Should the British Govt Pay more Attention to Its Muslims?

Status
Not open for further replies.
#1
Is this author correct inn his assessment of the errors of the British government in engaging its Muslim population in maintaining support for its Afghanistan strategy/

Window of opportunity

By NEIL BERRY, Posted on » Tuesday, September 29, 2009


Interviewed on BBC television following the conviction of three Muslim airline bomb plotters, the former British government minister Tony McNulty was asked if Britain's foreign policy was responsible for radicalising young Muslims.

The routine British government response to this question has been to dismiss it as beneath consideration and McNulty proceeded to restate it. What he was prepared to do, he said, was to sit down with young Muslims who feel outrage at the way Britain has joined the US in invading Muslim lands and explain to them the rationale behind British policy.

It is self-evident that no democracy can allow its foreign policy to be dictated by a minority on the basis of intimidation. The trouble is that British government policy in Iraq, if not in Afghanistan, has itself been widely viewed as a betrayal of democratic principle.

Prime Minister Gordon Brown and his colleagues are seeking to sustain a military commitment in Afghanistan by arguing that it is helping to keep British people safe, despite mounting evidence that its main consequence is a lengthening list of dead British soldiers. On the evidence of their trial, the convicted bomb plotters received instructions from a jihadist controller based not in Afghanistan, but in Pakistan. It is a dwindling number of Britons who doubt that the reason why Britain is in Afghanistan is because British foreign policy is made in Washington.

In short, Britain's geo-strategic stance is felt to lack credibility by large swathes of British society, not just by Muslims who may feel especially incensed that Britain is at war in a Muslim country. None of this means that British public opinion is in the smallest degree sympathetic to Muslims whose hatred of Britain's foreign policy could issue in violence against British people.

On the contrary, the convictions of three aspiring home-grown terrorists were yet another grievous setback for law-abiding British Muslims, hugely compounded by the endless exposure of a video in which one of the conspirators warns British people of the price they will pay for "messing with Muslims".

The street violence that broke out in Birmingham and Harrow recently between Muslims and anti-Islamic English nationalists is an ominous sign of the times.

Many believe the British government has been far too ready to indulge Muslims, while failing to insist that they integrate into British society.

The truth is that Britain has never been in more desperate need of a change of government, with ministers who do not give the impression of being nothing more than party hacks committed to a view of the world derived from Washington ideologues. If nothing else, the parliamentary expenses scandal means that many all too familiar faces will soon vanish from British politics.

By this time next year, Britain may well have a new Conservative government led by David Cameron. From the point of view of British Muslims, the omens for a Cameron government are at best mixed. One of Cameron's most voluble colleagues, Michael Gove, is a Zionist with close ties to US neo-conservatives.

At the same time, pro-Conservative newspapers persist in portraying the growing population of Muslims as a far greater threat to British society than is officially acknowledged. Some in the British media declare that the day is not far off when the "flag of Islam" will fly over Downing Street. Such outbursts can only fuel the sort of communal clashes witnessed in Birmingham and Harrow. Yet the campaigning theme that David Cameron has made his own - that Britain is a "broken society" - offers paradoxical potential for British Muslims. For if many are alienated, there are also many who brim with intelligence, verve and public spirit and who have a great deal to contribute to the debate about how Britain might reinvent itself as an exemplary, multi-ethnic, 21st century society.

The challenge that faces them is to demonstrate that Muslims are not a liability to British society, but an asset.

http://www.gulf-daily-news.com/NewsDetails.aspx?storyid=260763
 
#2
"the former British government minister Tony McNulty was asked if Britain's foreign policy was responsible for radicalising young Muslims."

Stopped reading there.

It's the bloody religion that does it, not our government thank you very much.
 
#3
Agreed. It's because British Muslims have more loyalty to their invisible friend than to their country.
 
#4
Firthy556 said:
"the former British government minister Tony McNulty was asked if Britain's foreign policy was responsible for radicalising young Muslims."

Stopped reading there.

It's the bloody religion that does it, not our government thank you very much.
I wondered as much when I read that--obviously the writer is trying to persuade the reader to his point of view. This is a twist on the old canard that the US had in effect made Muslims "angry" by its foreign policies and thus the US, not the terrorists was actually to blame for the 9/11 attacks. This notion is in turn premised on that curious and incredibly naive assumption that no one in the world could possibly hate the US (or the UK for that matter) that much merely because the US exists--rather, the US must have done "something" to explain such hatred.

It has been my experience that most with such views have either never been far from home to see much of the rest of the world and how people live or they are blinded by an almost "polly annish" view of the world where evryone is really alike "deep down" if we can just get through that evil nationalism, capitalism, and whatever other "isms" one uses to try to justify the true evil in the world--unchecked human nature inflamed by a violent and oppressive creed.
 
#5
Firthy556 said:
"the former British government minister Tony McNulty was asked if Britain's foreign policy was responsible for radicalising young Muslims."

Stopped reading there.

It's the bloody religion that does it, not our government thank you very much.
I agree... no one dislikes the current govt as much as me...but muslims will put Allah first and foremost, not what a govt tells them, their intellect suffers for this, hence muslims being radiclized by their own clouded view
 
#6
Muslims were being radicalised long before Iraq, Afghansistan etc. While these conflicts may well be used as the excuse, if it wasn't tem, it would merely be something else.

Some experts claim that it is mainly down to a sense of humiliation at the downfall of The Ottoman Empire and the failure of Islam to match the achievments of the West.

The article above smacks of Anti Americanism to me.
 
#7
Roger all the above. As Churchill put it in The River War over a century ago:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith ... and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."


"Brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen" in their thousands, eh? Those were the days!
 
#8
jumpinjarhead said:
This notion is in turn premised on that curious and incredibly naive assumption that no one in the world could possibly hate the US (or the UK for that matter) that much merely because the US exists--rather, the US must have done "something" to explain such hatred.
Given the genocidal hatred between tribes in the Balkans and Africa, and the views of Islamic states about Israel, that notion should not be hard to grasp.

jumpinjarhead said:
... or they are blinded by an almost "polly annish" view of the world where evryone is really alike "deep down" if we can just get through that evil nationalism, capitalism, and whatever other "isms" one uses to try to justify the true evil in the world--unchecked human nature inflamed by a violent and oppressive creed.
Oh now you've done it - Proletarian Internationalism is the way forward, don'tcha know?! :roll: Marx will be turning in his grave... :wink:
 

the_boy_syrup

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
No why should the British Goverment bend over backwards to accomodate them?
It dosen't bend over backwards to accomodate me or anyone else on this website
The good people who don't agree with the way we live should remember Heatrow and Gatwick do out bound flights too
Pop over to Saudi if the calling to be a good muslim is so strong

There were riots in Bradford by young Muslims allegadly defending their area against a planned BNP march long before Iraq and Afghanistan (1998 ish)
The Iraq and Afghanistan issue is just being used an excuse for trouble by idiots
Hard to feel anything but contemp for people screaming Allah Akbar as they run up a street
Likewise it's hard to feel anything for contempt for people who feel they need to cause trouble on my behalf against these idiots

They should be intregating with the indiginous population not the other way round

I 'll start the stop watch to see how long it takes this thread to be classed as racist and binned
 
#10
Yes, the British government should be paying more attention to it's Muslims. They should ensure they have enough boats to ship the lot of them out of the UK!
 
#11
If you have an invisable friend you are called a lunatic, except if you are a muslim, christian, ect the you are called religious
 
#12
the_boy_syrup said:
No why should the British Goverment bend over backwards to accomodate them?
It dosen't bend over backwards to accomodate me
It might bend over forwards to accommodate you, if it comes in the shape of Lord Mandelson.
 
#13
Why is it that most wars which have been fought on this planet (not counting Star Wars) have been about clashes of religion? Each religion recognises that there is one God (each to his or her own beliefs on that one), Noah, Joshua, Jesus all appear in both the Bible and Koran so WTF can't people live in peace? OK, I may not want to live next to a specific family so either I move or they move. The Gobment would appear to pay a tad more attention to Muslims and their wants and beliefs than other religions IMHO.
 
#14
the_boy_syrup said:
No why should the British Government bend over backwards to accommodate them?
It doesn't bend over backwards to accommodate me or anyone else on this website
The reason is that they are noticeable.

Government is not, in my experience, known for its focused and discerning oversight of the nation. It tends only to notice things which are placed under its nose and shaken vigorously.

This may be interpreted in many ways. You Syrup, may choose to conceal yourself under a large cloth when out and about. Surely the alternatives are endless.

Unkind though I am, I must say that in order to be noticed one must do something, in plain site,loudly and often.

B
 
#15
they get enough attention - there's more mosques per muslim capita in the UK than in Iran AND sunnis can practice their version of islam and buy sunni korans unlike in Iran and other majority muslim countries which have similar restrictions on the type of Islam practiced.
 
#16
I can think of some special attention that muslims should get from the Government....7.62mm Full Metal Jacket
 
#17
bakerlite said:
Unkind though I am, I must say that in order to be noticed one must do something, in plain site,loudly and often.

B
Unfortunately, it's mainly leftie fringe groups that are willing to do this and feed off the apathy of the majority who are pretty much opposed to them
 
#18
Norfolknchance said:
Why is it that most wars which have been fought on this planet (not counting Star Wars) have been about clashes of religion? Each religion recognises that there is one God (each to his or her own beliefs on that one), Noah, Joshua, Jesus all appear in both the Bible and Koran so WTF can't people live in peace?
Pah! You've missed out Buddha, all of the Hindu gods and goddesses as well as Shintoism's natural deities and no doubt many many more!
 
#19
Norfolknchance said:
Why is it that most wars which have been fought on this planet (not counting Star Wars) have been about clashes of religion?
Star wars is about religion, there is a schism between the light side and dark side and this schisim plays out on a political stage.

(I wonder how the rebel alliance int corps copes without darksiders)

Trotsky
 
#20
bakerlite said:
Unkind though I am, I must say that in order to be noticed one must do something, in plain site,loudly and often.
An interesting comment - I wonder if the previously accepted wisdom that 'those who shout the loudest have the least influence' has been over-turned during the Blair / Brown years. Do decisions no longer get made over fine wines and spirits in smoke-filled rooms? If we argue that feet on the ground, e.g. the Countryside Alliance marches, did no good then why do we panic that other groups' marches have an impact on the policy-makers?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Top