.

I think it's fair to say that Islam is not going to 'go away' anytime soon - though frankly, I'd rather it would. (I don't consider it a 'great religion' or even helpful in the world.) The next best is that it be watered-down, westernised and marginalised.

Nick Griffin, the BNP and Islam

The court has cleared Nick Griffin of 'hate crimes'. The leader of the British National Party had said that Islam is a "wicked, vicious faith". This was a test of new religious hate laws criminalising speech that is likely to stir up racial or religious hatred. I'm pleased he was cleared as I believe we need the right to criticise religions. My observation is that criticising Islam is likely to stir up hatred. That in itself is a criticism of Islam.

If we lose the right to criticise religions, how long before we are not allowed to criticise political parties? What is the difference? They are both made up of groups of people with common beliefs that they take personally. Some people care passionately about their politics and are easily offended. How long before they require equal protection from offence?

Widespread offence only happens when the criticism might be true. If I say that the Ladies' Crochet Circle is wicked and vicious, no one would take it seriously. When Griffin says Islam is wicked and vicious, the authorities worry it may be more believable.

Government minister Lord Falconer, has said there should be "consequences" from saying Islam is "wicked and evil". Why? It is the expression of an opinion. It infringes no one else's rights. Neither does it incite others to illegal acts. If the opinion is misinformed, let us put the counter argument.

So is the statement correct? Is Islam a wicked and vicious faith? This is too general a statement to be either true or false. Islam is not one thing, it means something different to each adherent, and different things again to the rest of us. To describe Islam as 'wicked and vicious' is as ridiculous as asserting that Islam is a 'religion of peace'. It certainly isn't a religion of peace to all Muslims.

I think slightly more specific statements such as "Islam is conspicuously over-represented among the wicked and vicious", or "Loads of Muslims want to kill each other and the infidel" are more verifiable.

Muslims As Victims

New research by the John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health published in The Lanset sets the death toll in Iraq at 655,000 since the US lead invasion in 2003. This is a massive increase even on other 'anti-war' estimates such as the Iraqi Body Count who put the figure under 50,000. Either way, that's a lot of corpses.

For the sake of argument, let's say the 2003 invasion and subsequent war has been a terrible mistake. Let's say Bush is a war-mongering numb-scull and Blair is his poodle, and we're looking to blame them.

But surely first we must ask: Who is killing whom? Overwhelmingly Muslims are killing Muslims. Ah, but that wouldn't have happened if Bush and Blair had not invaded.

Ok, for the sake of argument, let's say that Iraq was a picture of tranquility and serendipity before the war. It all went wrong when we invaded.

Still I must ask: Who's killing whom?

Overwhelmingly Muslims are killing Muslims, and if Muslims are saying it's someone else's fault, then I think it's time Muslims took a little responsibility. As long as the Muslim community view themselves as victims and blame someone else for their plight, they will have bombing, murdering, psycho, maniac, crazy-eyed shit-heads running around killing for Allah. But as we learned in Northern Ireland, when the public says, "Enough!", the violence will end.

Islam Perpetually Offended

There is a running battle between the French authorities and Muslims. Since the Paris riots last year, 2500 officers have been injured.

Just this weekend, dozens of churches, homes and businesses were destroyed in Nigeria. There was some supposed insult to Mohammad. At times like this, I really don't give a shit what offended the Muslims. I just don't want them here. If anyone wants to understand Islam, move to Yemen.

Religion of Peace

The Iranian president is more damning of Islam than Pope Benedict XVI. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said to NBC: "People in important positions should be careful about what they say. What he said may give an excuse to another group to start a war."

In other words, if Muslims take offence at your words, they may kill you. The Iranian president knows that Islam is spread by force. Violence and threats of violence are standard fare. Or as the offending quote from the 14th Century put it: "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

But Ahmadinejad is wrong when he says: "I think that he [the Pope] actually takes back his statement and there is no problem." Actually, when you check the Pope's words, he did not apologise for anything he said. He was sorry for the reaction! Ahmadinejad and other's have an interest in portraying the Pope as having backed down. But the Pope didn't retract a single word.

Meanwhile the Muslims continue to strengthen their foothold in Britain. The Home Secretary (who is a senior government minister with cabinet responsibilities covering policing and immigration) John Reid is now unwelcome in parts of London.

While addressing a Muslim audience, he was berated: "How dare you come to a Muslim area...?" Well, I'll tell you what it takes for the Home Secretary to visit a Muslim area of east London... The meeting location was kept secret for security reasons, and the audience was hand-picked by government officials. Even that didn't stop the open threats of: "John Reid you will pay!" as protesters were bundled out. (Quite a contrast to another story emerging today that Winston Churchill's phone number was listed in the public phone book while he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

So who will be the next government minister to tell us again that Islam is a religion of peace?

Muslim Anger Not Appeased

The Pope said in his apology, "I hope this serves to appease hearts..." Since then, effigies of the Pope have been burned by protesters in Basra. A nun was shot four times in Mogadishu, Somalia where she worked in a children's charity. At least seven churches have been attacked in Palestine. There's also been some fun in Indonesian and Iranian cities calling for death or international trial of the Pope and overthrow of western civilization...

Appease hearts?... Well that didn't work. Got any more ideas?

According to the Telegraph, the Mujahideen Shura Council said: "We tell the worshipper of the cross (the Pope) that you and the West will be defeated, as is the case in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya.

We shall break the cross and spill the wine ... God will (help) Muslims to conquer Rome ... (May) God enable us to slit their throats, and make their money and descendants the bounty of the mujahideen."

Now there have been some conciliatory voices from the Muslim world also. That's nice, but the question is, who are the people listening to? Why do so many vent so much anger on so many streets? It's about time western leaders woke up the fact that the nut-cases are not the isolated few in Islam.

Meanwhile the Archbishop of Canterbury spectacularly fails to understand the futility of appeasement. In a fanatical determination to bury his head in the sand he completely misses the point, with "There are elements in Islam that can be used to justify violence, just as there are in Christianity and Judaism."

Blackmailed Pope Apologises

The Pope issued an apology the other day which was read by a spokesman. (Well, public figures don't really apologise - they express regret for any misunderstanding...) But that wasn't enough for the Muslim Brotherhood who demanded an apology in person. They got it.

He's now said "I am deeply sorry for the reactions in some countries..." I love the evasiveness of these political apologies. Still he's right, it's the violent reactions that need apologising for!

Now in fairness to the Pope, I think he really was misunderstood. He is opposed to violence, but the quote from his offending speech highlighted Muslim violence. In the academic setting of his old German university, he might have thought the quote appropriate. He won't think that again.

Also, "These in fact were a quotation from a medieval text, which do not in any way express my personal thought." Fair enough. But a few others seem to think the words struck a chord. Especially the bit about "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

But perhaps most telling, the Pope said, "I hope this serves to appease hearts..."

Fat chance, Your Holiness. When in history has it proven a good idea to appease your aggressors? If the Pope wants to get this crowd off his back he's going to have to convert to Islam, like the two Fox journalists who converted at gun-point.

The other alternative is that someone might just have to stand up to this crap.

Solution to the Offended Muslim Problem

I think I've found an approach to defuse the offence taken by so many Muslims.

First we must understand that we are dealing with people who are told when to be offended. The pope is German, and he was speaking at a German university. I'm guessing he wasn't speaking in Arabic. Yet all over the Muslim world people seem to have taken offence. Perhaps they all downloaded the pdf of a translation of the Pope's lecture and independently arrived at the same level of wounded offence. But I'm guessing that one or two of the mob who burned down the Anglican church didn't fully study the text of the Pope's address for themselves.

Second, we learn from nature that often the antidote is surprisingly close to the toxin. The pope's comments may in fact be close, and with a little adjustment may calm the situation down.

Now here is a technique I use with my kids when they are being entirely unreasonable and unresponsive to the parenting book strategies - cunning. I've used it with work colleagues and it works a treat.

Consider my colleague who is always right. I finally sent a reply-to-all email closing with the line, "please prove that you always need to have the last word by replying to this email." You see, he couldn't respond without proving me right!

The Pope needs to say something like, "Muslims seem to react with outrage and violence rather than reasoned dialogue whenever they take offence." Then what can they do? If they react with outrage and violence, they prove the statement correct. Surely the Muslim leaders who tell people when to be offended to outrage and violence would see the unfortunate irony.

So we will surely have a response of reasoned discussion. Then we will have calm and progress.

Pope Benedict and Islam

Pope Benedict XVI has quoted a 14th Century emperor saying "Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached."

This kind of statement is only dangerous if it's true. If it is false then the benevolent hordes will emerge with counter-examples of all the good and peace brought by Muhammad.

But that's not what we are hearing. According to the BBC report...
Pakistan's parliament passed a resolution on Friday criticising the Pope for making "derogatory" comments. Derogatory maybe, but are the Pope's comments wrong? Where are the counter-examples?

The head of the Muslim Brotherhood said the Pope's remarks "aroused the anger of the whole Islamic world". Well maybe they were pissed-off to start with.

The thing is, in the West we have freedom of speech. That means we can say things that some people don't like. Hell, we can even say things that EVERYONE doesn't like. If you can only say non-offensive things then you have no freedom of speech.

Now, it follows that the Pope can say this, and the Muslims can say they disagree. In fact, I look forward to someone presenting an intellegent counter-argument. But don't give us these thinly veiled threats about arousing the anger of the whole Islamic world. We saw that crap errupt over the Danish Cartoons. And if we see more of the same this time we might just have to conclude that 14th century emperor was right and not much has changed in Islam.