Since Her Majesty's Government took the remarkably ill-advised action of barring Geert Wilders from entering their "sceptered isle," there has been a rush to compare this effort of placating the Muslims of the UK with the actions of Chamberlain at Munich. This comparison is unfair.
Unfair to Chamberlain.
The oft-maligned "appeasement" policy of the British Prime Minister at the Munich Conference with Adolph Hitler was the consequence of a cold-eyed realism on the Englishman's part. Neither the UK nor its ally France possessed either the military means or the political will to offer firm resistance to the German dictator's demands. Put bluntly, the people of both the UK and France were not willing to contemplate war only a generation after the hectatombs of the Great War.
The recent barring of Wilders was not necessary. The UK has sufficient police capability and the majority of the British public (if not the New Labor elite) has the political will to maintain order in the streets. There was no need to cower before the threat of Islamist leaning "leaders" including one member of the House of Lords when they muttered dire threats against the public order should the infamous Wilders be allowed to step on British soil.
What Chamberlain did was behave realistically in full awareness of the balance of strengths and weaknesses existing in England, France and Germany. His actions gained great support at the time. Only later events made obvious that appeasement of Hitler was akin to throwing raw beef to a wolf in the hopes of inducing vegetarianism in the critter.
Only later did the word "appeasement" come to have the bad odor it has today.
The multi-culti elite of the UK has been bending over and spreading its collective cheeks to humor Muslims for months and months now. The epitomization of this hyper-accommodationist approach is seen in the video footage of London police backing up for blocks as a crowd of hate speech spewing, object-hurling Muslims jeered and chased.
The elite of New Labor has denatured the English language, perverted English cultural traditions, twisted public education, enforced unwilling compliance with Muslim snortings and generally acted in a snivelling, cringing fashion which would cause Churchill, or Gladstone or Pitt to twist in their graves at a high rate of knots.
Is it fair to ask just what HMG, New Labor and the multi-culti oh-so-sensitive elite crowd generally have gained for themselves or their nation by all these acts of submission? Has the internal security of the UK improved? Have Islamic governments or Islamist leaning groups shown an increased willingness to agreement through negotiated compromise? Have Muslims within the UK grown more tolerant? Accommodating? Generally amiable?
Anyone well oriented as to time and place (which requirement excludes multi-culti elitists) knows the answer to those all too well.
It is easy to dismiss the justifications offered by the British Foreign Minister who showed himself by his characterization of Fitna to be either a liar or a fool. The "threat to public order" emanated not from Wilders but from those who made the threats--Muslims, the lot of them.
What is less easy to dismiss is the reality underlying both the cause and the consequences of HMG's action. What is far less easy to dismiss is an alarming fact made self-evident by the Brown Ministry's interdict on Wilders.
Here it is, boys and girls. Best get a firm grip on it.
HMG, New Labor, the British multi-culti elite do not understand the nature and character of the war which has been declared upon them and the rest of the West by the apostles of Islamism. Brown, Miliband and Company do not get it.
The war which has been declared by Islamists and their ilk is not simply one of bombs, suicide vests, or aircraft flown into the sides of buildings all to the accompaniment of Allahu Akbar. The war is one of values and worldview, of the dignity and importance of the individual against the collective demands of ideology, of standing erect, free and proud versus kneeling, head pressed to the ground in submission to the dictates of dogma.
That is the war. It is a war which has been fought before. Fought against the Nazis, fought against the Commissars of the Kremlin, fought against the Bushido driven imperialists of Tokyo. Fought before. Won before.
Through its denial of Wilders' admission to the once proud bastion of free expression, England, Brown, Miliband and the rest of the cringing elitist crew have handed a defeat to the West which so far surpasses the temporary effects of Munich as to beggar the imagination. Simultaneously, it will have served to emboldened the followers of Islam to make more demands, utter more threats, become more expansive in their goals.
Not just in England. No.
The True Believers of the True Faith throughout Europe and within the US will all be encouraged by the Wilders Interdict to ramp up their (specious) claims for special treatment and consideration. They will be emboldened in their threats both veiled and not-so-veiled.
And, throughout Europe as well as within the US there are ever-so-sensitive, oh-so-multi-culturally aware members of the elite who will rush to emulate Miliband and his perversion of the cry-fire-in-a-crowded-theater dictum once offered by an American jurist. These High Minded, Lofty Thinking monuments to acceptance and embracement will comfort themselves with anodynes about socio-economic or political marginalisation of Muslims, bromides about the Muslim sense of being a "persecuted" minority, a mis-understood religion.
These well-intentioned but clueless folks are all members of The Society of the Perpetually Indignant and Concerned. They will pat each other on the back, assure one another, "We are not prejudiced. We are not fearful of those different from ourselves."
The High Minded and Lofty Thinking folks will nod gravely as they tell one another, "Not all speech should be protected. Certainly not speech that someone might find offensive."
Like the British man and woman in the street (as well as those who occupied mansions and the halls of power) who cheered Chamberlain as he waved his slip of paper and promise, "Peace in our time," those who approve of the Wilders Exclusion are wrong. Desperately wrong.
Of such seemingly small steps as the Wilders Affair are catastrophes constructed. Every small step on a very steep and extremely slippery slope carries with it the very real potential of disaster. Each tiny step seems so inconsequential, so utterly insignificant. Each appears quite safe and justifiable. Until a step too many is taken.
Then, as the glacier wall whips past, as the wind screams in the ear, as the canyon floor explodes into view. Well, by then it is just too damn late.
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Kingdom. Show all posts
Saturday, February 14, 2009
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Sometimes The British Are So Annoying
Dame Stella Remington the former head of the Security Service (MI 5 for those who like spooky numbers instead of bureaucratic names) has gone on record lambasting the US for "overreacting" to the attacks of 9/11. In her considered opinion we should have sent a bobby or two to arrest the miscreants rather than announce a "War on Terrorism."
In her interview with the Guardian she took the position that the mass killings of 11 September 01 were just one more terrorist act, not unlike the many, many to which the British public had been exposed to during the long years of tumult and violence emanating from Northern Ireland;
Our "huge overreaction" and consequent treatment of the event as an act of war rather than one more boringly familiar challenge for law enforcement "wrong footed" the entire effort to counter the acts of terror. Her stance was echoed by Sir Ken MacDonald, the country's top prosecutor.
The Geek is no fan of the current administration's Great Global War on Terror for many reasons all of which have been adduced in previous posts. He does agree with the decision by the denizens of the Oval and adjacent regions to consider the attack by manned (and involuntarily crewed) cruise missiles on targets in two American cities to have constituted an act of war committed by foreign actors with a foreign base.
When foreigners mount an armed attack resulting in thousands of American deaths, it does not matter if the attackers are called the Imperial Japanese Navy or al-Qaeda. It does not matter if their home base is the Empire of Japan or Afghanistan.
It would have been no more proper to send J. Edgar Hoover and a posse of Feebs to arrest Admiral Yamamoto and the Japanese Emperor in December 1941 than to dispatch the cops to arrest Osama and Omar nearly sixty years later.
Get a grip on the real world, Dame Stella: Armed attacks by foreign actors constitute an act of war under international law as well as in the pages of history.
When terror attacks have been executed by individuals resident in or native to the US the Federal law enforcement and judicial authorities have a good record. Just in case you were preoccupied by such matters as dealing with the Provos or planning the beginnings of the most surveiled society outside of Singapore, Dame Stella, allow the Geek to remind you of the aftermath of the first attack on the World Trade Center or what happened following the truck bombing of the Federal Center in Oklahoma City.
Dame Stella, Sir Ken, please note that in those cases and many of similar nature the requirements of due process were followed closely and carefully. Police and prosecutors acted with utter professionalism and propriety. No rights were violated. No shortcuts in appeals were taken.
The Geek agrees that the current administration erred and erred badly with secret detentions, intensive interrogation authorization, the construction of the micro-Gulag at Gitmo and the repugnant Military Commission approach to dispensing justice. He is also of the view that the British surveillance society is violative of basic rights--most importantly the right to privacy, which means the right to be left alone.
The Geek also recalls that the British security forces both civilian and military were less than jealous protectors of rights, due process and psychic equanimity when dealing with the far less lethal even if more pervasive terrorist acts in Northern Ireland. It sticks in the Geek's memory that there was little to choose between today's Gitmo and HM Maze Prison twenty-five or so years ago. He also is reminded that many of the intensive interrogation methods were employed in North Ireland by HM security and military personnel including sleep deprivation, stress positions and extreme environmental stressors.
Let's cut to the chase, Dame Stella, Sir Ken. If the US had not committed the Mother of All Blunders of invading Iraq so that the Afghanistan operation could have been conducted as a quick and relatively clean punitive expedition, you would not be casting stones today.
Casting stones while forgetting that your country's recent history demonstrates that you both live in a glass house.
In her interview with the Guardian she took the position that the mass killings of 11 September 01 were just one more terrorist act, not unlike the many, many to which the British public had been exposed to during the long years of tumult and violence emanating from Northern Ireland;
Our "huge overreaction" and consequent treatment of the event as an act of war rather than one more boringly familiar challenge for law enforcement "wrong footed" the entire effort to counter the acts of terror. Her stance was echoed by Sir Ken MacDonald, the country's top prosecutor.
The Geek is no fan of the current administration's Great Global War on Terror for many reasons all of which have been adduced in previous posts. He does agree with the decision by the denizens of the Oval and adjacent regions to consider the attack by manned (and involuntarily crewed) cruise missiles on targets in two American cities to have constituted an act of war committed by foreign actors with a foreign base.
When foreigners mount an armed attack resulting in thousands of American deaths, it does not matter if the attackers are called the Imperial Japanese Navy or al-Qaeda. It does not matter if their home base is the Empire of Japan or Afghanistan.
It would have been no more proper to send J. Edgar Hoover and a posse of Feebs to arrest Admiral Yamamoto and the Japanese Emperor in December 1941 than to dispatch the cops to arrest Osama and Omar nearly sixty years later.
Get a grip on the real world, Dame Stella: Armed attacks by foreign actors constitute an act of war under international law as well as in the pages of history.
When terror attacks have been executed by individuals resident in or native to the US the Federal law enforcement and judicial authorities have a good record. Just in case you were preoccupied by such matters as dealing with the Provos or planning the beginnings of the most surveiled society outside of Singapore, Dame Stella, allow the Geek to remind you of the aftermath of the first attack on the World Trade Center or what happened following the truck bombing of the Federal Center in Oklahoma City.
Dame Stella, Sir Ken, please note that in those cases and many of similar nature the requirements of due process were followed closely and carefully. Police and prosecutors acted with utter professionalism and propriety. No rights were violated. No shortcuts in appeals were taken.
The Geek agrees that the current administration erred and erred badly with secret detentions, intensive interrogation authorization, the construction of the micro-Gulag at Gitmo and the repugnant Military Commission approach to dispensing justice. He is also of the view that the British surveillance society is violative of basic rights--most importantly the right to privacy, which means the right to be left alone.
The Geek also recalls that the British security forces both civilian and military were less than jealous protectors of rights, due process and psychic equanimity when dealing with the far less lethal even if more pervasive terrorist acts in Northern Ireland. It sticks in the Geek's memory that there was little to choose between today's Gitmo and HM Maze Prison twenty-five or so years ago. He also is reminded that many of the intensive interrogation methods were employed in North Ireland by HM security and military personnel including sleep deprivation, stress positions and extreme environmental stressors.
Let's cut to the chase, Dame Stella, Sir Ken. If the US had not committed the Mother of All Blunders of invading Iraq so that the Afghanistan operation could have been conducted as a quick and relatively clean punitive expedition, you would not be casting stones today.
Casting stones while forgetting that your country's recent history demonstrates that you both live in a glass house.
Monday, October 29, 2007
Who's King Abdullah Kidding?
The present head of the House on Sand, King Abdullah, told BBC (through an interpreter, so there's an escape hatch open if things get too hot) that his government(?) informed British intelligence and security organs of the upcoming attack on the London subway system on 7 July 05. His Royalness further averred that the British failed to act on the information.
Yeah. Right.
In the opposite corner is the British Parliament. Last year the House of Commons' Intelligence and Security Committee found no evidence that any specific information existed which could have led to a successful interdiction of the bombings.
Who do you think is more credible?
Parliament, rather like the US Congress in the wake of 9/11, was after scalps more than fixes. If there had been any gripless wallahs in any of the intelligence and security agencies, the Parliamentarians would have wasted no time lifting the offender's hair. The deaths of over fifty British civilians were enough to assure the low likelihood of a whitewash or cover up.
Then there is King Abdullah.
Admittedly, this Grand Panjandrum of the Dunes is seen as the most "liberal," "progressive" of the six Saudi chieftains of modern times. It has been widely reported that he, unlike his predecessors, is working night and day to curb the omnipresent influence of the Wahhabist clergy. It has also been bruited about that this king, again unlike all of those before him, has been really, really trying to bring Saudi Arabia beyond being a medieval patch of sand with oceans of oil below.
Sure. Yeah. Right.
In so far as the jihad promises to come home to roost on the oil, blood, and sand from which it sprang, the Good King is anxious to enlist the self-interested support of the Wahhabists. Stability is the goal as well in the few other "modernising, liberalising, progressive" changes in Saudi economic, political, and social life which Abdullah has sought.
The Geek would advise the King and his consorts to keep four words in mind: actions on the objective.
Actions, my dear kingness, as the cliche runs, speak louder than words.
The following actions seem to be in order. Shut down Saudi support for the oodles of mosques and madrassas in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere which preach the messages of Islamism and Jihadism. Cooperate completely (and as transparently as genuine security needs allow) with the the UK, the US, and others in stopping the flow of money to Islamist/Jihadist groups. Halt the flow of wannabe jihadists from Saudi Arabia.
Those actions would be a necessary beginning. If done, there would be reason to take King Abdullah seriously as a partner in the current confrontation with Islamism. Without actions, Abdullah's words are no more than a hot desert wind.
Yeah. Right.
In the opposite corner is the British Parliament. Last year the House of Commons' Intelligence and Security Committee found no evidence that any specific information existed which could have led to a successful interdiction of the bombings.
Who do you think is more credible?
Parliament, rather like the US Congress in the wake of 9/11, was after scalps more than fixes. If there had been any gripless wallahs in any of the intelligence and security agencies, the Parliamentarians would have wasted no time lifting the offender's hair. The deaths of over fifty British civilians were enough to assure the low likelihood of a whitewash or cover up.
Then there is King Abdullah.
Admittedly, this Grand Panjandrum of the Dunes is seen as the most "liberal," "progressive" of the six Saudi chieftains of modern times. It has been widely reported that he, unlike his predecessors, is working night and day to curb the omnipresent influence of the Wahhabist clergy. It has also been bruited about that this king, again unlike all of those before him, has been really, really trying to bring Saudi Arabia beyond being a medieval patch of sand with oceans of oil below.
Sure. Yeah. Right.
In so far as the jihad promises to come home to roost on the oil, blood, and sand from which it sprang, the Good King is anxious to enlist the self-interested support of the Wahhabists. Stability is the goal as well in the few other "modernising, liberalising, progressive" changes in Saudi economic, political, and social life which Abdullah has sought.
The Geek would advise the King and his consorts to keep four words in mind: actions on the objective.
Actions, my dear kingness, as the cliche runs, speak louder than words.
The following actions seem to be in order. Shut down Saudi support for the oodles of mosques and madrassas in Europe, the United States, and elsewhere which preach the messages of Islamism and Jihadism. Cooperate completely (and as transparently as genuine security needs allow) with the the UK, the US, and others in stopping the flow of money to Islamist/Jihadist groups. Halt the flow of wannabe jihadists from Saudi Arabia.
Those actions would be a necessary beginning. If done, there would be reason to take King Abdullah seriously as a partner in the current confrontation with Islamism. Without actions, Abdullah's words are no more than a hot desert wind.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)