British authorities scale new heights of wimpitude

One of my favorite papers, The Scotsman, reports:

SEVERELY burned Glasgow Airport attack suspect Kafeel Ahmed is being kept alive on the orders of MI5, senior police sources have told Scotland on Sunday.

Ahmed has third degree burns to 90% of his body and virtually no chance of surviving but insiders claim the security services are keeping him alive to avoid a backlash from radical Muslims….

Ahmed, a doctor at the Royal Alexandra Hospital, Paisley, has been in a coma since the incident and most burns experts believe he is already effectively dead. But last week it emerged that special shark skin implants costing £20,000 were being used to treat his injuries.

A senior police source said: “It has been made very clear to the doctors by the ‘powers that be’ that they are to do anything and everything to keep Ahmed alive.”

Another police insider said: “Obviously, MI5 is hoping they will be able to speak to Ahmed but the possibility of him ever being fit for interview is virtually nil. The one thing the authorities do not want is anything to exacerbate the situation and they believe the longer he lives, the calmer things will get.”

Do you believe that? The fiend is already effectively dead, yet the ever-more-solicitous Brits somehow calculate that he if dies in, say, five weeks rather than in one week, that will makes a material difference is “calming” the Muslims in Britain.

Also, by saying that Muslims will become angry or violent if a terrorist dies from his self-inflicted wounds, MI5 is conceding the fact that the Muslims in Britain support and identify with terrorists. Not only that, it means that MI5 thinks that Muslims would blame Britain for the death of a terrorist who died of wounds he inflicted on himself while carrying out a terrorist attack against Britain. Which means that, in the view of MI5, Muslims see all Islamic terrorist attacks against non-Muslims as defensive measures against non-Muslims—which is, of course, Koranically correct. The Dar al-Harb is called the Realm of War not because Muslims are at war with it, but because, by its very existence, it is at war with Islam. Any failure to believe in Allah and his Prophet is an aggressive act against Islam, earning for the non-believer the most hideous punishments.

Now, leaving aside the question whether the Muslims in Britain would actually respond to the earlier-rather-than-later demise of the terrorist doctor the way MI5 fears they would, the fact that MI5 thinks the Muslims would respond that way tells us something profound about MI5’s perception of Muslims. Namely, it tells us that MI5 sees the Muslims in Britain as people who think that whatever Britain does or doesn’t do, Britain is engaged in an aggressive war against Islam that justifies Muslims’ “defensive” terrorist strikes against Britain. In short, MI5 understands that Muslims in Britain are unappeasable murderous enemies of Britain . And how does MI5 respond to these unappeasable murderous enemies? By trying to appease them. Q.E.D.

- end of initial entry -

Alan Levine writes:

I would agree with you that an enormous expenditure on keeping this creature alive is utterly reprehensible, but would be cautious because the agency involved may be lying—as part of some sting operation or to hide the fact that the man is actually alive and talking, or for some other reason. One should remember that intelligence and counter-intelligence agencies are devious and lie the way the rest of us breathe.

One would hope they are lying in this case; if they are telling the truth, it’s much worse!

LA replies:

It doesn’st matter whether it is true or a cover story. Even if it’s a cover story, MI5 still wants and expects the Muslims to be calmed by hearing it. So, either way, MI5’s perception of the Muslim mindset is as I have described.

Richard O. writes:

To “avoid a backlash from radical Muslims”?

The Muslims are ALWAYS looking to murder and destroy. It’s all they think about. And MI5 is worried about what they might do after one of their killers dies of wounds in British care?

Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 30, 2007 03:20 PM | Send