Article

2004-08-06 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by tipper 2004-08-06 9:38:05 AM|| || Front Page|| [4 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1
Gaffe: v. /gaF/ 1. when a politician or other public figure speaks an unpleasant truth and then is forced to backpedal quickly.

Posted by N Guard 2004-08-06 10:16:43 AM|| 2004-08-06 10:16:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 *ahem*

Once again....anti-Islam isn't racism. Anti-Islamofascist is self-preservation.

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-06 10:19:56 AM|| 2004-08-06 10:19:56 AM|| Front Page Top

#3 Stand firm, Reverend. Stand firm.

Posted by dreadnought 2004-08-06 10:51:36 AM|| 2004-08-06 10:51:36 AM|| Front Page Top

#4 WTF is a "diversity officer"? Is that like the old KGB political officer? How far the mighty Brits have fallen.

Posted by ed 2004-08-06 11:41:26 AM|| 2004-08-06 11:41:26 AM|| Front Page Top

#5 Article: POLICE today launched an investigation into comments by a Norwich religious leader branding Islam "an evil religion".

Imams in British mosques routinely criticize Christianity in these terms. When are the British police going to investigate them?

Posted by Zhang Fei 2004-08-06 11:49:13 AM|| [http://www.polipundit.com] 2004-08-06 11:49:13 AM|| Front Page Top

#6 Besides ISLAM ISN'T A RACE.

Will the 'diversity office' also be investigating the statements by Imans who preach hatred and murder from their mosques? Thought not....

Posted by CrazyFool 2004-08-06 11:54:43 AM|| 2004-08-06 11:54:43 AM|| Front Page Top

#7 Is "community cohesiveness" more likely to come about by not challenging terrorist-infiltrated Islam? The Rev's language is clumsy, and he sounds rather like one more narrow-minded proselytizer (like some imams can be), but he has at least faced the same hard reality we have-we can have no room in our communities for violence-promoting, jihad-tolerating Muslims that would be very happy to see the downfall of the culture and country in which they live.

Posted by jules 187 2004-08-06 1:00:11 PM|| 2004-08-06 1:00:11 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 I read somewhere recently that a Preacher in Oz gott in trouble of this type with the PC crowd. The amazing part is he ONLY quoted from the Koran and STILL got in trouble. farking asshats.

Posted by Brett_the_Quarkian 2004-08-06 1:02:28 PM|| 2004-08-06 1:02:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 WTF is a "diversity officer"? Is that like the old KGB political officer? How far the mighty Brits have fallen.

Scotland Yard has a Diversity Directorate that allows it to arrest people who are reported by others as SAYING or doing anything that might "incite racial/homosexual/disability hatred" thereby breaking the Public Order Act, yet another soft totalitarian apparatchuk put into place by Tony Blair and his socialist Labour Party fellow morons. In effect, Tony Blair's gov't goes beyond considering ACTION as a crime. The Labour Party considers it a crime to THINK or SAY something politically incorrect against a few selected groups he protects. Alas, wouldn't you know, Christian Churches are not one of the Labour Party's protected groups, so Imams get a pass for their nasty words and thoughts. Coincidently, the Labour Party counted on Muslims as a solid voter base in the past:
Muslim support for Labour was as high as 73% in the general election of May 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1223856,00.html

Some RB posters think Blair is the next best thing to sliced bread because he joined GWB in the War in Iraq. And many posters, myself included, have railed against Chretien and Chirac in the past. But in terms of dismantling the underpinnings of a nation while in office, Tony Blair is much worse than either Chretien to Canada or Chirac to France.I hold nothing but contempt for the UK's Labour Party and its "esteemed" leader. The day Labour and Blair get un-elected from office will be many years too late, IMHO.

Here's a link to a discussion of Tony Blair's Thought Police efforts complete with a poster, even, on samizdata.net
http://www.samizdata.net/blog/archives/002443.html#002443

http://www.met.police.uk/publicity/hatecrime.htm

Posted by rex 2004-08-06 1:14:31 PM|| 2004-08-06 1:14:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 now if this is all true why isn't it applied to islamic sermons that preach hate and jihat ect....

Posted by Dan 2004-08-06 1:41:58 PM|| 2004-08-06 1:41:58 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 Here's your answer #10:
Coincidently, the Labour Party counted on Muslims as a solid voter base in the past:
Muslim support for Labour was as high as 73% in the general election of May 2001
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1223856,00.html

Posted by rex 2004-08-06 1:45:16 PM|| 2004-08-06 1:45:16 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 His comments sparked outrage among fellow religious leaders and anti-racist groups.

And the "anti-racist groups" can STFU. No racism occured.

... they were concerned his remarks could damage "community cohesiveness".

And preaching violent jihad does not?

Abraham Eshetu, diversity officer at Norfolk police, said: "We will be investigating the comments made by Mr Clifford."

Good, please make sure to follow all of this back to its source in the mosques. The evil forces at play in Islam aren't centered in Canterbury or the Vatican.

Dr Clifford had told the Evening News: "The views about Islam made by Nick Griffin gained widespread publicity and I happen to believe what he said in this case was correct.

The longer Muslims seek to lever liberal Western religious freedoms against those who question Islam's true intent, the more crossover cases of borderline hate speech and freedom of speech that will happen.

We are merely seeing a version of "Christian Jihad" retaliating to Islamic jihad as preached in the mosques. Too bad Britain could not bring itself to monitor the Finsbury Park mosque as closely as they have the church in Norwich.

"The only antidote to this evil religion is the pure Gospel of Jesus Christ."

Here's the sad part. Seeking ascendancy or any proclaiming of such is pretty much the same mentality as shown by the Islamists. When all religious figures get over this "my dogma's better than your dogma" garbage, this world's going to see a lot less strife.

The pastor, whose church meets at Eaton Park Community Centre and is an associate member of Affinity, formerly the British Evangelical Council, was today unrepentant but insisted he was not racist.

And he most likely is not a racist. Religiously bigoted, perhaps, but more likely just feeling justifiably threatened by another religion's extremists that seek to wipe Christianity off of the map.

"I believe in free speech and free association of religion," he said. "I have no objections to Muslims worshipping and associating but I think a point does come when itâs very difficult to tolerate people whose religious motivation in its pure form leads to your annihilation."

It's always nice to see a spade called a spade. Congratulations, Doctor Clifford, upon being braver than a majority of British law enforcement or journalists covering this disturbing trend. Unfortunately, until the mask is ripped from Islamism's face, Clifford's attitudes will be legally interpretable as hate speech instead of merely being being freedom of speech.

Legal authorities had better begin to weigh quite carefully what is being preached in the mosques, before continuing to supress vigorous resistance in non-Islamic sectors. There will come a point where the public perceives a threat regardless of whether the law sees it as one or not. Vigilante acts will then supplant overt resistance and the real war on Islam will begin. If the law cannot protect the public from Islamic hate speech, people will protect themselves in their own ways. Merely focusing upon and stifling reactions to Islamist intolerance will not solve the problem any more than stiff jail sentences for apprehended terrorists. Reaction is an unworthy substitute for interdiction.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-06 3:14:51 PM|| 2004-08-06 3:14:51 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Vigilante acts will then supplant overt resistance and the real war on Islam will begin.

Blue Raja, Blue Raja, Blue Raja...

Posted by 2% 2004-08-06 5:08:48 PM|| 2004-08-06 5:08:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 Q: What did you do during the great war for Western Values Daddy?
A: I was a Diversity Officer.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-06 5:40:56 PM|| 2004-08-06 5:40:56 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Here's the sad part. Seeking ascendancy or any proclaiming of such is pretty much the same mentality as shown by the Islamists. When all religious figures get over this "my dogma's better than your dogma" garbage, this world's going to see a lot less strife.

Only if you disagree with ANY RELIGION, Zenster, and see them as ALL ALIKE. Denis Prager noted that there were no Palestinian Christian Suicide Bombers. Christianity is not Islam, and Ann Coulter had a few choice words for those who deliberately confuse the two.

How many threats did anyone hear from the Iraqui Christian Community after their churches were bombed last Sunday? Click on the sidebox to see the gallery of pictures of the incident and read the comments. What would Tater have said if a similar thing had happened to Muslim Iraquis? How would the Muslims have reacted?

Dr. Clifford is quite correct: Muslims simply WILL NOT become atheists, and NOTHING is going to disappear from the Koran concerning Jihad. Conversion of Muslims to Judaism is unheard-of, but conversion to Christianity is relatively more common, even though it is an effective death penalty. Here's what happens when a Muslim becomes a Christian. In fact, the day that a Iraqui Muslim can safely convert to Christianity without being beheaded for apostasy will be the day we'll have turned the corner on the War on Terror.

Rantburgers pretty much agree that Bush made a mistake thinking that Islam is, like the Christianity he's familiar with, a religion of Peace, but don't make the opposite mistake of thinking that Christianity is, like Islam, a religion of war. (Mohammed died in 632, The Muslim armies were turned back at Tours, France, in 732, having taken all the territory from the Arabian Peninsula to Spain in 100 years. The First Crusade was 1095, which means that "Christendom" took over 300 friggin' years to figure out that its ass was in a sling and that it was high time to get it in gear...)

Posted by Ptah 2004-08-06 7:27:24 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-08-06 7:27:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#16 School age children today typically reference any type of "unpleasantry" as RACIST. Idea seems to be promoted by leftist teachers in search of "social justice" for all and sundry actors and actions...the word is losing its true meaning rapidly...I know as I am a teacher...

Posted by borgboy 2004-08-06 7:32:24 PM|| 2004-08-06 7:32:24 PM|| Front Page Top

#17 How come we never hear about POLICE investigations into the ongoing denigration of anything having to do with Western Civilization, Christian or not, coming out of the mosques 24/7. The Rev is cool. And he's right. In it's "ultimate" form, Islam allows for nothing else but Islam. Not very "diverse," I'd say.

Posted by ex-lib 2004-08-06 8:37:33 PM|| 2004-08-06 8:37:33 PM|| Front Page Top

#18 #15 Only if you disagree with ANY RELIGION, Zenster, and see them as ALL ALIKE.

Ptah, while I wholeheartedly support freedom of religion, it is impossible to ignore the fact that an overwhelming majority of religions have a supernatural or superstitious basis. However difficult it may be to make comparisons between them, this simple fact remains as a constant recurring theme. No, not all religions are alike, but their almost universal dependency upon statements unsupported by historical fact does create a template whereby they can be examined in relation to each other. Islam and Christianity both demand their claims be taken on face value without any genuine factual verification.

While it is pretty obvious that Jesus and Mohammed both existed as historical figures, there is absolutely no proof either of them had direct divine contact or authorization. All resulting doctrine devolving from either figure consists of written material gathered by witnesses or culled from second hand accounts. Both Christianity and Islam alike have been used to perpetrate unspeakable horrors, all done in the name of the Almighty.

I find there to be a rather direct connection between Christianity and radical Islam. After centuries of Crusaders torturing and killing Arabs while telling them, "there is only one true God," the Arabs finally believed them. Unfortunately, their "one true God" just doesn't happen to be the Christian's Holy Father. Instead, we are now treated to a religion whose fanatical roots were put down in the salted soil of Christian domination. Christianity is most certainly not to blame for all of the incredible evils that Islam has engaged in during its history, that remains quite clear. Yet, its intense antagonism quite definitely served as a midwife to deliver forth a competing religion whose obsession with martyrdom would come to make the Christians look like lackluster slackers.

No, it is not Christianity's fault that Islam has stagnated perpetually for several centuries, until such a point where its cultural relevance is substantially diminished. Nor is it to blame for a profound lack of reformation within the Moslem faith. Those issues fairly much belong to Islam alone, along with some Arab political institutions who also played handmaiden to its decay. This in no way diminishes the similarities between Islam and Christianity. Both are Messianic faiths reliant upon unwavering acceptance of codified rules of conduct and the unquestioning belief in an afterlife conferred upon its adherents by a judgmental God.

Islam certainly faces much greater strictures looming in their near future. The generous loophole of religious freedom granted it by secular cultures is rapidly shrinking with each atrocity committed in Allah's name. While it remains critical to segregate extremist Muslim factions from their faith's mainstream body, this is becoming less the responsibility of outsiders and more an onus upon Islam itself. However hasty Doctor Clifford might be in deeming all Islam to be "an evil religion" and a "vicious, wicked faith," his right to make those observations (however misguided they may be) is conferred upon him by Islam's own congenital inability to expel the fanatics within their ranks and accept its rightful burden of reform.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-06 8:43:31 PM|| 2004-08-06 8:43:31 PM|| Front Page Top

#19 After centuries of Crusaders torturing and killing Arabs while telling them, "there is only one true God," the Arabs finally believed them. Unfortunately, their "one true God" just doesn't happen to be the Christian's Holy Father. Instead, we are now treated to a religion whose fanatical roots were put down in the salted soil of Christian domination.

Well, people, in response to links and a recitation of dates of known historical events, Zenster handwaves, mis-generalizes, and comes up with a fact free, but definitely creative, rendition of the origin of Islam that has utterly no foundation in either Islamic or Ancient history. Thus, I have a good basis to be skeptical about his capabilities and competence when it comes to assigning moral blame among religions of which he is patently ignorant.

Posted by Ptah 2004-08-06 10:02:01 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-08-06 10:02:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#20 length of post doesn't equal credibility? I'll notify Aris after the Zen master :-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-06 10:04:35 PM|| 2004-08-06 10:04:35 PM|| Front Page Top

#21 Ptah, what do you want documented? Be specific.

Are you disputing that Christian Crusaders left a gaping wound in the collective Arab consciousness? One that persists to this day as a rejection of Western secularism. Where have I mentioned anything about the origins of Islam save that it descends from Mohammed and is a Messianic religion? Do you deny that Christianity applied pressure to Islam and may well have contributed to steering it towards a more fanatical interpretation? Their influence was certainly not all hearts and flowers.

What part of; "No, it is not Christianity's fault that Islam has stagnated perpetually for several centuries, until such a point where its cultural relevance is substantially diminished. Nor is it to blame for a profound lack of reformation within the Moslem faith. Those issues fairly much belong to Islam alone, along with some Arab political institutions who also played handmaiden to its decay." did you not understand?

I am not arguing that Islam currently espouses violence to a much greater degree than Christianity, which appears to be one of your central disputes.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-06 11:14:04 PM|| 2004-08-06 11:14:04 PM|| Front Page Top

#22 #20 length of post doesn't equal credibility?

Frank G, do please find it within yourself to forgive that part of the world's population which neither shares your short attention span nor confuses brevity with sincerity.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-06 11:57:48 PM|| 2004-08-06 11:57:48 PM|| Front Page Top

#23 I try, Zen :-)

Lottsa people say I'm a trying guy

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-07 12:00:47 AM|| 2004-08-07 12:00:47 AM|| Front Page Top

#24 Nor is the intensity of a belief relevant to its validity nor is pure bloviation relevant to substance.

Posted by .com 2004-08-07 12:34:00 AM|| 2004-08-07 12:34:00 AM|| Front Page Top

#25 Lottsa people say I'm a trying guy

Very trying, but then again, so are magistrates.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-07 1:49:58 AM|| 2004-08-07 1:49:58 AM|| Front Page Top

#26 ummmm.... when did the Crusdaers fight Arabs? Fought a lot of Saracens and Turks and such like. But arabs were confinded to the arabian pennisula until the moon god forced them to run amuck.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-07 7:52:34 AM|| 2004-08-07 7:52:34 AM|| Front Page Top

#27 After centuries of Crusaders torturing and killing Arabs while telling them, "there is only one true God," the Arabs finally believed them.

Zenster, every history indicates that it was Mohammed, not the Crusaders, who told the Arabs "that there is only one true god", and that it was Mohammed's warmaking that forced the Meccans to eventually give up polytheism. On this everyone, except yourself in the above paragraph, seems quite clear.

Shipman's got it right, although the relevant dates are in my post: In less than 100 years, the Muslim armies flooded out of Saudi Arabia, across North Africa (destroying, by the way, a vibrant Christian culture that gave birth to notables like Augustine of Hippo), into Spain, to be stopped at Tours in 732. That battle was so important, Dr. VDH included it in the shortlist of impressive battles in "Carnage and Culture"! The First Crusade was in 1095, over 300 years later. Quite a trick for an 11th century war to traumatically affect 7th century minds, unless you believe in time travel. Or was I mistaken in believing you knew enough of world history to know that all these dates were AD, not BC?

The obvious conclusion, of course, is that Islam started it all, and that the Crusades were a justified response to a religion hell bent on converting the world by the sword. However, that doesn't yield the moral onus on Christianity you desperately crave. Now, if you have a verified historical record of a Christian invasion of similar dramatic proportions PRIOR to the Crusades, give the link. Until then, you're unconsciously mimicking the Left's "Oh the poor Palestinians!" schtick in applying it to Ancient Islam.

Posted by Ptah 2004-08-07 5:05:23 PM|| [http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org] 2004-08-07 5:05:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#28 Noone will see it.... but I've been watching this thread! Thanks Ptah.

Posted by Shipman 2004-08-07 5:33:18 PM|| 2004-08-07 5:33:18 PM|| Front Page Top

#29 hmmm - maybe some will see it. Nice historical bitch-slap Ptah!

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-07 5:46:23 PM|| 2004-08-07 5:46:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#30 Ofcourse if the Christians in the Eastern Roman Empire hadn't the oppression of the Copts as their chief hobby, the locals might have rallied atleast a hint of a resistance against the Arab conquest of Egypt instead of welcoming it fullheartedly.

Posted by Aris Katsaris 2004-08-07 5:56:01 PM|| 2004-08-07 5:56:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#31 Zenster, every history indicates that it was Mohammed, not the Crusaders, who told the Arabs "that there is only one true god", and that it was Mohammed's warmaking that forced the Meccans to eventually give up polytheism. On this everyone, except yourself in the above paragraph, seems quite clear.

Ptah, what part of:

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me."
- 1st Commandment; Verse 3: -

is unclear?

The First Crusade was in 1095, over 300 years later.

Where do I dispute this? Yes, Moslem incursions into Europe likely served as the basis for the Crusaders' retaliation. Let's not forget the thinly disguised economic plunder that accompanied both sides' ventures. This in no way deletes the atrocities committed against Moslems (and Jews) during the Crusades. Christian intolerance was on a par with Moslem intransigence.

I have never said that the Christians started all of the strife. I am saying that the incredible abuses by the Christians during the Crusades contributed to a polarization of Moslem ideals. Neither side is free from blame in this. I merely seek to connect the intolerance of both sides in order to demonstrate how modern Islamic fanaticism is a partial outgrowth of the oppression that Christians imported with their arrival in the Middle East. Yes, the Moslems were quite accomplished at it too, but European domination manifested as a lasting model for Islamic hatred.

To Christianity's credit, it abandoned many of its theocratic leanings centuries ago. As I clearly pointed out, Islamic cultures are solely responsible for the pestilence of continued modern theocracy in the Middle East. Moslems have no one to blame at present except themselves. This does not ameliorate the role Christianity played in entrenching this mentality. So long as any religion touts itself as the "one true faith," all of them are doomed to continuous bloodletting. Do you argue this?

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-07 6:40:54 PM|| 2004-08-07 6:40:54 PM|| Front Page Top

#32 Every Wahhabi mosque in the U.S. is a safe house for jihadists and they do it all tax free under our 501C3 IRS laws. How wonderful!

Posted by Mark Espinola 2004-08-07 6:56:37 PM|| 2004-08-07 6:56:37 PM|| Front Page Top

#33 Frank, until I see you doing some of the heavy lifting around here your insults won't carry much weight. Lawn chair critics don't cut much ice with me.

Posted by Zenster 2004-08-08 5:53:23 PM|| 2004-08-08 5:53:23 PM|| Front Page Top

#34 insults? Don't get me started.... Still sensitive from my "length doesn't equal quality", huh?

:-)

Posted by Frank G 2004-08-08 6:08:57 PM|| 2004-08-08 6:08:57 PM|| Front Page Top

18:08 Frank G
17:53 Zenster
18:56 Mark Espinola
18:40 Zenster
17:56 Aris Katsaris
17:46 Frank G
17:33 Shipman
17:28 Shipman
17:05 Ptah
07:52 Shipman
02:59 Super Hose
02:55 Super Hose
02:47 Super Hose
02:41 Super Hose
01:49 Zenster
01:10 Mike Sylwester
00:34 .com
00:00 Frank G
23:57 Zenster
23:38 Jarhead
23:16 Jarhead
23:15 Frank G
23:14 Zenster
23:09 Anonymoose