Between the fear of Islam / And the love of liberalism / Falls the Shadow
Below is the closing section of Melanie Phillips’s article in today’s Daily Mail, “The Mumbai atrocity is a wake-up call for a frighteningly unprepared Britain”:
The Iranian-born foreign affairs specialist Amir Taheri has pointed out that the Mumbai attacks embody the plan outlined by a senior Al Qaeda strategist after the U.S. decided to fight back following 9/11—a decision that the Islamists had not expected.That’s the end of the piece.
Let’s look again at the key paragraph:
This new strategy entails targeting countries with a substantial Muslim presence for ‘low-intensity warfare’ comprising bombings, kidnappings, the taking of hostages, the use of women and children as human shields, beheadings and other attacks that make normal life impossible.So, al Qaeda, according to Phillips, plans to target countries with a substantial Muslim presence for low-intensity terrorist warfare along the lines of the Bombay attack that would make normal life in those countries impossible. Isn’t that phrase, “substantial Muslim presence,” uh, telling us something? Something connected with the non-discriminatory immigration policies that have brought into existence the substantial Muslim presence in Western countries?
Phillips writes that Britain is highly vulnerable to the threat of Bombay-type attacks, and she expresses great anxiety about it, but she ends the article without a single mention of what to do about it. The thought evidently doesn’t even cross her mind: “Shouldn’t we at least stop further Muslim immigration into Britain? And those 2,000 known terrorists currently under surveillance by the police—shouldn’t we just … remove them?” Such thoughts are of course impossible to her. Her brain—one half of which is consumed with a rational horror of Islam, the other half of which is rigidly and unthinkingly devoted to modern liberalism and its core imperative of non-discrimination—is in a complete lock. Thus, while she repeatedly said in her 2006 book Londonistan that Muslim immigration into Britain had been a “lethal” development, she has never proposed that Muslim immigration be reduced by so much as a single Muslim per year. Brain-locked Melanie fears and loathes the lethal, but her liberalism won’t let her do anything to stop the lethal.
Now let’s look once again at that key sentence:
This new strategy entails targeting countries with a substantial Muslim presence for ‘low-intensity warfare’ …What have I said a hundred times?
Muslims do not belong in significant numbers in any Western society, period.If my policy were followed, there would not be a single Western country that would be suitable for targeting by al Qaeda’s low-intensity terrorist warfare, because there would not be a single Western country with a substantial Muslim presence.
Rick Darby writes:Isn’t that phrase, “substantial Muslim presence,” uh, telling us something?Yes: “Time to thoughtstop!”
Today I sent the following e-mail to Melanie Phillips:December 2
Jeff in England writes:
It is liberal to encourage Muslims to come here or to ignore their immigration buildup; that I understand. But once Muslims are here is it liberal or conservative to treat them (with decency and respect) as you would you would anybody else. Or would conservatives not do that?LA replies:
It’s not a matter of decency and respect. There’s nothing in what I’ve said that implies treating individuals indecently and disrespectfully, and you won’t find anything in what I’ve written that treats or suggests treating individuals indecently or disrespectfully. It’s a matter of seeing that Muslims in significant numbers do not belong among us, should not have been allowed in, and should leave.LA continues:
And by the way I think that Jeff’s comment strongly suggests that his frequently stated opposition to my separationist proposal is based on the belief, not that it would be practically impossible to make Muslims leave, but that it would be morally wrong to make them leave.Jeff replies:
Wrong on the Muslim thing. It’s not a matter of morality, it’s a matter of the fact that it will never happen. Zero chance of happening.LA replies:
Ok, thanks for clarification of your position. However, it must be said that with your constant repetition of your fondness for individual Muslims, and of their moral superiority to today’s British, and (in the context of my separationist proposals) of the paramount need to show kindness and respect to all human beings, you do give the impression that your staunch opposition to a reversal of Muslim immigration is driven at least in part by the view that it would be morally wrong.Jeff replies:
It is one thing not letting in Muslims to begin with (a policy which I support). But once they legally apply to enter here and are accepted, I do not support removing them. People of any sort need to be treated equally once they are here. Not only won’t removal happen, I do feel it is morally wrong.LA replies:
It was useful to pin you down on that point. But I won’t accuse you of anything, except of honestly admitting where you’re coming from.
Between the idea
Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 01, 2008 07:47 PM | Send