EU Referendum

Showing posts with label Muslims. Show all posts

Police+car+003[i-Police+car+003]A young Muslim gentleman by the name of Abu Bakr seems to think we are a police state against Muslims. But, if he feels that way, there is always somewhere else he can go where, according to the Sunday Times, Muslims are especially welcome.

Mind you, if he really wants to know what a police state is about, he should perhaps try not paying his Council Tax.

I suspect though that a lot of Muslims will never have this problem, especially those who are on benefit and are thus exempt. Whitey, middle-class, male Christian, however, gets the police through the window at midnight.

The Abu Bakrs of this world don't know they're born.

COMMENT THREAD

Javed[i-Javed]It was February last when the Metropolitan Police escorted some low-life Muslim scum through the streets of London, allowing them to carry inflammatory placards and chant violent messages.

It took until November to get the first one, Mizanur Rahman, through the courts, with a guilty verdict and, two months later, they've finally got another.

This is Umran Javed, 27, (pictured above) who had shouted "Bomb, bomb USA" and "Jihad is the path to Allah" as he led a 300-strong crowd in chants during the demonstration.

cartoons+placards[i-cartoons+placards]He was also a prominent figure in the rally outside the Danish embassy, leading chants there. But he claimed in court that his chants were "sayings and soundbites" without any intention at all. On the other hand, David Perry, for the prosecution, said that, "if you shout out, 'Bomb, bomb Denmark; bomb, bomb USA', there is no doubt about what you intend your audience to understand."

Javed has now been remanded in custody to be sentenced in April after an Old Bailey jury found him guilty by a majority verdict of soliciting murder and inciting racial hatred.

There was, we are told, uproar in court as the verdict was delivered with one man led from the public gallery by security guards after shouting: "Allahu Akbar [God is great], I curse the judge, the court, the jury, all of you." Other friends and supporters of Javed also shouted insults.

We await news of their fate, and of the hundreds more demonstrators who took part in the chanting and carried banners last February. It is good to see two of them in the dock but, nearly a year later, that is not anything like good enough.

COMMENT THREAD

Saddam%27s+daughters[i-Saddam%27s+daughters]Will Saddam Hussein become a martyr to many millions of Arabs and other Muslims? Somehow, I do not think so. There is a great deal of artificial indignation being whipped up, though, for some reason, the process started a couple of days after the actual execution and where there are cameras and news reporters, there will be crowds and displays of public grief and emotion. But, for all of that, do that many people outside the anti-American western main stream media really care?

One such rather ridiculous display is described by AllahPundit. It is the daughter of the old tyrant, Raghad, joining a sit-in in Amman and generally “leading” the various protests and lamentations. Well, she is his daughter, is she not? Is it not understandable that she should be grief-stricken? Hmm, I am not so sure and neither is AllahPundit, who, frankly, thinks that there is something wrong with the woman.

Remember the story of Hussein Kamel, who ran the Iraqi nuclear programme and was married to Raghad? His brother was married to Raghad’s sister, Rana. The story of Iraq’s nuclear development came from them when they ran away to Jordan in 1995 and gave their information to the UN and the USA.

Then they were enticed back to Iraq with promises of full forgiveness. Why they believed it, remains a mystery but return they did. They were met at the border by that delightful creature Uday Hussein who whisked off his sisters with an almost immediate double divorce announced. Who says Muslim women cannot get rapidly divorced from their husbands?

It looks like Raghad and all those grief-stricken protesters may have forgotten what happened to the two brothers after they had been interrogated and released.

The Iraqi scientist Mahdi al-Obeidi wrote this:

What happened next is a matter of legend in Iraq. … dozens of security officers … surrounded the home at al-Sayidiyah. Another security team brought a busload of Hussein Kamel’s relatives and friends to a nearby knoll, from which they would be forced to watch the terrible events that were about to unfold. At dawn, a fierce gun battle broke out. Hussein Kamel and his family tried to defend themselves … most inside were dead, including Hussein Kamel’s brother, his father, his sister, his nephew, and several bodyguards. The attackers stormed the mansion dragged the wounded Hussein Kamel outside, and executed him in front of his relatives. It is rumored that they were told: “Let this be a lesson that no traitors will be allowed to live”.

Did the invasion by the coalition forces wipe out this and other stories of this kind? Did Halabja not happen because it was the Americans who had found and arrested Saddam Hussein?

David Pryce-Jones links Saddam’s trial and execution with those of Adolf Eichmann. There is little to be added to that. Read the whole posting.

Meanwhile, Iraq the Model writes from Baghdad:

To those who didn’t like justice I say that his death means life to many.

Executing the dictator renews the hopes of not only Iraqis but also of other oppressed peoples in the world in having a better future where they enjoy freedom. It's time for other tyrants to learn from this lesson and realize that a similar fate is on the way if they refuse to change.

Yes, it was the people though their elected government who put Saddam on trial and who says otherwise should go back and learn about how Saddam humiliated, murdered and tortured Iraqis and plundered their fortunes in his stupid adventures.

Are we to understand from all those protesting starting with the Daily Telegraph and ending with whatever left-wing media outlet one would like to name, not forgetting the egredious John Prescott, that the Americans should not have handed Saddam over for the verdict arrived at by the Iraqi court appointed by the elected Iraqi government to be carried out? Surely not.

COMMENT THREAD

Haj[i-Haj]From multiple sources, including The Times, the consensus seems to be that Saddam will be despatched from this earth while we in the UK sleep soundly in our beds.

But there are those amongst this lot at the Haj - more than two million pilgrims crowding on to Mount Arafat, near Mecca, in Saudi Arabia, praying for Muslims around the world - who are complaining that the timing is "insensitive". There are fears that there may be a backlash.

MOAB[i-MOAB]But, if it gets out of hand, I suppose there's always this. Interestingly, with the initials MOAB, it is known as the "Mother Of All Bombs" - rather appropriate under the circumstances. We have the technology to put an end to a very large number of lives, very quickly and, on that basis, the fact that these people are still alive is a testament to the restraint of the Western powers.

But it need not always be like this. The Muslims need to believe, methinks, that we would use one - or several - of these bombs if we are pushed too far. And it might serve to concentrate minds if we let it be known that the Haj would not necessarily be considered immune. They, like us, should know fear.

COMMENT THREAD

Mohammed%20cartoon01[i-Mohammed%20cartoon01]A second editor in a month has been fined for reprinting those Danish cartoons in Yemen. Muhammad Assadi of the Yemen Observer, who maintained that he had published the cartoons in order to show how terrible they were, has been fined 0.5m riyals (£1,280) for “denigrating Islam”.

Last month the editor of the weekly al-Rai al-Aaam, Kamal al-Aalafi was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment with the newspaper ordered to be closed down for six months for the same “crime”. In fact, he is out on bail and is planning to appeal, which puts rather a positive gloss on the Yemeni judicial system. We shall see how that goes.

Another editor is still awaiting trial for reprinting the cartoons.

In the meantime, Mr Assadi’s lawyer announced that the guilty verdict “in this case is what harms the image of Islam”.

President Saleh has said that he will overturn the sentences passed on journalists and one does not quite know whether to applaud his ability to see that this is not quite the best publicity the country can have or wonder why courts need to be overruled by political leaders.

Strangely enough, the BBC, which did not publish the cartoons, has not mentioned President Saleh’s statement in its report. Instead, it decided to “cover its back” and show that it is not on the side of those who publish those cartoons.

Islamic tradition explicitly prohibits images of Muhammad and other major religious figures.

Several of the cartoons associated Muslims, including the prophet himself, with violence, backwardness and fanaticism.

As it happens, none of that is true. There are many images of Muhammad and other major religious figures in Islamic art (though not too often in Arabic art) and the prohibition is far from explicit; and the cartoons were, on the whole, rather mild.

What interests me particularly is the contradiction in journalistic approach. For whatever reason, several Yemeni editors took the very courageous decision to reprint the cartoons. They may or may not pay a penalty for that decision. Our own rather spineless hacks, who are not under any threat, all took the decision to grovel before Islamist groups, who screamed abuse, while our brave boys and girls in blue announced that they could not possibly provide newspapers and journals with protection.

In solidarity with the Yemeni editors, we thought we’d publish one of the cartoons again.

COMMENT THREAD

Nick%20Griffin%2001[i-Nick%20Griffin%2001]It must seriously hack off the BBC – on whose evidence BNP leader Nick Griffin was brought to trial in the first place. But, for the second time, Griffin has walked free from a Leeds court, despite the best efforts of the Crown Prosecution Service to put him behind bars for "inciting race hatred".

Thus it is that the BBC report has as its strap, "A campaign group described the BNP's views as 'abhorrent'", even as Griffin and his co-accused Mark Collett, BNP head of publicity, walked free.

The campaign group, "United Against Fascism" described the acquittal as "a travesty of justice", but it was never going to be the case that a Yorkshire jury was going to find Griffin guilty - and nobody but the loons believes he is a fascist.

But, after yesterday's verdict on Mizanur Rahman we are not the only ones to see a parallel between the two trials. The Guardian has one of their favourite ethnics, Laura Smith (pictured above), to pronounce on the issue.

"The verdict clearing Nick Griffin on race hate charges," she writes, "stands in stark contrast to the case of a young Muslim man convicted the previous day on very similar charges… In both trials, the defendants were accused of using words or behaviour intended to stir up racial hatred."

Er… there is a slight difference Laura. Rahman was facing charges of incitement to murder as well. There is no evidence that Griffin has ever suggested that Muslims should be murdered.

However, if the chattering classes loathe and detest the BNP, the feeling is mutual. Griffin has accused the BBC of abusing its position while Collett described the corporation as "cockroaches".

Many people will be offering a silent cheer at the verdict, not least because of the reaction of the chattering classes. Little do those realise that the great attraction of the BNP is simply that they manage to invoke such paroxysms of rage at their very existence. And even though Gordon Brown may think the laws may need changing, fortunately there is no law against merely upsetting these people – yet.

COMMENT THREAD

Mohammed%20cartoon02[i-Mohammed%20cartoon02]Thanks to a piece in The American Thinker, we have found another rather bizarre “feature” on the Reuters Foundation AlertNet. Now, this is quite complicated. Reuters Foundation is a special section of Reuters that caters primarily for NGOs and charities. Thus the stories that they run they are supposed to choose from the main Reuters website with those “clients” in mind.

This is, therefore, the first mystery: why would a story about the arrest of terrorists who are Muslims in Denmark be of special interest to NGOs and charities?

Then we come to the story itself. The news part of it is really quite straightforward: two months ago the Danish police arrested seven people, all of them Muslim and, at least some, second generation inhabitants of Denmark, on suspicion of planning terrorist acts.

Authorities said the seven held in Odense had collected materials to make explosives for an attack in the Nordic country, which has troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The potential target was not revealed but Justice Minister Lene Espersen said the incident was one of the most serious ever in Denmark.

Going on, the story explains:

The Danish arrests followed a plot uncovered in Britain to blow up planes and two unsuccessful train bombings in Germany. In all three cases, law enforcement officials described the suspects as a new generation of young Muslim radicals, some of them born in Europe, who are willing to use violence against their home countries.

Nobody is denying the fact that we in Western Europe have a problem with some of the second and third generation Muslim youngsters, who are being radicalized. Britain’s problems are greater than other countries’. Furthermore, it is very good to see that the police forces of the three countries involved (and perhaps those of others) have managed to co-ordinate their activities and exchange information without the nonsense of Europol or Eurojust.

That is not the point The American Thinker has rightly raised. It seems that the Reuters journalist, Gelu Sulugiuc, has decided to turn the slightly old news story into a rather odd feature, whose title explains quite clearly the tone of it: “Danish Muslims say arrests hurt integration hopes”.

Well diddums. Another whinge piece about the wrongness of arresting terrorist suspects (who are likely to receive much better treatment and a considerably fairer trial than, say, Salahuddin Shoaib Choudhuri, about whom we wrote yesterday.Mohammed%20cartoon01[i-Mohammed%20cartoon01]

The entire feature is predicated on this flow of ideas: Denmark, a formerly liberal country, has now blotted its copybook by (gasp!) publishing those Mohammed cartoons, which action all by itself, with no help at all from certain radical imams, caused riots and arson throughout the world where the religion of peace congregates; however, those days are now behind us and the Danes should really be concentrating on making up to the Muslims in their midst, some of whom are alienated by all this insistence on free speech; the latest arrests on charges of terrorism have now added fat to the fire, alienating and frightening the Muslims in Denmark even more (no mention of Muslims who might be quite pleased that potential terrorists disappear from their midst) and were altogether a mistake.

On the whole, this is not the way most of us, including most Danes view the matter. The problem here is not that certain journalists write such stuff in their opinion columns. That is what those columns are for. The problem is that a supposedly unbiased news agency sends a feature article like this round the world, creating the impression that this is the standard, accepted, unbiased opinion.

I hate saying it but it is time Reuters (and, of course AP, whose output is far worse) had a closer look at its journalistic staff.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]Time to salute gallant little Denmark again. Reuters brings the news that a court in Aarhuis has ruled that Jyllands-Posten did not libel Muslims in its publication of the 12 cartoons last year.

How one can libel a whole religious group that numbers around 1 billion people around the world is rather mysterious. But that is what the plaintiffs tried to argue:

Seven Danish Muslim organisations brought the case, saying the paper had libelled them with the images, which included one depicting the Prophet with a bomb in his turban, by implying Muslims were terrorists.

Shocking really. Fancy suggesting that there are Muslim terrorists in the world.

The plaintiffs have been ordered to pay the newspaper's legal costs but, it seems, that they intend to appeal to a higher court.

COMMENT THREAD

Eyes%20001[i-Eyes%20001]The Telegraph editorial is as good as any. "The veil stretches our tolerance to its limits", it says.

And it does – quite genuinely. I see these little madams prancing around on the streets locally and they are offensive. As the Telegraph observes, these are largely Pakistani women, yet they are adopting an Arabic form of dress. This is not a religious custom. It is a political statement.

If la Azmi felt this was discrimination, then it was precisely what she wanted. In making a statement that she was different and wanted to be treated differently, how can she then complain if people respond.

Amarah%20005[i-Amarah%20005]But how dare the employment tribunal award her damages for "victimisation". She should get not one penny of public money and, furthermore, since she has been suspended on full pay since February, she should be made to repay her salary.

And what a wet, wimpish response from the Boy King, suggesting that Muslims in Britain are now feeling "slightly targeted". Oddly enough, we have some people in Iraq and Afghanistan who are more than "slightly" targeted. They are being brought home in body bags.

If la Azmi thus feels a tad "targeted" herself, there is a very simple remedy – she could take her sad little person off to Al Amarah where the local police will be very happy to hear her complaints when they can find the complaints desk or, indeed, the police station (see picture above).

COMMENT THREAD

Cartoons[i-Cartoons]Well, really, one can’t help being entertained by the antics of the left, be it in the artistic or the political worlds. Those obnoxious producers and artists who are always prattling on about their right and duty to “scandalize” the “smug bourgeoisie” are finding (in the Berlin Opera and the Whitechapel Art Gallery, among other places) that they desperately need the “smug bourgeoisie” to protect their rights to “scandalize”.

When, instead of the mild protests of the Christian churches and organizations or of the Jewish representatives, they are threatened by people who do not believe in the right to scandalize or even the right to produce works of art, there is a general scampering for safety. Operas are pulled from production, exhibitions are closed down. And it is left to us, sad and smug bourgeois that we are, to protest and to say that artists should have the right to express themselves, though whether the taxpayer should be endlessly paying for lack of talent, ability and taste is another matter.

Now we have another story from Denmark. The latest “cartoon scandal”, this time in the form of a webcast, that, inevitably, provoked a great deal of anger among the followers of the religion of peace (well, those of them who could be persuaded to go for another rampage, that is) and encouraged the Danish Foreign Ministry to issue a warning to Danes not to travel to certain Middle Eastern countries, appears to be a little more complicated than first thought.

It seems that the webcast, which was purported to be that of the right-wing Danish People’s Party, was, in fact, made by a group of left-wing “artists” who had infiltrated the party in order to discredit it.

Now they are having problems. The youths in the video, which does appear to be rather distasteful, are in hiding.

The video was produced by an artists' group, Defending Denmark. In a message posted along with the video, the group said it had infiltrated the Danish People's Party Youth, known as DFU, for 18 months "to document (their) extreme right wing associations."

"This is not an example of something that is meant to provoke. This is an example to show how things are in Danish politics," artist Martin Rosengaard Knudsen told Danish public radio.

The clip was removed from that broadcaster's Web site Monday, as well as from the Nyhedsavisen newspaper's site. The purpose of the original publication was "not to insult Muslims or expose any members ... to any danger," said the paper's editor, David Trads.

A party official reportedly said that two youths seen in the video clips had gone into hiding.

There is no indication in the news report as to whether they are members of the infiltrating artists’ group but I sincerely hope so. The webcasts have been removed from various websites and we have a great deal of whining from the artists in question who didn’t mean to upset anyone (well, apart from the right-wing Danish People’s Party), honest, guv. Sad, isn’t it.

COMMENT THREAD

machine_gun_cat[i-machine_gun_cat]"Our streets are full of fear" headed a comment piece in The Sunday Times yesterday, written by India Knight expressing the view that:

Being frightened in the street and even in our own homes - feeling scared to intervene when yobs are behaving badly for fear of one's own safety - has become the norm in this country. We moan about it in the same way that we moan about leaves on the line or automated telephone systems: it's just everyday life.

If this was a crie de coeur from a writer who records some of the appalling goings-on in an inner London council estate, on this blog we have posted cries of equal passion about many things, from the genocidal slaughter in Darfur to - the proximate cause of this blog's existence - the encroachment of the European Union on our daily lives.

Yet, say some of our forum members, all we do is moan and one of them directs a question to us "thinkers", asking, in the context of the growing threat from Muslims in our midst, "What, if anything, are you going to do?" The implication here is that instead of mere "thinking", to say nothing of "moaning", in order to achieve something, "action" is needed.

read more...

COMMENT THREAD

britain_veil[i-britain_veil]It does say something of British newspapers that not one of the main nationals carries a report of the Blair statement on equipment for the British Army, while all of them offer lengthy analyses and updates on the Straw statement on Muslim women wearing veils.*

As you might expect though, the most fatuous offering comes from the Independent on Sunday which has Straw accused of "unleashing a racist backlash against Britain's Muslims".

The paper also cites Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland Secretary, saying that women should be entitled to wear the veil if they chose. "I believe that women, like everybody else, are entitled to dress as they choose to dress," he said on BBC Radio 4's Any Questions.

And Shahid Malik, Labour MP for Dewsbury, is cited as saying that "I think Jack may have unleashed forces more negative and corrosive than he anticipated… I think there is a growing feeling among Muslims in Britain that something has got to give. They are genuinely fearful of attack."

The point about the "racist backlash" of course is that the Muslims' religion is independent of any nationality or race. For anyone to object to women wearing a veil, therefore, is hardly evidence of a racist backlash.

As for the rest, there can be no doubt that British women who wear the veil are making a political statement, in effect declaring that they place their values above those of the country in which they live - thus rejecting any idea of integration.

Nevertheless, they are entitled to make that statement. But the rest of us are entitled to express our hostility to it. And, if as a result, Muslims "fear attack" – tough. Now they know how the rest of us feel.

* This is based on the electronic editions. The print edition of The Sunday Telegraph did carry a brief story on the Blair statement.

COMMENT THREAD

veil.0[i-veil.0]These postings seem to multiply in an amoeba fashion but choosing sides is something we all have to do internally as well as externally.

Several stories have come up in the last couple of days that require a certain amount of comment. The Evening Standard today reports two cases of licensed minicab drivers being fined for refusing to take guide dogs in their cars. The reason given was that, being Muslims, they find dogs dirty and offensive.

One of the ladies who was refused to be taken in a cab, which had been summoned by the BBC after she had appeared on News 24, Jane Vernon, complained to the owner of the minicab firm, who, apparently, told her that she should show more respect for other people’s culture. She, in turn, pointed out that the driver had shown no respect for her disability.

read more...

COMMENT THREAD

cartoons%202[i-cartoons%202]

For various reasons this blog omitted to mention the fact that we have, in the last few days, celebrated, if that is the right word, the first anniversary of the Danish cartoons, one of the many events in the West that have caused “rage” in Muslim countries. Those people do live on a short fuse.

Now, thanks to The American Thinker, we find that there was an unexpected development as a result of those cartoons and the Guardian, for one, does not like it. Describing, not entirely accurately, the saga of what Luke Harding calls “a provocative exercise in free speech”, he comes to the conclusion that the people who had indulged in the provocation had not done all that badly out of it:

[Flemming] Rose [the cultural editor of Jyllands-Poste] makes a persuasive case that the paper did the right thing. It has still not apologised - and does not intend to, he said. In an article in the New York Times Rose argues that Europe's left is deceiving itself about immigration, integration and Islamic radicalism in the same way "young hippies" like him fooled themselves about Marxism and communism 30 years ago. "It's part of the Enlightenment tradition in the history of Europe and western civilisation to mock religious symbols. I think the debate we started was fruitful. We live in a state where there are basic democratic and constitutional values. And then you have immigrants with other value systems. How far do you go in accommodating these newcomers? What is a deal-breaker? The question of integration and assimilation is the number one issue facing Europe over the next decade."

While Danish milk products were dumped in the Middle East, fervent rightwing Americans started buying Bang & Olufsen stereos and Lego. In the first quarter of this year Denmark's exports to the US soared 17%. The British writer Christopher Hitchens organised a buy-Danish campaign. Among the thousands of emails sent to Rose was one from an American soldier serving in Iraq. "He told me he was sitting in Iraq, watching a game of football and drinking a can of Carlsberg," Rose said.

Rose is not the only person to have prospered from the crisis. Re-elected last year, Mr Rasmussen last week became Denmark's longest-serving Liberal prime minister. Danish troops are still in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than this, his sceptical line on immigration appears to have been vindicated as other EU countries follow suit.”

Well, there is the unfortunate aspect that Mr Rose has to have a permanent guard and the cartoonists still live in hiding, but, by and large, Denmark, deservedly, has triumphed. And, maybe, as Luke Harding insists, Danes have had to start paying more attention to Muslims who live in the country but, on the other hand, they have also made it clear that their own values are of overwhelming importance to them.

COMMENT THREAD

A screen grab from local television news[i-A screen grab from local television news]When, it seems, it involves Muslims in Brussels, at Ramadan.

This one is in the Marollen district of Brussels, near the Midi station – the terminus of the Brussels Eurostar link. Riots in this area are common enough. They occur many a weekend, although the activities are usually confined to torching the occasional car and duffing up the Belgian police – who tend to regard the "high spirits" as training exercises.

This one, however, looks to be a little different. It is in its third day and has spread to torching shops and other buildings, including firebombing the local hospital.

Snapped Shot has the story and is tracking the media's curious lack of interest, recording that not a single agency photographer has been despatched to cover the activities of the Muslim mob.

Brussels Journal is on the case as well.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]A couple of weeks ago, we quoted The American Thinker and, indeed, supported their question: will the British academics call for a boycott of Iranian ones, in the wake of the purge, proposed or ordered by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Well, we have heard nothing about that but 61 Irish academics, at least some of whom must know where Iran is and what is going on in that country, have called for a boycott …. of Israeli academics.

As the Rector of Bar-Ilan University points out:

“Academic boycott is not ethical and contravenes the principle of academic freedom.

Attempts to exclude Israel and Israeli academics for the purpose of isolation and demonization, overlooking history and decades of violence, are ethically unacceptable.”

What is curious about the Irish academics that, according to the news item, they are writing from all over the world. One would think that all these people who travel all over the world would know that Israeli universities have all kinds of students: Jewish, Muslim and Christian; that Israeli academics have all sorts of political opinions; and that there are countries that are far more oppressive in intellectual terms.

One would also hope that academics of whatever nationality would actually display some ability to research the truth behind facile media propaganda. The letter that these peripatetic academics have sent to their colleagues says, among other things:

“There is widespread international condemnation of Israel's policy of violent repression against the Palestinians in the Occupied Territories, and its aggression against the people of Lebanon.”

Well, well, so these academics do not read the blogosphere and have not heard about Pallywood and Hezbollywood. They do not even appear to have heard of Hezbollah. Then again, they do not appear to know that Hamas has once again announced that it will not join any Palestinian government that negotiates with Israel.

Going on, the letter says:

“We feel it is time to heed the Palestinian call to take practical action to pressure Israel to comply with international law and basic human rights norms. Many national and European cultural and research institutions, including those funded by the EU regard Israel as a European state for the purposes of awarding grants and contracts.

We call for a moratorium on any further such support to Israeli academic institutions, at both national and European levels. We urge our fellow academics to support this moratorium by refraining, where possible, from further joint collaborations with Israeli academic institutions. Such a moratorium should continue until Israel abides by UN resolutions and ends the occupation of Palestinian territories.”

Not just ignorant but lacking in logic as well. Grants and contracts are awarded to Israeli academic institutions because they happen to be quite good at various levels and that includes their Jewish, Muslim and Christian researchers.

There is the further problem that as far as, say, Hamas is concerned, all of Israel is an occupied territory. So, the Irish academics from all over the world are, in effect saying that Israeli institutions should be boycotted until Israel ceases to exist, after which the problem will no longer arise.

I wonder what the said academics would say if someone suggested boycotting various Arab universities because they do not allow anyone in except Muslims and, often, refuse women education; or Chinese universities until the occupation of Tibet ends and academic freedom is allowed without people being sent to the gulag for speaking up against the party?

COMMENT THREAD

dominggus%20dasilva[i-dominggus%20dasilva]As the International Herald Tribune puts it: “Indonesia Executes 3, Despite EU Appeal”. Once again the EU’s influence is displayed for all to see. It would not matter so much if we were not told at great length by the propagandists in such organizations as the Centre for European Reform, that one of the joys of the EU was its ability to have a quiet influence on all sorts of nasty people. Not, you understand, like those nasty, brutish Americans.

"The European Union, along with many other like-minded countries, opposes the use of the death penalty in all circumstances," the Finnish ambassador, Markko Niinioga, representing the presidency of the EU, said in a letter that was delivered Wednesday to the Indonesian president, Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono. "The EU finds this punishment cruel and inhuman."

The letter was read to a journalist by a European diplomat, who did so on the condition of anonymity because the letter has not been released publicly. An aide to Yudhoyono confirmed that it had been received.

The NYT article carefully does not say but there have been problems with the trial and with the sudden decision to execute. The case grew out of the internecine violence that swept Sulawesi Province from 1998 to 2002, killing more than 1,000 people of both religions. A handful of Muslims have been convicted and given considerably lesser sentences.

read more ...

upope[i-upope]There seems to be an enormous amount of hot air being generated over the Pope’s lecture in Regensburg and the subsequent statement from the Vatican. Of course we saw all the usual demonstrations, effigy-burnings, threats to the Holy Father, demands for an apology, comparisons with Hitler and Mussolini (by a Turkish politician who did not precisely explain the basis of the comparison) and other suchlike charming displays of desire for peaceful dialogue.

Shamefully but not surprisingly the MSM joined in on the wrong side, chattering idiotically about the Pope’s lack of diplomacy or of media savvy. It did not seem to occur to any of these benighted journalists or the unnamed diplomatic sources that the ability to appeal to the so-called liberal media may not be high on the Pontiff’s list of priorities. Speaking the truth and calling for a revival of spiritual values, on the other hand, seem to be quite important to him.

Among other matters, he is insisting that a

“dialogue between Christians and Muslims "cannot be reduced to an optional extra," adding: "The lessons of the past must help us to avoid repeating the same mistakes. We must seek paths of reconciliation and learn to live with respect for each other's identity."”

And, of course, there can be only one response to this and to suggestions that some Islamists prefer to impose their ideas, if they can be called that, by violence: violent street demonstrations. You know the kind of language bullies use: “Don’t you dare to call me a bully or I shall beat the living daylights out of you.”

The question is, however, did the Pope apologize. I am not so sure. The Vatican statement insists that his words cannot be changed, though he holds to the view that Islam is to be respected as a religion of the Book and one that is, in many of its tenets, close to Christianity.

The ridiculous accusation that the quotation from Manuel II Paleologus somehow represents Benedict XVI’s own view is dismissed. Then comes the crucial paragraph:

“The Holy Father thus sincerely regrets that certain passages of his address could have sounded offensive to the sensitivities of the Muslim faithful, and should have been interpreted in a manner that in no way corresponds to his intentions. Indeed it was he who, before the religious fervor of Muslim believers, warned secularized Western culture to guard against "the contempt for God and the cynicism that considers mockery of the sacred to be an exercise of freedom."

In reiterating his respect and esteem for those who profess Islam, he hopes they will be helped to understand the correct meaning of his words so that, quickly surmounting this present uneasy moment, witness to the "Creator of heaven and earth, Who has spoken to men" may be reinforced, and collaboration may intensify "to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom" (Nostra Aetate no. 3).”

The Pope has, indeed, spoken of the dangers Western culture faces at the moment as it is his task to do. If only the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of another large international church, would make pronouncements of that kind instead of rabbiting on about “The Da Vinci Code” or, in more light-hearted moments, the war in Iraq.

But the famous “apology” places the onus on the Muslim faithful who are called upon to think a little more carefully about what the Pope has said. Those he did not read his speech, have obviously not bothered to read the full Vatican statement either.

COMMENT THREAD

referendum[i-referendum]Some readers of this blog might have noted my great love for war-time propaganda films. I have now seen a goodly number of them either at the National Film Theatre or, back in the days I still had one of them, on the goggle box. What I have always found slightly surprising is how many of them (as well as the number of thrillers published at the time) that dealt with fifth columnists. Some films give the impression that the country was absolutely honeycombed with groups and individuals at all social levels who sympathized with the Nazis and worked actively towards a German victory.

The best and best-known of these is the shattering “Went the Day Well?” but there were many others.

Naturally, I have thought, during a war, people must be alert; there will always be traitors, particularly if the war is to a very great extent an ideological one, and all others must be careful and vigilant. But was it really sensible to propagate the idea that a large proportion of the British population was not really involved in the war effort? Quite the contrary. Surely, that was completely untrue.

channel[i-channel]Anyone who thinks seriously about what would have happened had the Germans succeeded in occupying the whole of the UK, not just the Channel Islands, realizes that everything would have been quite similar to what happened in other countries. Officials would have gone on being officials; most people would have kept their heads down and got on with their lives, not knowing exactly how long the occupation would last; a few would have resisted for a time; and life would have gone on. Unlike the Danes, I do not believe the British would have done much to save the Jews, though, undoubtedly, many heroic individuals would have helped as they did in other countries.

The question that inevitably arises from the films and the books of the period is to what extent that sort of attitude existed while the country was fighting to prevent the occupation. There can be no real answer to that, though we do know from recent publications of mass observation opinion polls that there was a huge support for the “French solution” before and during the Battle of Britain and the Blitz. Not the majority, perhaps, but a sizeable minority thought that the war was being fought by Churchill and his cronies for their own purposes with no regard for the sacrifices made by the rest of the population.

Much of that opinion would have been expressed not as pro-Nazi but as peace-loving with a strong dislike for the “corrupt” and “oppressive” British regime. Noticeably, there was a shift in the opinion after June 22, 1941, when the Soviet Union found itself willy-nilly at war.

Yet the question of the fifth column and its extent remains troubling. The popularity of that fatuous slogan “Better Red than Dead” (as if people, whose countries were invaded or taken over had choices over such matters) increases one’s uncertainty though, as ever, ignorance is much more to blame than real wickedness or treasonous feelings.

Attitudes expressed by apparently sane and intelligent people in the last few years as the war against terrorism has become open (one of the many aspects of it all that people seem reluctant to admit is that the war was there long before 9/11 but we were losing it) have made me review my certainty that the picture presented of a wide-spread active or passive fifth column during the war was completely and incomprehensibly erroneous. Who knows?

Take Peter Riddell’s article in today’s Times about a recent Populus poll about terrorism and what Britain should do about it. One has to be very cautious about polls as people are influenced by immediate events, usually misrepresented by the MSM, in this case the Nimrod crash in Afghanistan that had killed 14 servicemen, and by the way the questions are phrased.

As the responses are not that different from those given to a recent YouGov poll, one must assume that these are realistic results. Whether they do reflect the thinking of the “voters” as Riddell would like us to believe, is much more questionable. The truth is that most people do not become “voters” until they approach that voting booth, when they are unlikely to recall what they said (or, more likely, what somebody else said) to some pollster months before.

A month ago, I wrote a posting on the subject of who should be running our foreign policy, a question that needs to be sorted out in people’s minds before we can even begin to think what the policy might be. The results of the Populus poll prove once again that the thinking in question has not been done on any level and that the passive fifth column in this latest war is far more wide-spread than we like to acknowledge.

“Nearly three quarters of the public (73 per cent) believe that “the British Government’s foreign policy, especially its support for the invasion of Iraq and refusal to demand an immediate ceasefire by Israel in the recent war against Hezbollah in Lebanon, has significantly increased the risk of terrorist attacks on Britain”.”

Great, just great. As Pajamas Media puts it in the link to the piece: “Leave Us Out of It”. This is not really opposing certain aspects of Blair’s foreign policy, a perfectly legitimate attitude, but is a completely ignorant and cowardly opinion that British foreign policy should be decided by anyone who feels like threatening this country. (Oh yes, and what would that demand for an immediate cease-fire have achieved?)

Going on from there:

“Moreover, three fifths (62 per cent) agree that “in order to reduce the risk of future terrorist attacks on Britain the Government should change its foreign policy, in particular by distancing itself from America, being more critical of Israel and declaring a timetable for withdrawing from Iraq”. Women (66 per cent) and Liberal Democrat voters (74 per cent) agree with this view particularly strongly.”

We have discussed at length on this blog the pernicious anti-Americanism so wide-spread in this country and the concomitant opposition to Israel with very little understanding or desire to acquire that understanding of what is really going on in those countries.

Then we start getting into real nonsense. 63 per cent believe that Islamist extremists hate the West and western values and even if the foreign policy changed they would find something else to oppose. At the same time 52 per cent think that

“even though there is no justification for terrorism, the British Government’s foreign policy, especially towards Iraq and the recent attacks on Lebanon by Israel, is anti-Muslim and it is understandable that many Muslims are offended by it”.

Why is it understandable? Given the age-old war that has been going on between different groups of Muslims, the idea that they should all unite somehow in their understanding of political developments is laughable. And if people of Pakistani descent who have lived in Britain all their lives care all that much about Lebanon why do they find the fact that NATO went in to help Muslims in Bosnia, Kosovo and, let us face it, Afghanistan, so utterly uninteresting.

Then we get to the wording: attacks on Lebanon or attacks on Hezbollah who have never been particularly bothered about killing Muslims who disagree with them. In the last couple of days we have had reports of more assassinations and attempted assassinations in Lebanon of people who oppose Syria. Does this offend any Muslims or, for that matter, the muppets who respond to these opinion polls? Probably, never heard of it.

Apparently, two thirds of the respondents feel BAA has been completely justified in introducing completely idiotic rules that would do nothing to increase our safety but make flying an even less pleasant experience than ever before and two thirds (is it the same two thirds, one wonders) disagrees with the very idea of any kind of focused investigation.

“Just a third believe that security checks should be “particularly focused on people who appear to be from the same ethnic or religious background as previous terrorists, rather than treating everyone as if they represent an equal risk”. But two thirds disagree.”

Why would we want to learn anything from the pattern that has emerged over the last decade and a half of terrorist attacks?

Meanwhile, EUObserver that seems to have accepted the mantra of the European project has come up with another opinion poll, conducted by the German Marshall Fund, an organization that has been a cheer-leader and enthusiastic participant in that project.

To start with, one rather wonders about the concept of a “majority of EU citizens” and about an opinion poll that is conducted across several countries with different populations in number and social make-up. It seems that “around 1,000 people” were interviewed in Germany, France, the UK, Spain, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Slovakia and a majority spoke up for a single EU foreign minister, largely because they did not think very highly of President Bush’s foreign policy.

Whether one agrees with Bush’s foreign policy or not, he is not going to be president beyond some time in January 2009, the United States being a democracy bound by its constitution. To create a post that would represent an integrated foreign policy for the EU member states, that is to discard the idea of an independent foreign policy because of one American president, is fatuous. But 52 per cent agreed with the notion in Britain.

Of course, neither the German Marshal Fund nor EUObserver bothers to raise the small matter of what that single EU foreign minister would do. After all, as we have pointed out repeatedly, the EU’s record in the war against terror and the various recent international crises has not been particularly outstanding.

COMMENT THREAD

An unstaged photo taken at Qana by Tim Fadek[i-An unstaged photo taken at Qana by Tim Fadek]Belatedly, the Left is beginning to wake up to the danger of "Qanagate". But they're too late. They haven't even begun to realise how much evidence we already have, and how much more we have stashed away, ready to publish.

So far, the issue has been mainly the province of what are termed "right-wing" bloggers – such as our very own Little Green Footballs. And, to date, the stridency from the Left (not least in the hate-mail I have been receiving) has been focused on our critique as an example of pro-Israeli bias.

Only now that the cease-fire is in place in Lebanon (sort of) have they understood the real target – the liberal (not) media and its constant diet of lies and distortions in support of its favoured causes.

Thus, into the fray comes Huffington Post, with writer Michael Shaw declaring: "Qana was not staged", mounting what he thinks is a spirited defence of his beloved media.

To do so, he calls in aid free-lace photographer Tim Fadek, winner of the NPPA award for best still photography in International News in 2005 – who seems to specialise in faux art pictures from war zones – like the one above from Qana – which, of course, are not staged.

Tim, writes Shaw, "is recognised as one of the most respected photojournalists in his field" and, along with many of his colleagues covering the war in Lebanon, have become increasingly concerned over allegations fomenting in the States (particularly in the right wing 'sphere) about war photos being staged or "stage managed".

What we don't understand, you see – as opposed to those that were there like Fadek - is that "much is culturally lost - not to mention, politically filtered - in transit from East to West". Thus does Tim communicate this statement written by fellow photojournalist, Thorne Anderson on "how to understand the Qana photos". He writes:

Much of the debate about "staging" in Qana can be deflated a good deal by an appreciation of cultural differences. Among many Middle Eastern Muslims the display of the dead is very much a ritual part of dealing with death. Palestinian funeral parades, with or without media present, are a demonstration of this. While the display of the dead may appear callous and disrespectful to many western eyes, it is likely interpreted as a form of honor among those who actually display the dead - an attempt to give meaning to something senseless.

Photographing the display is not necessarily deceiptful (sic), but rather an honest record of the extraordinary ways people react in these terrible circumstances. And a rescueworker displaying a body does not a Media Mogul the rescue worker make. He/She is still a rescue worker. Though the caption for pictures from that portion of the event should read "Rescue workers display the body of..." rather than "Rescue workers remove the body of..."

Furthermore, the sporadic display of bodies at a scene like that shouldn't allow us to dismiss the event as merely a salvo in the "media war" being waged by "Hizbollah and their jihadi friends" in the "mainstream apologist media." And none of this changes the essential, and most important fact that a group of photographers put themselves at great risk to show the result of an Israeli air strike on an apartment building that left 28 people - among them 16 children - dead.

He adds:

I took a gut wrenching tour of LGF [Little Green Footballs] and a couple of other blogs that are super-hyping the "staging" issue to an audience of hundreds of thousands in what is a transparent and in some cases explicit attempt to deny the simple fact that an Israeli airstrike killed 16 children in Qana. That assault on the essential truth is a far more reprehensible act of overt media warfare (if there is such a thing) than any angry display of a dead body in the immediate aftermath of an airstrike. Reminds me of those who deny the Holocaust for political purposes.

So, it seems, in questioning the Qana photographs, we are akin to Holocaust deniers. And, to reinforce the point, Shaw devotes a post on his own blog, where he claims that the "firestorm" coming from "the Rathergate crowd", and doubts now spreading from the left wing (which rather unsettles him) "can start to feel like all reason is being subsumed by political hysteria."

But never mind. This time, Fadek explains it all.

When there is senseless death in this part of the world, it is completely normal to display the bodies. Whether in plastic or on blankets, it's done whether there are photographers there or not. The idea is to ready the public for what has happened - and also say, look what our enemies have done to us.

Regarding some of the images cited as evidence of manipulation, Fadek said: "a finer distinction is being lost in the West":

In Qana, rescue workers did not hold up a baby to set up a shot. They were not displaying them to the media, per se. Yes, it was not lost on these men that the cameras presented a window on the world. But these people were doing wrenching rescue work and are human beings. They were shaking and sweating. These instances [of holding up babies] were mostly spontaneous and momentary expressions of anger.

Another unstaged photo by Tim Fadek, taken at Qana[i-Another unstaged photo by Tim Fadek, taken at Qana]Fadek elaborates on the situation in terms of his own images, such as the "tasteful" one here (right), that he also took at Qana – which certainly, most definitely and absolutely was not staged. Although he felt the photo was more powerful depicted this way, he explained that a rescue worker did set down the body, briefly uncovering it for photographers to document.

For those inclined to consider the depictions as manipulated, Fadek also tells us:

Once removed from the collapsed building, these bodies were set on the ground to be taken down a hill. From this spot to the waiting ambulances was at least a four-minute walk. In this case, the two children were placed on this blanket where photographers had 1½ to 2 seconds to document them. Given the distance and the available manpower, the two bodies were placed on the same blanket to save effort.

In each case, we are told, Fadek's "understanding" was that the rescuers were doing something respectful, showing the victims in a manner reflecting a normal attitude toward the dead. "It's not a manipulation, it's a cultural distinction," claims Fadek. "It's the same as at a martyrs funeral, where faces are exposed, and the bodies marched through the streets. It's been done for years, media or otherwise."

blind[i-blind]Interestingly, that is exactly the line rehearsed by the egregious Kathy Gannon last Saturday, while Stern magazine last week also recruited Tim Fadek, who then told the magazine that he did not see evidence for a staging. He said:

Everybody was upset, it was quite chaotic. When they carried the bodies out of the basement, the workers themselves were finished. When they held a body to the cameras, it was nothing of a pose, but sheer distress and anger: look what they did to our children!

I don't know if Fadek actually believes this tosh but there is a common thread here, trying to pass off the "dead baby" incident (for that is what, obliquely, he is referring to) as a spontaneous display of "sheer distress and anger".

But what we already know – and have now documented - is that before the calculated posing to the camera with the dead baby, "Green Helmet" had already taken part in a carefully staged photo-shoot inside the wrecked basement. Furthermore, after the photo-shoot outside the wreckage, he went on to take part in two more, in different locations for two different photographers.

boy%20on%20stretcher[i-boy%20on%20stretcher]Then, in his artful description of the casualty evacuation process, Fadek tells us that photographers only had "1½ to 2 seconds" to document the dead children as they were laid in the assembly area, pending transport to the ambulances. But, if it was all so very tasteful and cultural, how does he explain the photo on the left or these?

What is more disingenuous (to be polite) is Fadek's failure to mention the staging area, the full role of which we ourselves have only recently understood (but, since we weren't there, we had to work it out).

rc%20delivery.0[i-rc%20delivery.0]Using the evidence we and our readers have gathered, and our collective analyses, we have learnt that, at the assembly area, there was a macabre selection process going on. "Normal" or unsightly corpses were marked up for despatch straight to the waiting ambulances. Those which were especially photogenic or with dramatic potential were sent to this "staging area". From there, the media circus was organised, and the "props" issued to the actors, for the displays of theatre that we have already recorded (and have more to come).

By the time we have finished collecting and collating the evidence, and produced our full analysis, we will have a dossier which so damns the media that not any amount of Huffington and Puffington will be able to counter. Nevertheless, not a few of our regular and faithful readers have written to us asking when we are going to get back to the issues for which this blog was set up. But, as my colleague points out, we never left them.

The point is that, while we all fight our separate battles, we all have a common enemy that protects our individual enemies – a lying, corrupt, wholly inadequate media. It does not just lie on the Middle East. It lies about affairs on the Beltway, in Whitehall and Brussels, and everywhere else that its malign presence is felt. So, when we see a weakness in the fortress walls, we should not go on hacking at our own little bit. We should all pile in and put our efforts into creating a breach. That's why we, with many others, "piled in" to Qanagate.

And that's why the Left is worried.

COMMENT THREAD