[Telegraph] That is far too many -- Just because you wouldn't personally go out and murder people, it doesn't make you moderate. We cannot turn a blind eye to the fair-weather supporters of terrorism.
This morning the BBC published details of a major poll of the attitudes of Britain's Muslims. The headline on the front of the BBC website linking to the research states: "Muslims 'oppose cartoon reprisals'". This of course relates to attitudes within the Muslim community towards the recent Charlie Hebdo attacks.
It's a reassuring headline. It's also wrong. Many Muslims - a majority - do indeed utterly oppose the murderous killings in Paris. But a very, very large number of Muslims don't. Presented with the statement "I have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attacks in Paris", 27 seven percent agreed with the statement. A further 2 per cent refused to answer the question. And an additional eight percent said they were unsure whether they had some sympathy or not.
That is a shocking figure. And an utterly shaming one for Britain's Muslim community.
---
We are going to have to start to reassess what we mean by "moderate Islam". At the moment, we essentially define a moderate Muslim as any Muslim who doesn't go around blowing things up, or who doesn't go round overtly advocating other people should blow things up. It's ludicrously simplistic, sickeningly patronising, and actually represents a form of inverted racism.
More importantly, it also has the practical effect of marginalising and undermining the significant number of genuinely moderate Muslims who want nothing to with the "I wouldn't have done it myself, but..." Charlie Hebdo apologists within their community.
If you think the Paris killings were justified - in any way - then you're not a moderate. By definition, you're an extremist.
Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 ||
02/26/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Europe
#1
I don't know if I agree. "I have some sympathy for the motives" does not actually mean you support the attacks at all. It means Charlie Hebdo pissed you off. Nothing more and nothing less.
I also think that the number if probably higher than a quarter but few are dumb enough to honestly fill out this kind of poll.
"This charade will only include black caucus Democrats. Mia Love, a Republican who joined the Congressional Black Caucus for whatever reason wouldn't be a part of this stunt." Please keep walking until you reach Ushuaia, Argentina. We'll mail your last pay check to you upon your arrival. Bu-bye !!!
#1
Black Americans politicians walking out on the leader of the Jewish state (never had slaves) because in their opinion he's mean to Arabs (who sold black slaves to Europeans) with genocidal intent.
History appears not to be a strong suit among the Black Caucus.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
02/26/2015 22:33 Comments ||
Top||
#15
FYI GROONG > [Jewish Press] AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL: "END VETO" PROTECTION OF ISRAEL "AT UNSC".
IMO Israeli PM Netanyahu should still try to meet wid Congressional or Washington Dems.
ISRAEL-N-ONLY-ISRAEL = USA-N-ONLY-THE-USA - desired by OWG Globalists to unilaterally or voluntarily downgrade itself before the UNO + around the World in the name of a greater good which only the Globies are keeping to themselves???
"FedEx founder, chairman, CEO, and President Frederick W. Smith, a Vietnam Marine with two tours of duty, could have chosen to stand with American gun owners against the tyranny of the Obama Administration, instead of kneeling before it." Appears Fred received the White House e-mail.
#1
We have been making guns since Colonial times, long before the advent of numerically controlled machine tools. There are no magical tools or super secret ingredients needed. Purely political.
[Bloomberg] For anyone hoping a nuclear deal with Iran might stop the Tehran government from destabilizing the Middle East or free its political prisoners, the B.O. regime has some bad news: It's just an arms control agreement.
As details of a proposed pact leaked out of the Geneva talks Monday, administration officials told us they will ask the world to judge any final nuclear agreement on the technical aspects only, not on whether the deal will spur Iranian reform.
"The only consideration driving what is part of any comprehensive agreement with Iran is how we can get to a one-year breakout time and cut off the four pathways for Iran to get enough material for a nuclear weapon, period," said State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf. "And if we reach an agreement, that will be the basis upon which people should judge it -- on the technical merits of it, not on anything else."
This is a long way from the grand aspirational sentiments expressed by President Barack Obama Republicans can come along for the ride, but they've got to sit in the back... back in 2009, when he announced his intention to engage Iran. Obama, speaking on the Persian new year celebration of Nowruz, said he wanted "the Islamic Theocratic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations."
Back then, many advocates for engagement argued that the nuclear deal could unlock the key to moderating Iran's rogue behavior.
This issue has become all the more pertinent with reports from Geneva that the outlines of a 10- or 15-year nuclear deal with Iran would gradually lift some of the restrictions on the program in the final years, if Iran was meeting its obligations. The News Agency that Dare Not be Named reported that negotiators in the six-party talks were discussing the prospect of allowing the Iranians to keep 6,500 centrifuges for enrichment as a compromise and operate more of them over time if they were living up to the terms of the deal.
A similar line of thinking was promoted in the 1990s, when the U.S. struck a deal with North Korea to put severe limits on its nuclear program in exchange for sanctions relief. Of course, Pyongyang only increased its internal repression and nuclear ambitions.
Posted by: trailing wife ||
02/26/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11127 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
#1
'Leaked out of the Geneva talks on Monday.'
....just before the Netanyahu address to Congress. Whewwww, that was a close one. Dear regime - please tell us once again how Netanyahu could have 'known nothing about the agreement' just a few short days ago.
"Community organizer wrestling with a commando. Somehow it just doesn't turn out well."
#3
I can understand the WH lowering the bar for Iran, you see, on average most Iranians are shorter than Americans therefore it is more difficult for the Iranians to either sit or stand at a bar. So, the WH, a very accommodating bunch, have decided to lower the bar as not to embarrass this vertically challenged group. Now, if the WH could only get them to drink the irradiated waters...
IN a strange, mostly unexplained twist, President Mamnoon Hussain has promulgated an ordinance further revising the recently amended Army Act to ostensibly aid the functioning of military courts by allowing for trials in camera, ie without the presence of the public or the media, and over video link if necessary. The idea, according to a special assistant of the prime minister who handles legal matters, is to enhance security for presiding officers, military prosecutors, witnesses and defence lawyers by shielding their identity from the public and the media. While that may seem like a sensible idea -- and only at first blush -- it is quite incredible that already the law dealing with military courts is being amended in such a clandestine manner and without any debate. The need for a presidential ordinance -- a legislative tool that has been used in the past to undermine parliamentary democracy -- points to either one of two problems.
Military courts were either mooted in haste and only now are the real-world impediments to their functioning becoming apparent, hence the need to tweak the law. Or the government and the military which demanded such courts do not feel obliged to maintain any level of transparency in the operation of these courts and are now confident enough to introduce changes that essentially seal off their functioning from any kind of public and media scrutiny. Consider the great irony of this latest presidential ordinance: if special courts and anti-terrorism courts had been given the same protections (in-camera proceedings and video links to protect identities of prosecutors, judges and witnesses), the same urgent resources and the same level of attention by the senior-most state functionaries, perhaps the need for military courts would not have been felt in the first place. With this latest presidential ordinance, it appears that the government and military officials ultimately do want to create a parallel judicial system -- a closed-off system of courts where public scrutiny is minimal, or even non-existent, and everything is justified in the name of the national interest and protecting the people.
That criticism is not unjustified. Military courts were mooted as a very narrow and very limited solution to a very serious problem: hardcore forces of Evil and terrorist criminal masterminds who needed to be convicted and remain convicts in a broken criminal justice system. Already though there are suggestions in various quarters, usually in response to an unforeseen and undesirable event, that the scope of military courts be expanded. Perhaps the senator who suggested getting military courts involved in the World Cup cricketing debacle of the Pak team was only being facetious or spoke in mock frustration, but it has already been seen how voices have called for military courts to deal with Bloody Karachi ...formerly the capital of Pakistain, now merely its most important port and financial center. It is among the largest cities in the world, with a population of 18 million, most of whom hate each other and many of whom are armed and dangerous... law-and-order woes. Military courts must not become the new normal -- and clandestine, unexplained changes to the law must be resisted.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/26/2015 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11125 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Pakistan
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
North Korea
