It's Called "Invasion"

After the recent Islamic terror-bombings of London, the so-called "moderates" came out to "condemn" the attacks, and then make clear their age-old blackmail game:

Dr Azzam Tamimi, from the Muslim Association of Britain, said the country was in real danger and that this would continue so long as British forces remained in Iraq.

“Tony Blair has to come out of his state of denial and listen to what the experts have been saying, that our involvement in Iraq is stupid.” His comments were echoed by the marketing manager for The Muslim Weekly newspaper.

Shahid Butt said he believed the threat to Britain would reduce if it pulled its troops out of Iraq. He said: “At the end of the day, these things [violent incidents] are going to happen if current British foreign policy continues. There’s a lot of rage, there’s a lot of anger in the Muslim community.

”We have got to get out of Iraq, it is the crux of the matter. I believe if Tony Blair and George Bush left Iraq and stopped propping up dictatorial regimes in the Muslim world, the threat rate to Britain would come down to nearly zero."

As LGF notes, this is basically a call for Britain to surrender it foreign policy to the whims of the terrorists.

It's the old one-two punch of good-muslim/bad-muslim.

It's the same ridiculous fiction that Sinn Fein hides behind, when it negotiates on behalf of the IRA while claiming to be clean of terrorism -- the "political" wing.

It used to be, one people used violence against you then demanded changes in foreign policy for the violence to stop, that would be considered simple blackmail and an Act of War.

When foreigners moved into your country en masse and don't assimilate because they hate your culture and consider it immoral and inferior, it used to be called an Invasion.

Today, it's called Multiculturalism.

It's even more galling to consider that this very lack of assimilation -- chosen by the invaders themselves! -- is used as the excuse for the "alienation" and "rage" of the terrorists!

According to The Telegraph, a survey found that

However, six per cent insist that the bombings were, on the contrary, fully justified.

Six per cent may seem a small proportion but in absolute numbers it amounts to about 100,000 individuals who, if not prepared to carry out terrorist acts, are ready to support those who do.

Moreover, the proportion of YouGov's respondents who, while not condoning the London attacks, have some sympathy with the feelings and motives of those who carried them out is considerably larger - 24 per cent.
...
The responses indicate that Muslim men are more likely than Muslim women to be alienated from the mainstream and that the young are more likely to be similarly alienated than the old.

Now that's odd, isn't it? The young are the ones who have had the most benefit of Western culture. Clearly, they're being raised -- brainwashed -- by purestream Islamic preachers.

Alarmingly, the survey goes on to find:

The sheer scale of Muslim alienation from British society that the survey reveals is remarkable. Although a large majority of British Muslims are more than content to make their home in this country, a significant minority are not.

For example, YouGov asked respondents how loyal they feel towards Britain. As the figures in the chart show, the great majority say they feel "very loyal" (46 per cent) or "fairly loyal" (33 per cent) but nearly one British Muslim in five, 18 per cent, feels little loyalty towards this country or none at all.

If these findings are accurate, and they probably are, well over 100,000 British Muslims feel no loyalty whatsoever towards this country.

A disloyal, alienated population in your midst that hates you is an invasion.

Equally remarkable are YouGov's findings concerning many Muslims' attitudes towards Western society and culture.

YouGov asked respondents how they feel about Western society and how, if at all, they feel Muslims should adapt to it...nearly a third of British Muslims, 32 per cent, are far more censorious, believing that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end".

Among those who hold this view, almost all go on to say that Muslims should only seek to bring about change by non-violent means but one per cent, about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence.

Even those who don't wish to use violence are STILL DANGEROUS INVADERS, because changing our culture to sharia, whether by the democracy of demographics or by violence, would still be a terrible outcome for humanity because islamic law is an evil, vile thing.

I've quoted this before, and will again, for no lesser personage than Sir Winston Churchill, likely the most important person of the 20th century, who knew a thing or two about Islam (having fought against it during the River War), declared:

Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

I mean, come on -- SLAVERY, people! It's specifically sanctioned in islam. You'd think liberals would be up in arms against it for that alone, never mind the pedophilia and rape it justifies.

(The prophet's favorite sex toy was 9 years old; thus, by his example, certain methods of child molesting are permitted by purestream islam: "It is not illegal for an adult male to 'thigh' or enjoy a young girl who is still in the age of weaning; meaning to place his male member between her thighs, and to kiss her." As for slavery, the Saudis have even been caught in this country with their slaves; also see here and here. As for rape as the allah-sanctioned perk to the jihadist against the infidel, see how it's practiced today in the muslim-overrun towns of Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Australia, for example: "Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.")

That's why I don't give people who are muslims an automatic pass just because they happen to be "peaceful." Their culture as demonstrated above is an abomination, and I can only assume they condone it if they don't explicitly reject it.

If they haven't distanced themselves from this cult due to its obvious evil core tenets, I have to assume they implicitly approve. The notion that they don't know what's in their religion is nonsense; their culture openly embraces slavery and they all know it; it's just taken for granted as a social norm, but that doesn't excuse it now, does it?

Or was it ok for Hitler to murder 6 million Jews, because he thought it was right by his belief system? That's where moral relativism as a philosophy fall on its face and dissolves into the stupidity that it is.

It's just like Senator Byrd claiming his launching his early political career by joining the Ku Klux Klan was a "youthful indiscretion". Never mind that he was still in it by the age of 29 (hardly a "youth"), and was so involved in recruiting for the KKK that he was elevated to the position of Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle. His claims that he thought it was just a "social organization" stretch credulity. I'm willing to believe he was not actually racist (though there's evidence otherwise), for the sake of argument -- but then one can still have deep questions concerning his character that he'd associate with such an organization, given its overall history and aims, at all! For years! And help it!

By the way, a Republican in the Senate with that history, being elevated to Majority Leader by the Democrats, would never get the kind of pass Byrd did from the media, as Michelle Malkin explores.

But I digress.

Some are figuring out the Truth.

An unusually honest writer in Australia recognizes his assurances over the last few years that moderate muslim leaders oppose terror have been flat out wrong:

It's time we accepted the difficult truth: many of the Muslims we invite to live in Australia want to destroy us.

FOR four years, since the September 11 attacks, I've begged our Islamic leaders to drive extremists from their mosques.

For four years I've also reassured you that most Muslims here are moderate.

I've even insisted they have some moderate Muslim leaders, and last week again endorsed Sheik Fehmi Naji El-Imam of Preston mosque as a man of peace.

How eager I was to praise.
...
But was I just kidding myself? Isn't it becoming terribly clear that Islam -- at least the Islam of Australia's Arab sheiks and imams -- is hostile to our society?

Isn't it now obvious we should never have let into our country those imams who now preach hate?

Isn't the evidence that some cultures -- Muslim Arab ones -- pose more problems than their importation at this rate is worth? Isn't multiculturalism making these problems worse?

I know these are dangerous, hurtful questions. I also know many Muslims will feel deeply offended, loving this country and obeying its laws, and I wish only I heard from them far more often.

But the London bombings, perpetrated by home-grown Muslims, makes our silence on such issues not a sign of civility, but suicide.

So let me admit that the past few days have been terrible for those of us who thought we could count on Muslim leaders for real help against the Muslim extremists who threaten us.

He then goes on to detail exactly how those he thought were "moderates" came out with bizarre conspiracy theories, equivocation, and worse:

How can Muslim leaders fight terrorism, when the most moderate of them won't condemn even bin Laden, or admit that monster's self-confessed guilt?

Fehmi was not my only disappointment. I checked the IISNA site this week, and among the announcements of classes and prayers found this advice to a reader who'd asked if it was a sin to kill non-Muslims:

"In regard to non-Muslims who are at war with the Muslims and do not have a peace treaty with the Muslims or are not living under Muslim rule, then Muslims are commanded to kill them, because Allah says . . . 'Fight those of the disbelievers who are close to you, and let them find harshness in you.' "

If that's advice passed on by a "moderate" Islamic group, what must the radical ones here say?

Well, we know that, too. In a Melbourne bookshop run by Omran a Herald Sun reporter this month found books being sold that command Muslims to ready for war and to hate Jews.

In Sydney last week, the Islamic Bookshop, Australia's largest of the kind, was found (again) selling similar poison near the Lakemba mosque, including a book with tips on how to blow yourself up and kill plenty.

"The form this usually takes nowadays is to wire up one's body, or a vehicle or a suitcase with explosives and then to enter among a conglomeration of the enemy and to detonate," it says.

"There is no other technique which strikes as much terror into their hearts."

Again and again we're told such things aren't typical. Apologists, too often Muslim converts with little clout among ethnic groups, claim Islam means peace. But again and again we are left feeling like dupes.

He then goes on to explain exactly how islamic leaders dupe gullible western reporters.

He then reaches the grim, honest conclusions:

Faced with such evidence whichever way I turn, what else can I think about Islam -- or Arab Islam, at least -- but that it is an enemy of our culture, our society? And I ask: How did we come to let in the extremist preachers of such a hostile creed?

Why did we let in sheiks such as the Jordanian-born Omran, who declares Islam rejects democracy and instructs Muslims to go to Iraq to fight coalition troops? Why did we let in the Egyptian-born Hilaly?

But so much that we did in the name of multiculturalism was dangerously naive.
...
The results were as predictable as they were politely ignored -- a jobless rate and imprisonment rate double that of other Australians. Gangs. Poverty. A near ghetto in Lakemba.

What an unholy recipe: First we build a vulnerable underclass of unassimilated people with a religion of rejection. Then we let loose on them imported radicals preaching a hatred of our society; teachers who instruct them in the shame of our history; and multiculturalists who pay them to keep their distance and retain their much nicer ways.

ALL this always was foolish. Now we see it was dangerous as well, since British-born Muslims bred in a similar stew of multiculturalism, ethnic enclaves and Islamist extremism, have gone to war.

This Aussie has awakened!

He follows his clear-thinking leader, Prime Minister Howard (who like Bush and Blair recently faced a tough election over Iraq -- and won), who answered a reporter's dumb question about whether the London bombing was a direct result of Iraq policy by:

PRIME MIN. HOWARD: 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.

PRIME MIN. BLAIR: And I agree 100 percent with that. (Laughter.)

To elaborate on how islamic terror isn't springing from "rage" over "Iraq", see this map here.

And see this long, depressing list of terror atrocities around the world just since 9/11/2001. The common theme: perpetrated by islamists against infidels, in accord with the teachings of their prophet and the demands of their bloodthirsty demon moongod.

Just scroll down and keep scrolling as the bodycount mounts...

Lots of attacks before the Iraq invasion, and lots of attacks against people who had nothing to do with it, like Thai Buddhists.

And a list here (part 1) and here (part 2) about other islamic terror attacks on infidels from 1972 to 2001.

Just a few extremists?

UPDATE: Gates of Vienna sagely discusses the invasion angle. The prognosticating is grim.