Jihad Watch (http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007316.php)


SINCE the London bombings several columnists - from Tariq Ali in The Guardian to Phillip Adams in The Australian - have argued that the British brought them on themselves because of Britain's intervention in Iraq. Well, they're half right. The British (more precisely, their ineffectual governments) did bring those bombings on themselves.

The Blair Government's intervention in Iraq is not to blame. Rather, successive British governments have persisted in the multiculturalist folly that a nation can be built on separate but equal cultures. Moreover, under Tony Blair in particular, Britain's immigration policies and border controls against illegal immigrants have become international jokes, and now a national tragedy.

And the lessons?

Debate has begun over a possible Australian identity card. While necessary, that misses the larger issue: can we any longer pretend that our official multiculturalism policies, introduced by Gough Whitlam and assiduously pursued by all his successors, are in our national interest? More pointedly, how are we to handle our growing, self-created Muslim problem?...

--------

Thanks, lefties! :nice:

It's not because of multi-culturalism, it's because of denying the reality in the name of it.

Clearly liberalism is a mental disorder.

...how are we to handle our growing, self-created Muslim problem?...

To start with:

1. Close down all Muslim-related insitutions.

2. Let soccer Hooligans take care of Muslims who encourage violence against the West on the streets of London if the liberal government is too politically correct to take appropriate action.

3. Do not allow Muslims near subways, airports, buses, mass transit of any kind.

4. Allow Muslims to convert to Chrisitanity, and send those who refuse back to the sand pits.

SINCE the London bombings several columnists - from Tariq Ali in The Guardian to Phillip Adams in The Australian - have argued that the British brought them on themselves because of Britain's intervention in Iraq. Well, they're half right. The British (more precisely, their ineffectual governments) did bring those bombings on themselves.

The Blair Government's intervention in Iraq is not to blame. Rather, successive British governments have persisted in the multiculturalist folly that a nation can be built on separate but equal cultures. Moreover, under Tony Blair in particular, Britain's immigration policies and border controls against illegal immigrants have become international jokes, and now a national tragedy.

And the lessons?

Debate has begun over a possible Australian identity card. While necessary, that misses the larger issue: can we any longer pretend that our official multiculturalism policies, introduced by Gough Whitlam and assiduously pursued by all his successors, are in our national interest? More pointedly, how are we to handle our growing, self-created Muslim problem?...

http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/archives/007316.php

Here is a man I can vote for;
Seems Australian Prime Minister John Howard had to once again educate the press on the basics of current events and reality.In response to a reporter who seemed to think that British participation in Iraq was to blame:
Can I just say very directly, Paul, on the issue of the policies of my government and indeed the policies of the British and American governments on Iraq, that the first point of reference is that once a country allows its foreign policy to be determined by terrorism, it's given the game away, to use the vernacular. And no Australian government that I lead will ever have policies determined by terrorism or terrorist threats, and no self-respecting government of any political stripe in Australia would allow that to happen.

Can I remind you that the murder of 88 Australians in Bali took place before the operation in Iraq.

And I remind you that the 11th of September occurred before the operation in Iraq.

Can I also remind you that the very first occasion that bin Laden specifically referred to Australia was in the context of Australia's involvement in liberating the people of East Timor. Are people by implication suggesting we shouldn't have done that?

When a group claimed responsibility on the website for the attacks on the 7th of July, they talked about British policy not just in Iraq, but in Afghanistan. Are people suggesting we shouldn't be in Afghanistan?

When Sergio de Mello was murdered in Iraq -- a brave man, a distinguished international diplomat, a person immensely respected for his work in the United Nations -- when al Qaeda gloated about that, they referred specifically to the role that de Mello had carried out in East Timor because he was the United Nations administrator in East Timor.

Now I don't know the mind of the terrorists. By definition, you can't put yourself in the mind of a successful suicide bomber. I can only look at objective facts, and the objective facts are as I've cited. The objective evidence is that Australia was a terrorist target long before the operation in Iraq. And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation. And I think we lose sight of the challenge we have if we allow ourselves to see these attacks in the context of particular circumstances rather than the abuse through a perverted ideology of people and their murder.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16011576%255E28737,00.html

Rather, successive British governments have persisted in the multiculturalist folly that a nation can be built on separate but equal cultures.


So are you suggesting that culture should be dictated by law? If not, then what are you saying? How do you propose to control cultural changes and adaptations?

So are you suggesting that culture should be dictated by law? If not, then what are you saying? How do you propose to control cultural changes and adaptations?He's telling them to knock off the state-sponsored Islamicization of Britain.

I saw a little of a C-Span clip of John Howard in the White House with George Bush. Bush's inability to articulate the English language and present profound ideas like Howard is somewhat of an embarrassment. It seems like Bush is just told to repeat certain very simple phrases. Maybe they should hook up that transmission receiving device used in the debate against Kerry again to help Bush string a couple sentences along.

I can only look at objective facts...And indeed, all the evidence, as distinct from the suppositions, suggests to me that this is about hatred of a way of life, this is about the perverted use of principles of the great world religion that, at its root, preaches peace and cooperation.

John Howard was just saying how important objective analysis was, but here he falls for a politically correct trap that denies reality. Islamic peace is the situation after the world is Islamicized (God forbid) and the Sunnis and Shiites unite.