How terrorism works 9

The method of terrorism will continue to be used by Muslim jihadis (and others) because it works.

The West, out of cowardice, stupidity, sentimentality, and  apathy, has allowed it to work.

How? The BBC provides an example :

The MailOnline reports that the director-general  of the BBC, Mark Thompson, defends the notorious pro-Islam bias of his publicly-funded institution on the grounds that if it wasn’t obedient to Muslim demands it would be subjected to terrorist violence. 

Mr Thompson said: ‘Without question, “I complain in the strongest possible terms”, is different from, “I complain in the strongest possible terms and I am loading my AK47 as I write”. This definitely raises the stakes.’

He said the BBC  would never air a satirical show about Muhammad because for Muslims it could have the same impact as a piece of ‘grotesque child pornography’.

Mr Thompson said the fatwa against Salman Rushdie over his novel The Satanic Verses, the September 11 terror attacks, and the murder in Holland in 2004 of film-maker Theo van Gogh, who had criticised Islam, had made broadcasters realise that religious controversies could lead to murder or serious criminal acts.

That is, if the “religious controversies” concern Islam. Only Islam, the terrorist religion.

Commenting on this, Bruce Bawer writes:

When the most powerful media organization in the U.K. is run by someone whose readiness to admit his utter lack of courage would seem, from all the evidence, to reflect the fact that the concept of courage isn’t even on his radar, it doesn’t bode well for the future of British freedom.

British freedom? Ah yes, we remember it well.

Another point that was important to Thompson was that, as he put it, “for a Muslim, a depiction…of the Prophet Mohammed might have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography.” He added that “secularists” fail “to understand…what blasphemy feels like to someone who is a realist in their religious belief.” I would humbly submit that Thompson himself fails to understand something rather important – namely, that when the head of an outfit like the BBC starts thinking and talking in such terms, he has become nothing more or less than a sharia puppet.

Another thing Thompson apparently fails to understand is this: when it becomes the duty of citizens in a secular democracy to edit what they say or write in order to avoid committing what the adherents of some religion or other might consider blasphemy, then secular democracy, individual liberty, and freedom of expression are, in practice, no more. I wonder if it has occurred to Thompson at all that for more than a few freedom-loving people in his own country and elsewhere, the fact that a man in his position could follow such an outrageously pusillanimous policy might well, to coin a phrase, “have the emotional force of a piece of grotesque child pornography”?

He cites an instance of how the BBC pr0-Islam bias routinely manifests itself:

The Beeb’s Stacey Dooley is visiting her hometown, Luton, to discover if the situation with extreme Islam is really as bad there as some people say. Upon arriving in town, she stumbles upon a Muslim march whose participants are chanting “To hell with the U.K.” and carrying signs calling for sharia law. There are plenty of women in niqab, one of whom tells Dooley to put on some clothes. For a while you think that Dooley is actually going to wake up and smell the coffee. But in the end, ignoring everything she’s witnessed, the little ditz closes with the standard, canned, de rigueur, mainstream-media conclusion – namely, that both sides need to listen to each other with respect, for the only reason for all this intercultural friction is “ignorance.”

Given the deliberate, depressing refusal of so many members of the British media to face up to the advent of sharia in the land of Magna Carta and Winston Churchill, it was at least a bit cheering the other day to see Brendan O’Neill, in the Telegraph, spelling out the dramatic, and telling, difference between the way in which the framers of the U.S. Constitution understood the concept of rights and the way today’s European leaders think about the same subject.

While the makers of the American revolution “emphasized individuals’ capacity to make judgments…free from state interference,” explained O’Neill, Europe today is plagued by a “paternalistic” notion of human rights “in which the individual is treated as an at-risk creature who must be protected from harm and bullying by…human-rights lawyers.” While the U.S. Bill of Rights concisely sets limits on state power, the European Convention on Human Rights “spends thousands of words telling the state what it should be doing…and how it must go about protecting individuals from abuse and mental distress.” And while the U.S. Bill of Rights makes it clear that free speech is sacrosanct, the European document is awash in weasel words, saying that “freedom of expression” is “subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety,” and on and on.

Which is, of course, simply a very long and legalistic way of saying that in Europe today, even (alas) in Britain, freedom of speech is severely endangered – just as Mark Thompson (whether he realizes it or not) has essentially admitted, and … as the BBC’s own Stacey Dooley, despite having seen reality close-up in her hometown of Luton, still refuses to grasp.

But in Obama’s America freedom of speech is severely endangered in the same way for the same reason. It’s good that a Telegraph journalist has pointed out the difference in theory between the way the American revolutionaries and the US Bill of Rights “emphasized individuals’ capacity to make judgments free from state interference,” and the European “paternalistic notion of human rights in which the individual is treated as an at-risk creature who must be protected from harm and bullying by human-rights lawyers …  in the interests of public safety”; but the Obama administration does not feel bound by the US Bill of Rights, and is trying pertinaciously to follow the European model.

The more chilling difference between the European cringe in the face of the Islamic threat and the Obama submission to it, is that Obama and his henchmen are not motivated by fear. Despite the Islamic act of destruction on 9/11, and the exposure of many a jihadi plot in the US since then, it is not Muslim violence that has them eager to submit to Islam, but their own sympathy with it.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
  • Liz

    Great points made here –
    the British notion of freedom started out wrong, and has influenced them ever since to go further in the wrong direction with it, towards giving it up completely in the face of a threat. 
     The American ideal of freedom has from the beginning influenced us to maintain that standard, even in the midst of erosion from within and in the face of foreign threats.

    Which makes it all the more despicable that we elected a President who doesn’t even understand the meaning of it, even by British standards, and who apparently would prefer an Islamic theocracy.  

    • George

      I agree with much of what you say Liz as usual.    However there is just one point  that I make an exception with in your post and please hear me out.   I agree that America does indeed represent freedom ,justice and equality and you and I are both staunch patriots.  However,  America did NOT start out this way.  America didn’t begin with this mindset or agenda, considering the near genocidal anihilation of the indigenous native American people, centuries of slavery &  lynchings , racial segregation , a war between the south and north , warring factions between the British, French, English and others . and as you can identify yourself being a woman ——-considering  the subjugation and rights violations of WOMEN during early America.       America did indeed transition into a country that does represent  the freedom for all  , but by NO means did it begin that way and these are actual facts. I just wanted to add thet little tidbit for the record .    Thanks for the post Liz.   Semper Fi ! 

      • Liz

        What I was referring to was the principle of freedom established in the Declaration and Constitution, including freedom of speech.  I know they were slave-owners, etc., but they established a principle that paved the way for freedom to be fully established later for groups like women, blacks, etc.  If that principle had not already been established, it would have been much harder for those groups to win their freedom.
        Thats what makes it so discouraging to see people in our country now misunderstanding and misapplying that principle, and in the process destroying it.
        For example the principle of separation of church and state, which they certainly did intend to establish, is now being mangled by Christians who don’t understand the importance of it and see it as a threat to religion.   

        • George

          Except that these so-called “principles of freedom”  did not originally include blacks, Indians,  women or other non-European groups.  Admittingly so , our nation eventually evolved into a state for freedom for all , but this was NOT the original intent from the beginning and the fact still remains that the ones who wrote these documents didn’t practice themselves what they preached and wrote about and as such  made them the world’s most pathetic hypocrites. Freedom for women and ethnic minorities became as a result of protests, demonstrations,  standing up to overt  discrimination and inhumane treatment  and in many cases loss  of lives , jobs, families and reputations. Look at how atheists are treated today. We became the most free nation around eventually but certainly by no means did it originate that way or was it the original intent from any founding whatsoever.

      • Liz

        George – in reply to your below reply – I understand what you mean but heres the thing – yes the founders were slave owners, and to the same extent that everyone in their position was hypocritical, yes, they were – but in principle some of them did oppose slavery, and the fact that they declared that “all men are created equal” established the principle that later upheld equal rights for all. 
        I don’t condemn them for being hypocrites – I applaud them for taking the ideal of equality further than had ever been imagined up till that point.  Just because they didn’t achieve perfection in one fell swoop isn’t a good reason to throw a blanket condemnation on them.  That would be kind of like condemning the cavemen who discovered fire for being stupid because they didn’t come up with lightbulbs at the same time.  People can only do so much with what they have to work with at the time.
        However, once the principle was established, the label of “hypocrite” did apply with increasing accuracy to those who resisted equality, and it took way too long, in the end, to achieve it. 

        • George

                      In reply to Liz :
           
                           Liz   , I have heard this type of diatribe repeatedly by many on the right regarding the founders and as a member of the black  ethnic group ( although secular )  I don’t “buy” any of it  .  In fact when I hear or read about people ( Americans ) making excuses for  men who held my ethnic group in servitude bondage and chains ( slavery) and the same men wrote documents to the contrary of their actions while  stating that they believe that all men are created equal , then I know beyond any doubt that these so-called ‘founders”  were  either  liars, crazy or both.  Let’s take a look and examine the minds and actions of these so-called  [  founding fathers   ]. 
           
                       Thomas Jefferson ( the author of ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL ) in his  writings  — “: Notes on Virginia”  unequivocally stated it didn’t include non-whites , non-Christians or females.  Yet people today go around quoting Jefferson  , not realizing his racist position and black slave ownership and even making excuses for him while  denying it to add insult to injury.   This position today that many who say they  are conservative take actually infuriates me to no end. Imagine if a few former nazis  had helf Jews in concentration  camps and had written  documents that all people are created equal , then these same nazis became head of state or leaders in Germany.   Would you expect Jewish people to say — ” Oh well , things turned ouit better many years later so we can’t fault them because that’s how things were back then “.  Anyone making excuses for those nazis would be called anti-semitic and justifiably so . If I were a Jewish  person hearing something like that I would be furious . 

                                Let’s review and  examine SOME of these founders :

          Thomas Jefferson  :
                          
                          In documented archives of verbal quotes, speeches, letters and conversations  regarding   Thomas Jefferson  , Jefferson had an abhorrence of the presence of free Negroes and of white women who gave birth to children of mixed race. Jefferson was also harsher upon slaves who had escaped and re-captured than other slave owners. In his writings titled — ” Notes on Virginia ”  , Jefferson stated —
           regarding freed slaves —that the “solution”  to slavery consisted in “colonization” — the deportation of all the freed blacks from the United States preferably back to Africa.  
                              Historical documents of Jefferson indicated that — The entire body of Jefferson’s writings shows that he never seriously considered the possibility of any form of racial coexistence on the basis of equality and that , from the least 1778 until his death , he saw colonization as the only alternative to slavery .

                          Quotes from Thomas Jefferson  [ Notes on Virginia ] : 

           In 1787 Thomas Jefferson stated  about blacks : 

          ” They secrete less by the kidnies , and more by the glands of the skin , which gives them a very strong and disagreeable odor “.

          ” In memory they are equal to whites  ; in reason much inferior  , as I think one could scarecely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid ; and that in imagination they are dull, tasteless , and anomalous “.

          ” I advance it therefore as a suspicion only , that the blacks , whether originally a distinct race , or made distinct by the time and circumstances , are inferior to the whites in the endowments both of body and mind. This unfortunate difference of colour  , and perhaps of faculty  , is a powerful obstacle to the emancipation of these people “.

          Abraham Lincoln stated the following  :

          In a speech in Cincinnati , Ohio   Sept. 17 , 1859  :

          ”  There is a physical difference between the white and black races which , I believe  , will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality  ! And , inasmuch as they cannot so live while they do remain together , there must be the position of superior and inferior , and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position.  The negroes should be denied everything   If there was a necessary conflict between the white man and the negro , I should be for the white man ! .  

          In a speech in Cincinnati , Ohio    Sept. 17 , 1859 Lincoln stated :

          ”  Negroes and whites are different races . We have between us a broader difference than exists between any other two races ! “.

          In a speech Aug. 14, 1862 , Lincoln stated :

          ” There is no difference between hogs and negroes”.

          In a speech in Peoria , Illinois  Oct. 16 , 1854   Lincoln stated :

          ”  All men are created equal , except negroes, foreigners and catholics”.

          In a letter to J. Speed  , August 24, 1855 Lincoln stated : 

          ” It is true that the negro is inferior to the white in the gifts of nature ! “.

          The words of Abraham Lincoln  Oct. 1, 1858

          ” With this letter comes a NIGGER (Tom)  , which I beg the favor of you to sell in any of the islands you may go to , for whatever he will fetch , and bring me in return :

          One cask of molasses , One cask of Rum , One barrel of lymes , etc…   Tom is both a rogue and a runaway !.

          ****************************************************

          I have quotes from George Washington  and others and their horendous acts that could fill volumes .

                           Many of these founders held and owned blacks as slaves and  I get so sick & tired about hearing about how Robert Carter freed more slaves than any other SLAVEHOLDER in American history.  Imagine if someone said  that a nazi named Schultz eventually let go more Jews than any other nazi  as if Jewish people should be grateful when he shouldn’t have had Jews in concentration camps to begin with . Makes sense to me !   The presidents who held black people as slaves were :

          (1) George Washington
          (2) John Adams
          (3) Thomas Jefferson
          (4) James Madison
          (5) james Monroe
          (6) John Quincy Adams
          (7) Andrew Jackson
          (8) Martin van Buren
          (9) William Henry Harrison
          (10) John Tyler  
          (11) James K. Polk
          (12) Zachary Taylor
          (13) Millard Fillmore
          (14) Franklin Pierce
          (15) James Buchanan

                       I can go on and on regarding the founders and the early Presidents and I certainly DO NOT revere any of these slave holding and racistt individuals and I have every right to take my position on this.    I can indeed blame them and fault them and when I see people downplay , ignore or deny their actions or try to excuse away their actions claiming that it was just the way things were during those times regarding their  racist mentalities and actions , then I find that to be  even more disturbing. I can recall how in the south I had to sit on the back of the bus, eat at separate lunch counters, watch parades of the KKK march down the streets , go to segregated schools  , live in neighbors across town divided by race ( we had apartheid right here in the southersn USA ) and yet people still proclaim that the nation and society was built upon (founded ) on the principle that we are all created equal .   What BS.  This was considered TRADITIONAL America even then .  No way Jose ! The more I keep hearing this type of stuff from conservatives , the more and more I begin to re-evaluate my position as being a conservative . I detest anyone playing the “race card ”  ( and I’m referring to ethnic minorities ) but I equally detest anyone acting as if early America and it’s founding and the history of this nation was founded on equality and justice for all. It was not and history proves it . I am a true American patriot but I get so fed up with people talking about how great and  respectful the good ol’ days were when America’s  history is written in blood and is repleat with human rights violations.   Yes we did eventually EVOLVE  to the point of where we are now ( and we’re still not there yet ) as these advances came about at a price and they did NOT originate that way and I will NEVER revere anyone who enslaved, lynched , beat , and engaged in human rights violations while  all the time writing documents that they believe in justice for all.  I said it before and I’ll say it again : WHAT HYPOCRITES !!!!

                                
             
           
           

  • George

    If you think things are bad now living in a society saturated by fundamentalist Christians, you haven’t seen anything if the sharia law Muslims take over or get a strong foothold in our nation.  If you think things are unbearable now having to put up with the annoying Christians , just imagine if the jihadist Muslims take over. Here we are living in a nation that affords freedom of speech , freedom of assembly and democratic process voting and atheists in general still  will NOT speak out publicly or stand up publicly for our rights because they don’t have the testicular fortitude to do so but they will chit-chat and whine boldly among one another .   Just imagine if the sharia enforcers get into power————— If they do ——- IT’S OVER    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

  • Anonymous

    “The West, out of cowardice, stupidity, sentimentality, and  apathy, has allowed it to work.”

    So true.  Not one western leader has had the chutzpah to stand up to isslamm.  Yes, Netanyahu stands up to the Iranian puppet, but even he will not call out all of the evils of the many, many quran-propelled heathens.

    Until those in the west wise-up and grow a pair, and find similarly-prepared leaders, y’all better get ready for the adhan (calls to prayer) from the mosque nearest you.

    Personally, I am already at war with isslamm, because they are at war with me.  Imagine demanding a man of reason to submit to some nonexistant being!!  The nerve of those bastards.

    • George

                         Right on Cheongyei,———- however they are actually NOT  ” “Quran propelled heathens ” but  anti-heathen.   And also , the fact that fundamentalist Christians also insist that we submit to THEIR nonexistant being. You’re absolutely right , just like the article stated that cowardice , stupidity , sentimentality ( and that’s putting it lighhtly ) and apathy has allowed it to work. 
                         Mix that with the foolish and gullible traitors and you have a disaster in the making. The inept and cowardly are selling us out and our enemies are literally laughing at us. The indigenous citizens of Britain and elsewhere are fools for having allowed them into their country to flourish like wildfire in the first place. Now look at the results !