Channel 4 Dispatches used to be a haven of serious documentary, but has degenerated into a stream of Islamophobia. It touched rock bottom today with a truly pathetic effort by Andrew Gilligan which found – shock horror – Muslims in the East London mosque!
These Muslims actually wanted society to be ordered in an Islamic way on Islamic principles. To try to achieve this they were – shock horror – undertaking political activity and joining political parties!
Gilligan’s piece turned on the Daily Express trick of attempting to inculcate fear that suddenly you and I will wake up under sharia law. The fact is of course that no matter how much devout Muslims may want to campaign to ban alcohol and push-up bras in the UK, they have not a hope in hell of succeeding.
But surely they have a right to their beliefs and ideology and a right to espouse it? Surely we should be delighted that these Muslims are seeking to advance their views through participation in the democratic process and not through violence? In fact, is this not the sort of activity we should be encouraging?
Apparently not. Apparently you only should be allowed to participate in politics if the ideology you are offering to the electorate is broadly the same as Andrew Gilligan’s. We were apparently supposed especially to be shocked by Gilligan’s revelation that Muslim activists campaigned for George Galloway because of his opposition to the Iraq war and support for the Palestinians. Wow! Whatever next?
Gilligan went on to introduce a number of neo-conservative nutters from wild eyed groups such as the Centre for Social Cohesion, to condemn all this “extremist” activity, without giving any context to explain where his “Independent” commentators were dredged up from.
Gilligan’s only useful point was about the waste of taxpayers’ money being pumped in to various Muslim groupings. Sadly he confined his criticism on this point only to financial support for those Muslim groups who did not wholeheartedly support the Bush/Blair foreign policy, when in fact twenty times more public money has been wasted on tiny but grasping Muslim groups who proselytise Blairism.
All in all, the most risible piece of half-baked Islamophobia I can recall. Gilligan – a man for whom I have had respect – should be ashamed of himself.
Centre for Social Cohesion
that sounds familiar.
Who remembers when they fabricated receipts to try and prove Mosques were selling extremist literature?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2008/05/policy_exchange_dispute_update.html
How many times must these people be proven to be liars before they stop quoting them?
Hear hear.
Craig,
There is a broader point here:-
” Apparently you only should be allowed to participate in politics if the ideology you are offering to the electorate is broadly the same as Andrew Gilligan’s.”
We could make a broader point about Western ( and in that sense in these times – I have the US particularly in mind) foreign policy.
Let’s modify your sentence a little:-
” Apparently you only should be allowed to participate in politics if the ideology you are offering to the electorate is broadly the same as ( the one supported by the dominant power espousing ‘demoracy’ ‘freedom’ etc. etc. etc. ). so – delete Andrew…
In my lifetime there have been a series of CIA sponsored invasions, coups and general global mischief making because the dominant power thought that the regime, election results or power base in a soverign country was not to its liking – Iran – Guatemala….onwards… Chile – Haiti – Iraq…etc.
All in the name of ‘demoracy’and ‘freedom’ so long as the brand of freedom and demoracy is in accordance with a particular power’s determination of what kind of freedom and democratic expression is to be allowed.
SORRY – SHOULD HAVE CORRECTED MY SPELLING MISTAKES BEFORE POSTING…
Craig,
There is a broader point here:-
” Apparently you only should be allowed to participate in politics if the ideology you are offering to the electorate is broadly the same as Andrew Gilligan’s.”
We could make a broader point about Western ( and in that sense in these times – I have the US particularly in mind) foreign policy.
Let’s modify your sentence a little:-
” Apparently you only should be allowed to participate in politics if the ideology you are offering to the electorate is broadly the same as ( the one supported by the dominant power espousing ‘democracy’ ‘freedom’ etc. etc. etc. ). so – delete Andrew…
In my lifetime there have been a series of CIA sponsored invasions, coups and general global mischief making because the dominant power thought that the regime, election results or power base in a sovereign country was not to its liking – Iran – Guatemala….onwards… Chile – Haiti – Iraq…etc.
All in the name of ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ so long as the brand of freedom and democracy is in accordance with a particular power’s determination of what kind of freedom and democratic expression is to be allowed.
“Surely we should be delighted that these Muslims are seeking to advance their views through participation in the democratic process and not through violence? In fact, is this not the sort of activity we should be encouraging?”
You know, Craig, this is such a staggering simple and obvious point that one wonders if our political and media elites have the even slightest chance of grasping it.
Spot on Craig – I’m completely against most of the aims of Muslim fundamentalist parties, but
that doesn’t make it right or sensible to ban them – and, as you say, they’ll always be a minority in the UK (even among immigrants despite a lot of alarmism).
There were a couple of books i was reading – ‘The Far Enemy’ and
“Insurgent Iraq” and lots of Islamic political parties that participate in elections and campaign for their views democratically and peacefully are targeted by various Jihadist groups for “collaboration” just as much as they’re targeted by secular dictatorships like Mubarak’s and the Saudi monarchy’s.
That gives the lie to arguments from Gilligan, Nick Cohen and others that assume all Islamic parties should be banned as if Islamic parties were a gateway to violent Jihadism when they are the alternative to it.
I’ll back those calling for a ban on Muslim entryism in UK politics when the same people also demand a ban on entryism by Christians and Jews.
One rule for all, chaps.
Yes it seems about right that when dispatches is in safe territory, like finding out how much fat goes into yoghurts, or seeing if postmen sometimes get bored and throw letters in the bin, it is fine to admit it is a respectable programme.
Of course if they ever try and tackle something remotely controversial, they must surely be racist ‘nutters’, showering the impressionable proletariat with misinformation in order to influence them for their own gain.
I would also draw a conclusion that although dispatches can make fair, balanced, and compelling documentaries most of the time, the very thought of them being able to replicate this feat on the subject of islam and muslims is laughable. Unsuprisingly, no muslims took part in the making of the documentary as they could see it was nothing but devicive, islamaphobic propoganda.
“These Muslims actually wanted society to be ordered in an Islamic way on Islamic principles. To try to achieve this they were – shock horror – undertaking political activity and joining political parties!”
I notice that the fact that their agenda was also to bring about political change by converting a country under secular law to one under islamic law was omitted here.
Maybe you have to write a certain amount of articles, or perhaps couldn’t think of what to write about so chose this subject. You may think it is necessary to always have a strong, punchy opinion. But this article is so insipid. I’m bored of white, middle aged politically-correct politicians and journalists and their nauseatingly predictable and comfortable stances on all devicive issues. You have marked yourself out as being firmly within that camp.
An American Mormon friend angrily denounced my comparing the way our governments were heading with characteristics of fascism, and declared “One day soon, every knee shall bow before Him, and every tongue confess, and … ” so it went on at some considerable length.
The Mormons certainly have an opinion on how the rest of us, non-Mormons too, should be behave. Look at their massive interference in Proposition 8 in California, which succeeded in denying gay marriage rights. Every time assisted suicide is brought up for debate on the BBC, a priest, Bishop or whatnot is wheeled in to pontificate on the sanctity of this God-given gift.
I could count on the fingers of one hand the number of even casual acquaintance who attend church. Yet this fringe group of Christianists is claiming to speak on our collective behalf – and I don’t hear Gilligan or anyone else presenting this as a shocking, dangerous affront to our British values.
Wrote this on control orders some time back: http://glennbarder.livejournal.com/4246.html
It describes what it’s like to live under these conditions with a few examples, and shows how they are designed to mete out punishment, not out of any genuine concern with dangers from such individuals. It might be worth a glance.
The article referenced above mentioned a Dispatches documentary with Gilligan, and it’s remarkable how much of a turnaround he’s made since then (Feb. 2007). Back then, unfair treatment of minorities actually appeared to trouble him.
Anon poster at 12.40am
“I notice that the fact that their agenda was also to bring about political change by converting a country under secular law to one under islamic law was omitted here.”
No it isn’t omitted. My post says
“These Muslims actually wanted society to be ordered in an Islamic way on Islamic principles.” That is hardly calling them secularist, is it?
The point is that, as Muslims only account for 3% of the population, and many of those are secularist anyway, it is only in the foetid minds of ludicrous fearmongering dunderheads like yourself that there is any danger of an Islamist society being imposed in the UK.
“The point is that, as Muslims only account for 3% of the population, and many of those are secularist anyway, it is only in the foetid minds of ludicrous fearmongering dunderheads like yourself that there is any danger of an Islamist society being imposed in the UK.”
All it took was 100,000 Brits to rule India – the Jewel in the Crown.
If I recall correctly there are some 80 odd Sharia courts already operating in England, Muslims are allowed multiple wives in the UK although to marry more than one wife is illegal in the UK. Muslims openly practice what would be classified as child abuse if a non Muslim were involved. Here you can see children being encouraged to beat themselves – some have scars from self flagellation. tinyurl.com/ye9wljt
It is alleged that Muslims in the UK continue to practice under age marriage and first cousin marriage. The numbers of Muslim children born with congenital defects in the UK seems to confirm this. Islam is a misogynistic, homophobic, intolerant, paedophilic
( tinyurl.com/yhp7kyh ), and violent ideology which, if it were the product of a Western mind, would be banned.
That Islam continues to attract apologists from seemingly intelligent people I find baffling.
I agree with Craig, this is exactly the type of hysteria-inducing media circusing I’ve spoken about on various threads.
I would like to work against the entryism of such views (and funding) of those expoused by some of the people concerned into politics; there is much peaceful debate to be had within the Muslim communities on this; but I would not ban them, just as I do not support a ban on the BNP. It’s morally wrong and is utterly counter-productive.
I totally agree about the doubtful provenance of many of the massively-funded quangos who have been ardent supporters of Blairism (and, in the USA, of the military).
A rock and hard place.
It’s a pity that Gilligan is using the goodwill and credibility he accrued over the Iraq-gate affair in such a manner. I agree too that we should not reflexively believe him, but I fear that many will. He’s telling us nothing new. The Daily Mail tried to get me to a similar type of expose some years ago; I refused.
Classifying Muslims as one, single, collective; is ridiculous.
Muslims are as diverse a group as… Christians are. They are not some vast mass of humanity with a single will bent on world domination. This fantasy is a crude racial/cultural/religious stereotype, devoid of real meaning, at least in relation to Muslims. What is does do, however, is illustrate *our* attitude towards Muslims, and tell us more about us, than it does about them.
For example; Newsweek has recently published an internal debate about “terrorism.” This was sparked by the suicide of Joe Stack, who torched his house and flew his light plane into the local IRS headquarters in Waco, Texas.
Stack left behind a suicide letter explaining his feelings of hopelessness at his personal circumstances and the dire trajectory the United States was on.
Newsweek’s journalists debated whether Stack should be defined as a “terrorist” or not. Basically they were of the opinion that Americans couldn’t, per definition, be described as terrorists, because they didn’t have beards, weren’t Muslims, didn’t hate America and its values and way of life, and didn’t live in caves! Also American extremists didn’t deliberately set out to kill innocent civilians as a primary goal, like Muslim’s did. American terrorists, sorry, extremists, weren’t “evil men” but rather misguided individuals, who were disturbed, angry, and desparate.
I believe this “debate” shows that Newsweek’s journalists have a truly remarkable ability to allow ideology to trump the evidence of their own eyes.
Stack’s actions were, I would argue, classic terrorism, a suicide bombing aimed directly at the state, a form of martyrdom. Yet because of ideology, which blinkers one to reality, one can ignore facts that stare one in the face, in favour of a fairytale.
Anon (again)
Racist nonsense. Polygamy or bigamy by Muslims or anyone else is not legal in the UK. Anyone can marry their first cousin including you if you wish. Sharia law does not have legal standing in the UK anywhere.
Britain indeed ruled India with 100,000 people due to a long and exceedingly bloody process of military conquest dependent on superior military technology and organisation. Nothing remotely comparable is happening here.
Npw run along back to the BNP with your fears and lies.
I also saw the programme, it was in two parts and the first half looked at how much influence the very organised muslim sector of Tower Hamlets has, how it has managed to influence funding and how they are using our democratic system to achieve change towards their communities aims and objectives.
Part two showed legitamit objections to a specific IFE induced diversion of cultural funding, away from other, much larger parts of the community, from Bangladesh for example, to their own aims and community projects.
It questioned the IFE’s two faced arguments about their aims, how they berated the cultural habits of other ethnic minorities and more. The objections seem to have come from within their own muslim community as much as politcal persuasions, other than that of the Labour party.
It also highlighted a legitamit lack of oversight on spending that is supposed to be directed to limiting the physical excesses of extremist views, nothing new here.
That said, I believe there is an anti muslim agenda permiating society at large. I say this because of personal experience.
I happen to own some garments from that area and the looks I get when walking through Norwich in a Pashtun hat, are legend. In a fashion orientated society young people are usually OK with Afghan attire but one lady was so taken aback, she tuted and turned away.
I considered talking to her, but something inside me said ‘don’t, no need to spoil the day for the sake of prejudice.
I do not know whether I would like to live under sharia law, it is a debate we should have one day.
Because some of our ‘libertarian’ habits would come under attack from religious missionary zeal, any of which should not be entering political life,imho, or claim any more resources than others, local funding should reflect all sectors of the community.
That Andrew Gillingan has turned it into tabloidal TV was to be expected, I do not like the man’s patter in the slightest.
We have to decide whether we want a radical separation of church and state? Do we want our laws to be legitimated by scripture or by something else?
Personally I don’t give a flying greek olive what some old book says about how we should live. We were born free under nature and we will decide how to live for ourselves.
This preposition “ourselves” includes muslims as well, of course. They are entitled to participate as equals in the process.
But to the extent that they want our system of government based on Koranic doctrine I say go to hell in a handbasket. They’re no better than Christian fundamenalists. Think Iris Robinson.
Finally, I’m puzzled by this line:
“The fact is of course that no matter how much devout Muslims may want to campaign to ban alcohol and push-up bras in the UK, they have not a hope in hell of succeeding.”
What is the relevance of this? Are you suggesting we should not oppose people, no matter how odious, if they have little chance of succeeding? Do you apply this principle equally to other groups: the BNP, for example?
The problem is, Craig, that there are bigotted muslims and there are liberal muslims. And the former think you are subhuman and will ultimately kill you. They won’t stop at telling you what to eat. When in human history has rolling over constrained an attacker. Does it stop us in Iraq? Does it stop Israel in Palestine? Did it stop Germany in Poland?
These people will kill us because we are subhuman swine-eating dogs and unbelievers who don’t pray, don’t perform ablutions, don’t comprehend the true word, and simply go about trying to have a good time.
It always starts out the same. First you brand others as inferior. Then you put them to death by slow torture. Christians do it, Jews do it, Muslims do it.
We need to take a stand on tolerance, and we need to apply it uniformly. The BNP are right to say that we should not be required to tolerate people who come to our country and refuse to tolerate us.
You are quite correct to say they should be encouraged to participate in the process. Note, however, that it will be some time before many of these people regard themselves as British. They despise this country and everything it stands for. They are deeply, deeply conservative. They knew no 1960s. They would ban the whole benefits system and take to neoliberalism like a duck to water. Gays would be banned. Their position on women would perhaps be more ambiguous, but don’t get your hopes up.
Now, are these people entitled to vote? Yes, of course. Are they entitled to say their piece? Yes, of course. But just don’t forget to say yours. You may come to regret it.
RAND’s strategist Cheryl Bernard will be so proud of the background work that
Douglas Murray and Ed Hussain have managed by engaging Andrew Gilligan to serve as a presentable front for host a Channel 4 documentary.
Both the sensational title of the documentary and the timing of its screening, just weeks prior to national elections, suggests that there are political motives at work to create divisions among Muslims who pursue the legal political course to pursue their rightful place in the society
Look how closely the documentary fulfils the required remit in following a the stepwise approach as spelled out by Cheryl Benard in her work Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources, and Strategies.
Below are just a few selected quotes that refer to focus on the following fourteen points.
“The West should fight the fundamentalists in these ways:
1.Challenge their interpretation of Islam, and expose their inaccuracies.
2.Reveal their linkages to illegal groups and activities.
3.Publicize the consequences of their violent acts.
4.Demonstrate their inability to develop their countries and communities in positive ways.
5.Target the messages to youth, pious traditionalists, Muslim minorities in the West, and women.
6.Portray violent extremists and terrorists accurately as disturbed and cowardly, not as heroes.
7.Encourage journalists to investigate hypocrisy in fundamentalist circles.
8.Encourage divisions among fundamentalists.
9.Support the traditionalists enough to keep them viable against the fundamentalists
(if and wherever those are the only choices). Among the traditionalists, the West should embolden those who are the relatively better match for modern civil society: the reformist traditionalists.
The West should support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists in these ways:
1. Publicize traditionalist criticism of fundamentalist violence and extremism.
2. Encourage disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
3. Discourage alliances between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
4. Encourage cooperation between modernists and reformist traditionalists.
5. Where appropriate, educate the traditionalists to debate the fundamentalists.”
Source:
http://www.rand.org/publications/randreview/issues/spring2004/pillars.html
i thought andrew gilligan, ok – has a so-so journalistic past but thought give him a hearing;
then i saw centre for social cohesion, so i thought ok – has previous history with regard to muslims and islam;
then i saw jim fitzpatrick, ultra blairite, pro war and so i thought ok – has previous history with regard to muslims , islam and the London Muslim Centre ;
then i thought labour party, lord levy, murdoch and then i thought friends of israel amongst so many others – lord ashcroft anyone?
so what was the actual grievance, no real issue of council abuse or misappropriation or wrong-doing other than by hearsay, no real evidence beyond hearsay of enforcing of islam on the local population.
so nothing above and beyond normal party politics and vested interest groups be they muslim or non muslim.
so what was missed out, george galloway is standing against fitzpatrick at the next election .. and the threat of an ultra blairite pro war mp being deselected and/or losing his seat.bingo!
i think what was actually revealing is that nothing was said of fitzpatricks recent anti muslim anti islam politics. it was probably this that has led to some of the local community wanting him deselected against nu-labour hierarchy wishes.
and as for ife being some sinister clandestine movement, look how easy it was for dispatches to ‘infiltrate’ their meetings — by just turning up
Christian Tories rewrite party doctrine
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/12400596-16ac-11df-aa09-00144feab49a.html
“They’ve campaigned to change the processes so that they can bus in their voters, stuffing the selection meetings with their people. They don’t outnumber us, but they can out-organise us. They’re taking over the party.”
Stephen
I don’t think you need worry about me forgetting to “say my piece”.
You are making the silly jump that because I am sympathetic to someone’s right to participate in the political process, I endorse their views. Bollocks.
But is their a danger of the most conservative Muslms winning a democratic majority in the UK among the whole population? Of course there isn’t.
“We have to decide whether we want a radical separation of church and state? Do we want our laws to be legitimated by scripture or by something else?”
so do you intend to abolish the house of lords and the queen and most of our laws?
“The BNP are right to say that we should not be required to tolerate people who come to our country and refuse to tolerate us.”
are you seriously quoting the neo fascist BNP as a source of your political viewpoint?
“Note, however, that it will be some time before many of these people regard themselves as British. They despise this country and everything it stands for. They are deeply, deeply conservative. They knew no 1960s. They would ban the whole benefits system and take to neoliberalism like a duck to water. Gays would be banned. Their position on women would perhaps be more ambiguous, but don’t get your hopes up.”
oh dear more garbage politics. do you really believe, i mean seriously do you believe the crap you are writing here?
Thanks Wendy,
Yes I do believe it, but I may be guilty of unclarity.
Firstly, you are quite right about the House of Lords and the monarchy. I could go on. You are wrong, however, to suggest that our laws are based on Biblical scripture in the way that Sharia law is based on the Koran. In any case, you and I are both agreed they should be based on neither.
Secondly, I am not “quoting the neo fascist BNP”. I campaigned against them at the last election. I took to the streets in opposition to them. We didn’t do so well. I think we would have done better to acknowledge that it is indeed inconsistent and hypocritical of rich middle-class white liberals to go around berating poor folk for their intolerance, when these same rich middle-class folk wouldn’t actually have anything to do with muslims but instead want to preserve their precious conceits about their own superior “tolerance”. The reality is tolerance has to cut both ways. It doesn’t always and there’s no use preaching to one group only. We would do better to acknowledge the simple logic of this point. Nothing follows from it about closing down immigration, or about ethnic purity and repatrating the unclean. You do realize that muslims can apply the majority principle as well in their ghettos, don’t you? I’m guessing you don’t live in one. I share a house with muslims. We cook and eat together. I’m talking to them every day. As a matter of fact I will have to go now to get ready to tidy up with Kashif. What do you do?
What I’m saying here I believe because it’s just based on what some of these muslims have told me. I also organize politically with muslims. One of them sat me down one night and started telling me about the wonders of Sharia law. The Koran says this, the Koran says that. He made is sound not so bad. Maybe it isn’t, but it’s legitimated by scripture in a way that our laws simply aren’t.
You won’t get anywhere by dismissing me and using phrases like “garbage politics”, any more than we got anywhere at the last election. You should know better than that. You persuade people first by listening to what they have to say and then by patiently explaining where you think they may have gone wrong, as I am trying to do now with you. Anything else is a kind of bigotry: in your case liberal elite bigotry. This is no way to win elections.
The thoughts are my own, but this one thought of theirs is correct. You haven’t said what’s wrong with it.
Best Wishes,
Stephen
Thanks Craig,
You made three points and I would like to reply to each.
1. You are indeed outspoken. Just don’t forget not to draw back from criticising sharia law out of misplaced political correctness. That is all I ask.
2. Maybe I am making the silly jump you suggest but I can’t quite bring myself to believe it because I know well you don’t support their views and I specifically stated that they have every right to participate. In any case, I think we agree here. No such jump should be made.
3. Finally you write:
“But is their a danger of the most conservative Muslms winning a democratic majority in the UK among the whole population? Of course there isn’t.”
This doesn’t answer my question, I’m afraid. Please re-read my post.
Best Wishes,
Stephen
Thanks for your thoughts on this Craig. I was begining to think I was living in the twilight zone. I can’t work this one out. Until corruption is reduced in politics we can’t expect the wrong sort of people not to go all out for their share of power, but this behaviour is not confined to muslim groups. I suspect the message Andrew G managed to convey last night was “if you were frightened before, be more afraid now”.
My question is why? Ihave enormous respect for Andrew but this feels alien to who I thought Andrew to be. I’ve given a little time to looking into this (retirement has some advantages) and how channel 4 is funded is quite interesting. I’m going to devote time and energy to get to the bottom of this. I have a horrible feeling this could be more about Jim Fitzpatrick trying to hang on to his seat. I truly hope I can prove my suspiscions wrong.
Posted by: Craig at March 2, 2010 8:46 AM
Craig you should check your facts as polygamy is legal in the UK as long as the extra marriage(s) are/were performed in countries where it’s legal. Furthermore, Islam is not a race but an ideology so no grounds to call me racist. Also, I am not a resident of the UK or a member of the BNP.
Sloppy.
Craig, why do not you watch BBC Panorama programme named “Spooks”. In that, one liberal patronising head teacher allowed a Muslim fundamentalist Mullah to come and addrerss some Muslim students: result was a bomber emerged after that brainwashing. Same kind of ignorant views the headmaster also held that let us allow everybody to express themselves. You should ask these Muslims (from Pakistan and Somalia) why their country is still an Islamic republic where minorities have been subjected to third and fourth class treatment, and who will take that place once Sharia will be imposed in this country.
“The BNP are right to say that we should not be required to tolerate people who come to our country and refuse to tolerate us”
It’s always good fun to be lectured by the BNP on the subject of tolerance. It reminds me of the Monty Python joke: Britain is noted for its tolerance, so why should we waste it on a bunch of coons, wogs and kikes?
This country is packed to the rafters with intolerant people, of all colours and creeds. Most of them were born here. Some are members of the BNP.
We may do and say as we please, within the law. This is the only tolerance to which we are entitled and can reasonably expect. We have no absolute right not to be offended by others or indeed to be tolerated by others, provided the intolerance does not impinge on our right to do and say as we please, within the law.
Must say I’m disappointed that Gilligan would descend to this kind of comedy documentary-making. So sharia law is a rigid, tyrannical thought-system whose proponents are keen as mustard to see us all living under its precepts. Well, honestly, who gives a rats ass (in the context of UK politics)? Anyone – ANYONE – who puts on a worried face and gets into a lather over this clearly has little faith in democracy, tolerance and the open society. If they (being Gilligan et al) were properly schooled in the principles of democracy and the open society, then their confidence in the strength of the democratic argument would preclude such panicky sharia-fear mongering.
And in any case, the intolerant ravings of a miniscule minority only have relevance if they have the power to put their programme into practice. On the other hand, the Christian fundamentalists of the West certainly have access to the kind of power that permits them to put their programmes into practice. Which led us to Afghanistan and Iraq.
If we were using bodycounts as a measure of radical extremism, the West is way, WAY out in front.
Thanks, MJ. A very central point. Ana, I would suggest that you oughtn’t to believe everything you watch on TV; study history instead. I write as someone who consistently has opposed such extremist preachers.
Now, an intersting observation, if I may. Every time ‘Muslims’ are mentioned on cyberspace (mentioned by Craig, for all the best reasons), as writerman, I think correctly, suggested earlier, it seems it tends to bring out the worst in some people. Funny, that. Hence, perhaps, my frustration and my comments on another thread about ‘sneezing’: A Muslim person sneezes, and the country (or at least the media) catches ‘flu.
I am married to my first cousin. Be afraid, be very afraid.
!!Achooo!!
On quite another note, is anyone a fan of Cecil Sharp and black wax cylinder recordings?
“If we were using bodycounts as a measure of radical extremism, the West is way, WAY out in front”
Yup. If the Iraqis and Afghanis were told they were not required to tolerate people who came to their country and refused to tolerate them they’d think it was some kind of sick joke.