LGF

more options

  

Advertisement

Madrid Terrorists Called Britain

Sun, Apr 11, 2004 at 9:51:59 pm PDT

Was there a British connection to the Islamic bombings in Madrid? Spanish killers may have called British cleric. (Hat tip: The Grand Vizier.)

SPANISH police believe the Madrid bombers may have called a radical Islamic leader based in Britain shortly before they blew themselves up last week, a month after the train bombs killed 191 people.

Police believe the suspect terrorists called a man - possibly a cleric - last Saturday before committing collective suicide as police prepared to storm their apartment outside Madrid, the leading Spanish newspaper El Pais said, citing unidentified sources involved in the police investigation.

Investigators said they had little information about the suspect but think he is a radical Islamic leader and possibly an imam. Spanish police were reported as believing the call might indicate that the Madrid attacks were backed by people in Britain.

In the 11 March attacks, ten bombs ripped through four commuter trains during morning rush hour in the country’s worst terrorist attack.

Seventeen people, 13 of them Moroccan, have since been charged in connection with the bombings. Authorities believe that the main culprits are either behind bars or were killed when the seven terrorist suspects blew themselves up on 3 April.

However, at least six more suspects are still being sought by police, including Amer Azizi, a suspected leading member of the al-Qaeda terrorist group in Europe.

MI5 has already discovered that two of the men accused of taking part in the attacks have British links. The Moroccan brothers Mohamed and Rachid Oulad Akcha, for whom international arrest warrants have been issued by Juan del Olmo, the investigating judge in charge of the case, both spent time in London before the Madrid outrage.

Their sister, Naima Oulad Akcha, is the only female suspect so far arrested in connection with the Madrid massacre. She is being held in a top security prison, and is believed by investigators to have known all the terrorists involved in the attacks and allowed her flat to be used for planning meetings.

Advertisement

53 comments

  • Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.
  • Obscene, abusive, silly, or annoying remarks may be deleted, but the fact that particular comments remain on the site in no way constitutes an endorsement of their views by Little Green Footballs.
  • Posts that contain phone numbers, street addresses, email addresses or other personal information will also be deleted, as will posts that consist only of a variation on the word, "First!"
  • Comments that advocate violence will be cause for immediate banning with no appeal.
  • Disagreement and debate are welcome, but insults and abuse are not, and may cause your account to be blocked.
  • REMEMBER: posting comments at LGF is a privilege, not a right. Abuse that privilege, and your account will be blocked.

Hide comments | Jump to bottom

1 FH  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:01:24pm

As it has been said before, England is the spot of Al Qaedas European HQ. I wonder what Mosque they station from.

OT: A Must Read "Alternate History" view of what would happen if Bush had acted prior to 9/11.

[Link: stromata.tripod.com...]

2 FH  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:01:54pm

I forgot the /sarcasms tag up there, my bad.

3 ylreveb  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:03:24pm

Just now on Fox News online: Breaking news--blasts rock coalition HQ in Baghdad. Anyone see anything about this?

4 Connecticut Yankee  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:05:38pm

#3

I saw the headline too but can't find out anything more.

5 Tasty Beverage  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:06:09pm
the suspect terrorists called a man - possibly a cleric - last Saturday

Uuuhhh...al-Hamza? It couldn't possibly be Captain Hook.

(why has he not been deported already?)

6 IceCold  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:08:29pm

This, and another (though pretty dubious) story of various radical clerics pow-wowing in Londonistan prior to Moqtada Sadr's Excellent Adventure in Iraq -- is Finsbury and not South Waziristan perhaps the "breeding ground" for terror?

Just kidding.

It has become annoying, however, to read in every facile commentary about Iraq or parts of Afghanistan becoming "breeding grounds" for terror. Breeding grounds are anywhere suitable dimwits can be found -- from Mill Valley to Marseilles to Cairo to wherever. Usually in quiet, prosperous circumstances. Disorder in Fallujah or Paktia province isn't the same as Terror Central "mainstreamed" in Afghanistan under the Taliban. Just one of the zillion invalid and unexamined thow-away lines polluting the media these days.

7 Jane  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:08:58pm

"Spanish police were reported as believing the call might indicate that the Madrid attacks were backed by people in Britain."

Gee with crazy unbelievable things like this, one might get the sense that it's a GLOBAL Salafist conspiracy. But no no no no lets talk about the unemployment rate and protest the Patriot Act because the Old Normal is just SO much more relaxing./sarcasm off

8 Jaffar abu Grand Vizier  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:09:02pm

Hat tip! Woo Hoo!

9 Model4  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:14:48pm
SPANISH police believe the Madrid bombers may have called a radical Islamic leader based in Britain

Well duh! Like busy terrorists have time to wait around while this guy tries to dial them internationally.

10 J.D.  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:17:37pm

Semi OT

It is becoming apparent that the spiraling violence in Iraq and U.S. administrator Paul Bremer’s inability to handle the situation will significantly influence the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

With bloody uprisings in the Iraqi cities of Baghdad, Karbala, Najaf, Fallujah, and Basra continuing, U.S. President George W. Bush only has two options to boost his chances of reelection.

Establishing peace and security in Iraq and effecting a peaceful transfer of power to the Iraqis is the first. Carrying out a face-saving withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq is his second option.

As a matter of fact, Bremer’s ironfisted policy in Iraq and the coalition forces’ attacks on civilians in the cities of Najaf, Karbala, and Baghdad will have serious repercussions for U.S. foreign policy and will influence the result of the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

Bush Walking on Razor’s Edge

11 Infinite Justice  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:18:33pm

OT:
Might Kerry be better on the WoT?

Ironically, this anti-Kerry, anti-WoT article postulates an interesting scenario. Kerry might be a better man for the job. The current administration is just too chummy with the wahhabi sect to ever act decisively to defeat this threat. They won't even name the enemy.

I am considering giving my vote to Kerry. Beyond calling out the enemy and not being tainted by labyrinthian business and family ties with the enemy, Kerry just might be the "left-wing liberal dove" needed to crush Islamist terror.

12 Model4  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:18:36pm

#3 ylreveb: I got pretty sick of that last week when the news guys were saying "Unbelievable explosion second only to the eruption of Mt. Krakatoa destroys all of Baghdad," only to find out it was one freaking mortar round. And they kept reporting it like this for hours after they'd found out what it was! Wrote 'em to ask them to knock it off, because that's really shoddy journalism. I mean I don't want to be near a mortar strike, but it ain't the biggest deal in the grand scheme of things, and gives us the wrong impression.

13 FH  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:22:27pm

#11 possibly reeks of being a Mobyite. Charles?

14 Jaffar abu Grand Vizier  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:22:41pm

#11 Infinite Justice

That line of reasoning might carry a little more weight if Kerry wasn't so hellbent on fighting a war with search warrants and Miranda warnings. Bush's chumminess with the House of Saud gives most of us here indigestion, but unless JFK pulls his head out of his a** on foreign policy and stops pandering to the lowest sentiments of the far left, the scenario you outline is not likely to come true.

16 Spiny Norman  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:25:48pm

#5 Tasty Beverage

Uuuhhh...al-Hamza? It couldn't possibly be Captain Hook.

That evil bastard was the first one I thought of as well. What do you mean, why hasn't he been deported? Why the hell is he not in prison???

17 Ralph  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:26:39pm

Greetings all,
Nice interview with the commander of the Israeli Navy
He has an outlook you might find understandable
here

18 Jaffar abu Grand Vizier  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:27:18pm

16 Spiny Norman

To hell with that, why isn't he six feet under, trying to eat his 72 raisins with that hook?

19 Spiny Norman  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:29:03pm
trying to eat his 72 raisins with that hook?

Bwahahahaha!

20 its jake  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:37:50pm

Of course it was facilitated through the Brits at some point. The exploding beards just love Britain.

I guess 2 million cameras doesn't stop terrorism.

21 Infinite Justice  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:40:05pm

#14 Jaffar abu Grand Vizier

Well, most real wars we've engaged in (including the civil war) have been waged by "liberal" administrations. In spite of revisionist history to the contrary, Reagan was extremly skittish about applying military power, partly because he came to office as a "militarist, war-mongering conservative." He spent much of his 8 years trying to dispel this perception. At the first sign of trouble, he split. When terrorists attacked, he talked them to death. Conservatives generally are hamstrung and global opprobrium is generally more pronouced when they act militarily to protect U.S. interests.

Do you really believe Kerry would withdraw from Iraq? Of course not. Iraq will be his inheritance. What Kerry might do is level Fullujah, and then tell the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians they're next unless they clean up their act.

22 Spiny Norman  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 8:55:36pm

#21

What Kerry might do is level Fullujah, and then tell the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians they're next unless they clean up their act.

Dick Gephardt might have, maybe even John Edwards, but no way in hell would John Kerry. His first priority would be the precious "exit strategy". Kerry has never been anything resembling "decisive" as P.J. O'Rourke recalls.

23 Jaffar abu Grand Vizier  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 9:03:46pm

#21 Infinite Justice

You're making a false comparison between liberals like FDR, LBJ, etc. and post-60's liberals. What happened to the Left during that time permanently altered it, especially in terms of foreign affairs. It's misleading to compare the two, or say that liberals today are heir in some way to liberals of previous eras.

Do you really believe Kerry would withdraw from Iraq? Of course not.

I never claimed he would. I think U.S. troops are in Iraq for quite some time. I think what he would do and has publicly said he would do is phase out the bulk of the U.S. troop prescence with U.N. troops, which causes me (and most Iraqis) a great deal of concern. We can have debates about the validity or utility of the U.N. all day long, but you can't deny that the U.N. makes a lousy peacekeeping/peacemaking force. Ask the people of Srebrenica or Rwanda.

Iraq will be his inheritance. What Kerry might do is level Fullujah, and then tell the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians they're next unless they clean up their act

No, he wouldn't. Go on over to DU or indymedia: there is no real enthusiasm for Kerry as such, he is just riding the crest of the tsunami of Bush hatred from the left: he will owe his election (if it happens) to the most pacific-minded elements in the Democratic party. If the Democrats were serious about the WoT, they would have nominated Gephardt or Lieberman. With Kerry, they get the worst of both worlds, and will most likely end up regretting it come Nov.

24 ploome  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 9:12:04pm

when do we stop calling these scum, clerics

and realize what they teach is murder and sedition

when do we get rid of all of them?

25 ylreveb  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 9:12:07pm

#9
Who IS that guy? what a horror.

My God.

These guys are like villains out of Ace Comics, arent' they?

26 Infinite Justice  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 10:05:33pm

#23 Jaffar abu Grand Vizier

You're making a false comparison between liberals like FDR, LBJ, etc. and post-60's liberals. What happened to the Left during that time permanently altered it, especially in terms of foreign affairs. It's misleading to compare the two, or say that liberals today are heir in some way to liberals of previous eras.

Relatively speaking, compared to the opposition and in the context of their times, they were all liberal. Lincoln was a wild-eyed liberal radical in comparison to Douglas. But Lincoln would qualify as a white supremacist today. LBJ was not a post-Watergate liberal but he certainly was liberal as compared to Goldwater.

27 zulubaby  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 10:19:10pm

ylreveb (#25)

That would be Abu Hamza, a freak of note.

See these links:

Mosque to Abu Hamza: Scramza

Muslim Gloatfest UK

Finsbury Park Freakazoid Gets His

UK Pays for Radical Islamic Sermons

28 Rayra Johnson  Sun, Apr 11, 2004 11:43:47pm

E.(nemy) T.(errorist), Phone home.


#21 Infinite Bullshit 4/11/2004 10:40PM PST
...Do you really believe Kerry would withdraw from Iraq? Of course not. Iraq will be his inheritance. What Kerry might do is level Fullujah, and then tell the Saudis, Syrians and Iranians they're next unless they clean up their act.

BWAHAHAHAAAAA. Riight.
Just watching the entire Left late last week and this weekend do their very (Evil) Worst to repeat 1972, Ted Kennedy actually making the Vietnam comparison, much of the papers 'Tet' comparisons, the whole left cheering the 'brave freedom fighters' as they kill American troops. and the Kerry camp on sunday trotting out (of all things) a 'Misery Index'! - can the Left CREATE anything?? Recycling the entire 70s, and the child-like 'cycle of bullshit' their campaign operatives are orchestrating - truly sad.
And if John Flip-Flop Kerry somehow manages a win, it'll be 'Peace with Honor' within 12 months, and ANOTHER million dead by the USA leaving a fight we are WINNING.

29 tipper  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 12:41:42am

I reckon it's Abu Qatadahttp://www.cbc.ca/national/news/recruiters/qatada. html
And alsohttp://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,91 40553%255E421,00.html
But maybe they only wanted "divorce advice"
/sarcasm off

30 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 1:36:34am

#20 its jake

Of course it was facilitated through the Brits at some point. The exploding beards just love Britain.

Has anyone ever worked out why this should be so?

31 JohninLondon  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 2:26:11am

Britain has been stipidly - criminally - lax on its border controls. Dozens, hundreds of people let in, including a lot of dangerous guys from North Africa as well as the long-settled Pakistanis.

Basically this coulod scupper the Blair Government. It has lost control of immigration and of asylum seekers. Specifically :

1 Britain acts as a magnet anyway, much like America. People want a decent economy, English speaking, free education and health to all comers. The UK has most of the time thrown in very easy welfare benefits, free social housing - a life of Riley.

2 No IDs. Very little checking on illegals, on illegal employment, on fake marriages, on false students attending colleges above the grocer's shop, on people eg from Albania claiming to be fleeing from Kosovo, on Pakistanis claiming to be from Afghanistan. etc etc. People destroy their documents once they get on a plane to Britain, and we don't send them back.

3 Absurd legal support on appeals etc for all who get here, apeal after appeal, with the UK judges taking the most liberal view imaginable about people's "human rights". Especially the EU provisions - far more generous than other EU countries. Even when appeals finally fail, less than 10% of refusees are deported. They get lost in the system.

4 The more that get here, the more they act as a magnet to bring more in.

5 All the usual PC twaddle on multiculturalism etc. No pressure to integrate/assimilate.

6 And lots more reasons, enough to write a book about.


Crazy, crazy, crazy.

It could well be Blair's nemesis. Immigration issues are far and away the top political issue/complaint now.


If I were an al Q operative, I'd head straight for London. To feel safe, lost in the crowds. In close contact with other cells in Europe. Wasn't it Mao who wrote of fish swimming in the sea ?

32 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 2:51:22am

#31 JohninLondon

That's a pretty comprehensive list of reasons. However, I still wonder why the Muslim immigrants have historically been so eager to acquire an English-speaking domicile.

Another point: even if controls are tightened - as they obviously must be - isn't there a danger that the whole issue can be used by AQ and other militant Islamic organizations in order to destabilize British society, which is already quite shaky in many respects? What I mean is that the whole issue of immigration - Muslim and non-Muslim alike - is a sensitive one in the United Kingdom, and can be exploited to trigger race-focused sentiments that could destroy the entire fabric of British society? For example, the protesters fighting to stop a proposed asylum centre in rural Oxfordshire who have just lost their legal challenge, might only be the tip of an almighty iceberg.

I'm not arguing that these protesters are in any way unjustified in their actions - merely that, unless it's handled very carefully, the whole issue could develop into a kind of communal hysteria that might cause serious social unrest. The increasing incidence of cemetery grave vandalism is a warning sign, I believe.

How to deal with this problem?

33 JohninLondon  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 3:42:57am

halldor

The first step to dealing with the problem is RECOGNISING that there is a problem.


Opinion polls clearly show that the public see a big problem. A recent Sky poll, for instance, showed 84% of people wanting a major independent enquiry into immigration. While 81% did NOT believe the actions Blair was announcing will tighten immigration control.

This puts Blair hugely out of step with public opinion - on the issue that the public rates as most important - far above Iraq, health, education, the economy.

The debate is widening. Senior people on the LEFT are saying that multi-culturalism is dangerous folly. Blair is forced to call crisis meetings, the Immigration Minister has been forced to resign. But this is only the beginning. Blair has a little over a year left before an election. This is the biggest issue he faces, and he will likely lose the election on it.

There is more risk of civil trouble from inaction than from action, IMHO. People are seriously pissed off with it all.

34 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 4:19:04am

#33 JohninLondon

I agree that the first step is to recognize that there is a problem. And from the statistics you quote, it appears that the recognition has taken place. I don't think anyone disputes that now.

And yes - the debate is widening. Even Trevor Phillips of the Commission for Racial Equality has come out with a statement condemning the concept and practice of "multiculturalism". And that, too, is a step forward. Where I see the danger zone approaching is when we start to try to disentangle ethnic multiculturalism from ethnicity itself. I.e. how is it going to be possible to enforce a sense of "Britishness" without making the process seem threatening to ethnic groups which may have nothing to do with militant Islam, or even with Islam at all? After all, according to the most recent statistics published by the IRR, only something like just over 2 percent of the UK's population identifies itself as Muslim. What is going to happen to the UK's non-Muslim ethnic communities under a regime of stricter control?

Don't get me wrong - in posing this question, I'm looking for an answer rather than predicting some sort of catastrophe. I was struck by an
article (subscription required for non UK readers), which contains the following paragraph:

This kerfuffle is a distraction from the debate that we should be having. However much some might want to turn back the clock, we live in a multiethnic society, and are the better for it. The question is, what do we want that society to stand for? It is not who we are or where we come from that matters, but what we hope to become and in what kind of country we wish to live. These are questions that cannot be answered by edict from the CRE or the Home Office. It would be a start if we could have an open debate, instead of one stymied by those who imagine us as fodder for intolerance who might all join the BNP (or al-Qaeda) if left to our own devices.

I think the only problem I have with this is that I don't share the author's sanguine view, stated at the end there: I'm concerned that all too many people might flock to extremist organizations, "if left to their own devices". This could particularly be true in the scenario you outline, where Blair loses the next election, and the country faces an unknown and unstable political future. I don't have much faith in Labour, but I don't have much faith in the Conservatives either - they have lost too much credibility to be be an electable government. And what are the alternatives: the Tongean LibDems? The Respect Coalition? It's not a happy prospect.

I'm not always this gloomy. But I am troubled by the future that seems to be looming for our country. And I do think the article's author is right to ask:

What do we want our society to stand for?

35 Colt  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 4:38:22am

JohninLondon

Are those Sky polls scientific, or the interactive ones where viewers "press the red button"? If the latter, then they're not representative of UK thinking.

36 JohninLondon  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 4:46:00am

halldor

The figures from the (voluntary) Census for Muslims in Britain look to be an underestimate. They indicate 1 million. I think the figure is far higher. With Muslims up to 10%, 20%, 30% in some localities. Including very large numbers from North Africa, with nil historic link to the UK. Plus huge numbers of Pakistani background, many of whom send their children back to Pakistan for prolonged periods, disrupting their education. Leading to educational under-achievement and unemployment - and the seeds of social disturbance here.

My sense is that most of the other ethnic minorities in Britain have largely sought to assimilate. They find no problem with that. And they would be recognise - for their own benefit and for good community relations - that there needs to be far stronger controls, quite drastic changes in policy.

37 Colt  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 4:46:02am

And FWIW, my bet is Omar Bakri.

38 JohninLondon  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 4:53:59am

Colt

I agree the Sky polls are not particularly representative - except maybe of Sky viewers/site readers. A bit like Sun readers ?

Hey - I'd settle for that !

39 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 4:56:15am

#36 JohninLondon

My sense is that most of the other ethnic minorities in Britain have largely sought to assimilate. They find no problem with that. And they would be recognise - for their own benefit and for good community relations - that there needs to be far stronger controls, quite drastic changes in policy.

I agree that the African Caribbean community, for example, has largely sought to assimilate. However, its position in U.K. society is not exactly what one might call secure, and it suffers from a marginalization that is a direct result of poor education and economic prospects. Such a situation can all too easily be exploited by extremists - all the way from AQ to the BNP.

The question is: assimilate to what? What is the Britain of today, and what does it stand for?

40 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 4:59:26am

#35 Colt

Are UK media opinion polls ever scientific? Probably not, but at least they give some idea of what is going on in people's minds. Between them, Sky and the Sun must cover quite a few heads of pooulation.

41 JohninLondon  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 5:03:35am

halldor

The signs are that the BNP have set their sights on the Muslim communities. Not the Afro-Caribbeans any more. And this has led directly to street trouble already, which could flare up again.

What is "Britain" ? And how to assimilate to it ? gain - at least the question is being asked at last, is a matter for free debate without people being called racist for even raising the issue. And when people on the left like Goodhart and Trevor Phillips are kicking off a lot of debate, it is too late to put the genie back in the bottle.

What is best expressed as "Britishness" ? A matter of tone, maybe. And oddly enough, Mark Steyn often comes closest to expressing that tone.

42 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 5:32:14am

#41 JohninLondon

What is "Britain" ? And how to assimilate to it ? gain - at least the question is being asked at last, is a matter for free debate without people being called racist for even raising the issue.

Yes, everyone keeps saying that. And so far, so good.

But what is Britain, and does it even necessarily involve the concept of "race"?

A matter of tone - perhaps. But for a country to recover its lost - or damaged - identity, it needs something more than tone, wouldn't you agree? All too often the definitions seem to be negatives: Britain is not Europe, Britain is not America, and so on. When we try to look at what it is, the picture is confused and unclear. I agree with Melanie Phillips when she says that New Labour "has consistently shown both deep contempt for and ignorance of this country’s history and traditions, which it has torn up in the interests of ‘modernity’" - but it's hard to see how this destruction can be undone.

43 Model4  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 6:44:56am

Egads, I could weep hearing Brits asking "What does it mean to be British?" If the answer is uncertain, I'd send folks abroad to ask. Certainly in America we have a lot of notions about the British identity. They may be caricatures and over-simplified, but they're positive ones of a culture and people we were quite fond of and admired. Perhaps good starting points for a people who have lost their bearings. You can flesh out the rest in your endearingly stodgy and pedantic way once you're heading down the right path.

Saw a similar question posed in the BBC (spit) recently, and you can imagine how a lot, but not all of the answers went. "It's just what it says on my passport. Other than that it means nothing." Trust me when I say you should take them at their word, and fire them from a cannon across the Channel. It's all the same, right? They'll find their way in their new lands. The loss of Britain will be a grievous wound to all who cherish freedom and enlightenment.

44 JohninLondon  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 7:16:14am

Nothing too much wrong with Britain if the Sun is the most popular of the tabloids, and the Telegraph the most popular broadsheet. With a Prime Minister pursuing largely Thatcherite policies. Plus warm beer, mild weather and writers like Theodore Dalrymple :

[Link: www.city-journal.org...]

45 pond  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 7:33:04am

Model 4 - LOL! It isn't that bad, you know. Overeducated and underemployed Beeb agonistes do not represent the rank and file. Or many of the commanders for that matter.

Anyway, British is still a vague term, invented to somehow make the Scots, the Welsh, the English and those bloody annoying Cornish people some kind of family. The results are decidely mixed so far, no matter how many armies London sent marching west and north over the centuries.

As for the English side, Orwell was right on the money, then and now: "The English are inveterate gamblers, drink as much beer as their wages will permit, are devoted to bawdy jokes, and use probably the foulest language in the world." Howzat for stodgy? :)

46 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 7:42:31am

#44 JohninLondon

from the article:

To be sure, fundamentalist Islam will be very dangerous for some time to come, and all of us, after all, live only in the short term; but ultimately the fate of the Church of England awaits it. Its melancholy, withdrawing roar may well (unlike that of the Church of England) be not just long but bloody, but withdraw it will. The fanatics and the bombers do not represent a resurgence of unreformed, fundamentalist Islam, but its death rattle.


A great piece. But I wish it were true that we are witnessing the "death rattle" of Islam.

I've just been reading Ibn Warraq's "Why I Am Not A Muslim", and was struck by the chapter in which he shows how deeply Islam entered Christian culture at the time of the Enlightenment. In contrast to the "absurdity" of the Christian mysteries, Voltaire "finds the dogmas of Islam simplicity itself: there is but one God, and Muhammad is his Prophet... to this was added other false beliefs such as Islam's absolute tolerance of other religions, in contrast to Christian intolerance." Ibn Warraq also shows how the historian Gibbon "painted Islam in as favourable a light as possible to better contrast it with Christianity." Gibbon "emphasized Muhammad's humanity as a means of indirectly criticizing the Christian doctrine of the divinity of Christ."

Voltaire, Gibbon, Carlyle - these are in many ways the cornerstones of the thought of our Western civilization. Yet even they have been affected by the influence of Islam... If one adds to this the inherent antisemitism that is characteristic of a lot of Western - especially English - literature, the picture is a rather bleak one.

Islam is not just something outside our culture - it has affected it and weakened it from within as well.

47 Crusade Now  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 8:09:50am

Hi john, Hallador and colt and others - having lived in Haringey near Finsbury Park - I knew Albanians that weren´t Kosovars - also I met many algerians on the buses whilst drunk. I think your immigration policy is insane and am AMAZED there hasn´t been an attack yet - Bakri Hamza etc must be in British pay - otherwise how do they know of the flat of somalis in Wood Green cooking the Ricin??? It was an obscure flat in the middle of nowhere. Also the people of that village in Oxforshire led by Toyah Wilcox must bow before the multiculturalism God and accept their small community is to be swamped by people from a different back ground and adjust their behviour accrordingly.

Only in wonder land Britain do they refuse me any legal right to stay (despite being a Cornish descendant - and having had ancestors fight for Britain) and work and accept all these shiftless bums who work through the cash econnomy when they work at all and get their pensions - I know I lived next to a house full of them. I know personally I would go NUTS if the Uk government starts shifting asylum seekers to Cornwall. Given the record of the imperial English government and its treatment of the minority Cornish I am surprised it hasn´t happen already. Maybe you need to be like us all all emigrate and have your St george festival in Australia - where we have the biggest Kernewek festival in the world. There are already heaps of poms here - maybe here or Spain. Having had English people complain to me without me inviting this conversation about their own immigrants it would take only a few bombs to brinig about a bloodbath. The police wouldn´t be able to control it. I think it would be black and white versus pakis/somalis. I remember a black guy in the east end who hated the pakis....

I think these clowns rang Yasser Al Siri, Hamza or Bakri - or maybe someone we don´t know about. I am somewhat dissapointed the Uk didn´t expel me but accepted the loophole within which I managed to stay....otherwise the terrorists in Spain may have been forced to call someone else......

As for what is Britishness - well like a lot of stolen things it once meant Cornish and Welsh.......
A lot of people wouldn´t have even bothered with the census where I lived.......I wouldn´t put faith in those figures - the paki/muslims population would easily be over 3 million......

48 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 9:09:12am

#47 Crusade Now

I agree. I think the UK should relocate to Australia - except you wouldn't let us in! :-)

49 Crusade Now  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 9:51:32am

Halldor - What do you mean - there is about 30% of people born in the UK in oz - where i grew up the whole of Brixton and Birmingham had relocated - we even built you a city called Elizabeth which is now a 3rd world shithole - believe me immigration is a one way street...........

50 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 10:26:01am

#49 Crusade Now

Right, you already let us in. :-)

But it's too late for a second call, I should think. Especially with all our Muslim friends, and all.

51 Crusade Now  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 10:40:30am

yes - we get our own now courtesy of Lebanon, Somalia etc.....I met a somali taxi driver in Sydney and in the time I had been away in the Uk earning 900 quid a week (over 3 years) he had amassed a fortune just by buying a house in Sydney and sitting on it with the rampant inflation of house prices there (caused by immigration). This has happened to many immigrants in Sydney - they are suddenly very rich once they can afford the deposit -of course now you have a whole lot of native born who can´t buy a house (once part of the australian dream). This is the result of unchecked immigration. Sydney´s premier doesn´t want any more immigrants now - also there are water restictions there. I wonder how hard it is for you to buy a house? I could do it but had visa restrictions........I think we are heading for a clash of civilzations between Islamaniacs and unfulfilled educated but not materially rich white men.......

52 halldor  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 10:57:26am

#51 Crusade Now

House prices here in the south east are through the roof, though the pressure from immigration is mostly on the public sector. Sadly, what you describe does look like the future, I'm afraid.

53 JohninLondon  Mon, Apr 12, 2004 11:33:51am

Crusade

My father was an ANZAC, WW1 OZ soldier, wounded in France in 1917. But my children - English-born - had problems working even for the short-term in OZ and New Zealand. Because those countries now reciprocate the "2-year limit" the K imposed for any visits from the former Dominions. People from the Dominions with family roots originally in Britain find it harder to get entry to the K than people form - say - Somalia or Kosovo. Let alone bloody Europe !!!

I can't understand it, and I deeply resent it.

Blood is no longer treated as thicker than water. Crazy.


This entry has been archived.
Comments are closed.

^ back to top ^

log in
Name:
Pass:

Register Forgot Your Password? My Account Re-send Confirmation (To log in, cookies must be enabled in your browser!)

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► LGF Hits

► Slideshows

► Resources

► Never Forget

► Statistics

► Tag Cloud

► Contact

You must have Javascript enabled to use the contact form.
Your email:

Subject:

Message:


Messages may be published in our weblog, unless you request otherwise.
Tech Note:
Using the Contact Form

► News/Opinion

The Beatles Are Here. Reissues and Rock Band.
20% off Easy Reading Programs and More at Hooked On Phonics
More Partners

Compare Electricity Prices in your area. Texas Electricity is deregulated; you have the right to choose Texas Electric Rates from among many Texas Electric Companies.

Ignorance is blix.


Music 160x600
Free Shipping on Most Orders