Posted on 09/11/2008 12:39:17 PM PDT by Righting
By A N Wilson
Last updated at 11:04 PM on 09th September 2008
In his major new book, the historian A N Wilson examines how Britain has changed almost beyond recognition during the reign of the present Queen. Mass immigration and political correctness have turned Britain into a haven for Islamic fanatics. In this fourth extract, he says society is paying a terrible price for tolerating such extremists...
The growth of Islamism was first noted by the West with a mixture of indifference and incredulity. Had not the Islamic world always thrown up occasional figures such as the Mad Mahdi in Sudan, whose followers murdered General Gordon of Khartoum in 1885?
Then they always faded away and the Muslim world resumed its peaceful, sleepy existence.
That was the romantic idea. But ever since the West linked itself to dependence upon oil, and ever since large numbers of poor Muslims from the former Pakistan and elsewhere migrated here, it had not been a very realistic one. How unrealistic became clear on September 11, 2001, when Islamist suicide-murderers crashed hijacked planes into the Twin Towers.
Spreading hate: Muslims protesting in London
The world was suddenly conscious of a fanatical terrorist Islamist organisation, Al Qaeda, and Osama Bin Laden, its evil genius.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
Object lesson for all Americans....
It’s pretty much a war between Christian conservatives in America and the rest of the world.
Islamic terrorists seek to force the world to accept submission to their 7th century fundamentalist religion based on misogyny and Jew-hatred.
The critical tension for all moderate Muslims is that the fanatic, blow-up-yer-mother version of Islam is the orthodox version - it isn’t extremism.
The twin aims of Islam as preached by Mohammad himself are a) killing Jews and b) advancing Islam by any means necessary - memorably including denying the existence of Allah as long as it allows you to get closer to your enemies.
The West isn’t used to having to deal with such psychosis. But if we don’t make a stand, who will?
ping
We in the West must wake up to this existential threat RFN.
Pan-islamists however should be hunted down and killed like lice.
The first step would be to deny Islam the protections of our 1st Amendment, for Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization.
I have to ask myself, what would I do if I saw this kind of protest in my town?
Are we willing to do what is necessary? Are we courageous enough to do it?
My ex faced a similar situation many years ago when vicious protesters marched in front of his company's skyscraper in Manhattan. He went down on the street and into their midst and asked what the heck they were doing. Later he found out he was on the SLA's hit list.
For those too young to remember, The Symbionese Liberation Army (S.L.A.) was an American self-styled urban guerrilla warfare group active between 1973 and 1975 that considered itself a revolutionary vanguard army. The group committed bank robberies, two murders and other acts of violence over the period of its activity.
More at Wikipedia.
“The first step would be to deny Islam the protections of our 1st Amendment, for Islam is incompatible with Western Civilization.”
The same can be said for most DemocRats, but we let them talk. Where would you draw the line?
We should learn from and not meekly accept Britain's inability to fight the Islamic tide as our own fate. There is no reason for our society to allow an invasion of ideology hostile to our very existence.
Whenever an imam or madrassa advocates killing for religion I see no reason why the mosque or school should not be shut down. Agree?
I think we are the only western country that can still make a stand.
We can’t deny all Muslims first Amendment right’s without changing our Constitution. However, our courts can certainly place limits on that right, within reason. Certainly, religious speech which incites riots or murder is no longer protected.
Another great place to start would be to deny special rights to Muslims, such as private prayer rooms in airports. Citizens need to also do their share to exercise their own rights in full. For example, if a public facility does set up a non-denominational prayer room in an airport or on a university, we need to demand our right to use those facilities well.
Bullies must be confronted.
Oh "GAWD", what are you guys doing?
Sorry, I disagree when it comes to the First Amendment, just like I would on the Second Amendment. Outside of direct incitement to illegal actions, like you say, I say we just punish them for their actions. Wire tap them, eavesdrop on them, read their e-mails, all that’s OK with me, especially if they are communicating with bad guys.
Where the Brits and our liberals go wrong, is being politically correct. We have to be able to say we are the good guys, they are the bad guys, and their religion is wrong, and have no fear of lawsuits or inquisitions like in Canada. I think most people here are already afraid of speaking out and that needs to be a given. Actually, it is a God-given right, recognized in the Constitution. How ‘bout that!
The problem with limiting the First Amendment is very clear in Canada. I guarantee that there are Canadian mosques where homosexuality is condemned as a damnable sin or at least an immediately fatal sin (as in stoning). But a Christian church leader in Canada is railroaded for saying less.
Once the right is not absolute, then someone has to decide whose rights get limited. Eventually, that will be a liberal judge or a liberal committee, and you and I will be railroaded.
No sir, I’m an absolutist on the First and Second Amendments. Attempting to limit someone’s First Amendment rights through threats or intimidation needs to be a serious crime as well as a clear tort law violation (sic the tort lawyers on ‘em.)
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.