They are in denial over terrorism

>h3>Commentators, Muslims and even our leaders are all refusing to face up to the truth

WHEN YOU turned on the radio last Thursday morning was your first thought: “Phew! Great work by the security services”, or: “Here we go! Another stunt by the Government”? In other words, do you believe that the politicians were doing what most of us would put top of their list of duties: protecting the public? Or do you immediately suspect them of behaving like the fat boy in Pickwick Papers, whose catchphrase was: “I wants to make your flesh creep”?

Journalists such as Sir Simon Jenkins, formerly of these pages, belong to the latter group. He has written countless columns bemoaning the “climate of fear” and berating politicians and policemen for spreading panic by giving us warning of the terrorist threat or taking precautions against it. One classic of the Jenkins oeuvre, entitled “Nothing to fear but fear itself”, was published in The Spectator the very day that terrorists exploded 13 bombs on commuter trains in Madrid, killing 192 people and wounding more than 1,700.

Sir Simon, along with the many other journalists and readers who share his view, is in denial. There is a serious terrorist threat to Britain — and not just Britain. India, Indonesia and Iraq suffer from it as much as the UK, the US or Spain. These terrorists are not bogeymen summoned up by politicians to distract us from the scrapes that they get into, or to seduce us into giving them more draconian powers. If more powers are needed — and that is a question for another day — it is because the threat is real.

And just because the police sometimes make mistakes, as they did over the identification of Jean Charles de Menezes, does not mean that there are no other people wanting to blow up the Tube. They simply — and disastrously — got the wrong man. But they have got the right men too. Some 14 terrorist plots have been foiled since 9/11, and I have not heard the sceptics give the security services much credit for that.

These are not the only people in denial, though. Many in the Muslim community are too. Rather than face up to the fact that there are now worryingly high numbers of radicalised young Muslims, some of whom have murderous designs against their compatriots, these Muslims would prefer to delude themselves that the whole thing is a Western plot. A staggering 45 per cent of British Muslims, according to a poll by Channel 4, believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy between the US and Israel.

How could they, in the face of such overwhelming evidence? We know who the hijackers were, and they weren’t CIA or Mossad agents. They were angry young Muslims. If the US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld knew of the attack that was about to happen, what was he doing sitting in the Pentagon, which was hit by one of the aircraft? If Israelis were in on the plot, why didn't they tell Daniel Lewin, a former Israeli commando, who struggled with Mohammed Atta and other hijackers aboard American Airlines Flight 11, the first plane to crash into the towers?

No, it is as preposterous to deny that Islamist terrorists undertook the 9/11 and 7/7 attacks as it is to deny that the threat of similar attacks in the future exists. But it is equally preposterous to deny, as Tony Blair and George Bush still do, that these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with their foreign policy.

Of course, 9/11 took place before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the grievance still arose from US foreign policy, specifically the siting of American troops on Saudi soil. The subsequent two wars, and now the US and UK support for Israel’s actions in Lebanon, have only served to exacerbate that grievance. They hand explosive ammunition to radicalisers.

To say this is not to argue that the Americans should not have bases in Saudi Arabia, that they should not have gone to war in Afghanistan or Iraq, or that they should not have supported Israel’s attacks on the Lebanon. It is an entirely value-free observation. Whether or not Mr Bush and Mr Blair have been right in their judgments, it seems wilfully blind to deny that these foreign policy choices have had an effect on Muslim opinion. Even MI5 agrees. This comes from its analysis of the threat to the UK of international terrorism: “In recent years, Iraq has become a dominant issue for a range of extremist groups and individuals in the UK and Europe.”

Nor is it to argue that the US and the UK should form their foreign policy on the basis of the effect it will have on Muslim opinion. Mr Blair and Mr Bush may still be doing the right thing, even taking account of their policy’s inflammatory effect. But, having decided how to act, the two governments cannot then simply deny that there is any effect at all.

To observe that our foreign policy has angered Muslims is not in any way to excuse terrorism. If Muslims do not approve of Britain going to war with Iraq, they are free to vote Liberal Democrat or Respect, as many of them did at the last election. If public opinion swings strongly enough against British support for American foreign policy, it is quite possible that Gordon Brown or David Cameron will follow suit. The great virtue of a democracy is that you don't have to blow up trains or planes to make change happen.

These terrorists are not rational beings, though. They harbour a fantasy of Western democracies being intimidated into joining the Muslim world and living under Sharia. But they are not the only fantasists. There are far too many seemingly rational people — from Mr Blair to Sir Simon via a large swath of the Muslim community — who need to get real too.

I don't even know where to begin.

Muslims always claim that the terrorists are blowing things, people, babies , women up for a "Reason". And too many idiots in America and the UK are drinking the koolaid.

The mujahadin are killing non Muslims and Muslims for one reason, ISLAM. If the Nation of Israel did not exist, they would kill us. The Barbary pirates are a testimony to this.

If we turn our back on Israel, the Islamofacist-nazi's will still find another "Reason" to be a shahid and die for allah.

We are fighting Muslims that want to die for allah, the only logical answer is to help them on their way to 72 virgins and rivers of wine.

We (the non Islamic world) have 4 options.

Ban Islam in America, deport the illegal Muslims, or Intern them.

Accept islam

Become a underclass dhimmi

Die.

To the Mods, I don't text this with hate, but at some point in time, when the Muslims become in large enough numbers in America, we (Jews, Christians, Buddhist, Hindus, athiests) will end up like the Coptic Christians in Egytp.

OUR NECKS WILL BE UNDER THE BOOT OF ISLAM.

But it is equally preposterous to deny, as Tony Blair and George Bush still do, that these attacks have nothing whatsoever to do with their foreign policy.

It is not preposterous at all. It's true. When did Jihad start? Hard to say precisely:

Maybe Jihad didn't start in 1972 with the slaughter of Israeli athetes at the Munich Olympic Games.
Maybe it didn't start in 1974 when Abu Nidal's group bombed TWA Flight 841, killing 88. On a flight from Israel to New York with several scheduled stops in between.
Although many experts believe this incident was the start of worldwide jihad, let's say it wasn't: November 4, 1979 student proxies of the new Iranian regime of Ayatollah Khomeni took 66 diplomats and citizens of the United States hostage inside the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Maybe it didn't start in 1983 when the U.S. Embassy in Beirut was bombed by Islamic Jihad killing 63.
Maybe it didn't start with the Marine barracks bombing in Beirut in 1983, probably by an early version of the group that became Hezbollah. This one killed 241 U.S. Marines and 58 French soldiers. It was the deadliest single-day death toll for the United States Marine Corps since the Battle of Iwo Jima in World War II.
Maybe it didn't start in 1986 when TWA Flight 840 was bombed on approach to Athens airport; four passengers, all of them American (including an infant) were killed.
Maybe it didn't start with the Pan Am 103 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland in 1988, The death toll was 270 people from 21 countries, including 11 people in the town of Lockerbie.
Maybe it didn't start in 1993, when Mir Aimal Kansi, a Pakistani, fired an AK-47 into cars waiting at a stoplight in front of the Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, VA. Two CIA employees died.
Maybe it didn't start in 1993 with the first World Trade Center bombing. Maybe not enough people died in that one. "Only" six.
Maybe it didn't start in 1994, when Lebanese-born Rashid Baz, armed with a Glock 9-millimeter semi-automatic pistol and a 9-millimeter Cobray machine gun, shot at a van carrying members of the Chabad-Lubavitch Orthodox Jewish sect on the Brooklyn Bridge. Four students were injured in the attack, two seriously with gunshot wounds to the head. One of the victims, Ari Halberstam, a sixteen-year-old, died of his wounds four days later.
Maybe it didn't start in 1994 with the bombing of a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires, Argentina. This one killed 86 and wounded 300, and is attributed to Hezbollah acting on behalf of Iran.
Although 1994 was a busy year for the Islamofacists, maybe jihad didn't start when a small bomb exploded on board Philippine Airlines Flight 434, killing a Japanese businessman. Ramzi Yousef planted the bomb to test it for his planned terrorist attack agains the U.S.
Maybe it didn't start in 1996, with the Khobar Towers bombing in Saudi Arabia. In all, 19 U.S. servicemen and one Saudi were killed and 372 wounded, by Saudi Hizballah with Iranian support.
Maybe it didn't start in 1997 when a man opened fire on tourists at the observation deck atop the Empire State Building in New York City, killing a Danish national and wounding visitors from the United States, Argentina, Switzerland and France before turning the gun on himself. A handwritten note carried by the gunman claimed this was a punishment attack against the "enemies of Palestine."
Maybe it didn't start in 1998 with the U.S. embassy bombings in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya, which killed 225 people and injuring more than 4,000.
Maybe worldwide jihad did not start in 2000 with the USS Cole bombing, which killed 17 U.S. sailors and wounded 40 off the port coast of Aden, Yemen. Responsibility for this attack was claimed by al-Qaeda.
But surely...surely only willful Leftists fail to acknowledge that worldwide jihad was underway on a bright late summer morning in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania, September 11,2001.

Over the past three decades there have literally been hundreds of relatively small incidents of Islamic terrorism around the world. Most get little notice except in local newspapers. Dozens of incidents were sigificiant enough to garner notice from the international media; the above list is only a partial accounting. In the five years since 9/11, we've all seen the attacks that occured from Indonesia to Madrid and London. We saw the horrific slaughter of Russian schoolchildren at Beslan. And, of course, news of the foiled plot to blow up 10 airliners broke just last Thursday.

This jihad business is not about Israel, or the US, or UK, or anyone's foreign policy. Those are all just excuses. It is about a facist totalitarian ideology wedded to an aggressive religion, and funded by a backwards people living circa 1000, while awash in 2006 oil and drug money. It has been stoked by Islamofacist clerics for over 30 years, at least. Stoked, as these things always are, to increase the power of the clerics, and for no other reason.

Only when the non-Islamic world gets this truth and deals squarely with it will we have a hope of turning the tide.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.