Gary

Submitted by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan (United Kingdom), Jul 17, 2006 at 22:34

Gary, I was very pleased to read your comments as there was a huge amount of 'brain food there. I then wrote a very long reply , (even by my standards!), and submitted them after hours of typing. Imagine my horror when presented by an error message from the forum server that deleted my entire message. These things are never quite the same when rewritten but here goes!

The EU is basically just a trade confederation in it's present form. It has little real political impact in anything other than economic policy for it's member states. That could change with time but that's what it is at present. For this reason it is like a smaller version of the UN insomuch as it a committee of various countries with differing social and economic agendas. So, as with the UN, when there is a global 'issue' that the EU feels compelled to issue a statement about , the resulting declaration is invariably a compromise statement in the same manner as a UN Resolution might be. It's a statement that is invariably watered down to reflect a unified point of view that none of the involved parties particularly opposes rather something in which each member wholeheartedly agrees.. A statement requesting that Israel 'restrains' itself is a far cry from a statement of condemnation. It's like politely asking a tough boxer not to hit his opponent too hard.

Let's put this in a G8 context which is an example of the same thing in principle. The G8 issued a statement on Sunday stating that the Israeli soldiers should be returned, the shelling of Israeli territory stopped and the Israeli military action suspended. Those aren't the exact words but you follow my meaning.

George Bush and Tony Blair wanted this statement to include a condemnation of Iranian and Syrian involvement. The Russians vetoed this citing insufficient evidence. The French wanted the statement to condemn Israel. Obviously a unified statement that reflected each of these points honestly would have been impossible for even the greatest diplomat. So what we see is a watered down statement that each party can live with. As with the UN, you will also have noticed that immediately such statements are made each party involved publicly 'qualifies' the statement according to their own perspective.

The alternative to the above is complete disunity. With the French sitting on a committee of any kind you would never see a wholehearted support for Israel. They have far too many economic ties with Syria . As do the Russians. Even more so given their historic alliances with Iran. Witness the opposition to the Iraq war. The fact they were both heavily invested in Iraq was surely not coincidental to their obstruction of our efforts there.

So bearing in mind the above considerations, a statement by the EU requesting restraint, in my cock-eyed universe, sounds pretty supportive if one reads between the lines of the political shenanigans that probably led up to it's creation!

As for your thoughts on the media I know exactly what you mean. During the lead up to Gulf War II I made a point of watching French TV as I was interested in seeing the difference in the images that the population of an 'anti-war' country were seeing and those of a 'pro-war' country. It was a real eye-opener! So if you are receiving images of Londonistan that are troubling I guess I can sympathise with your viewpoint.

I'd like to think that my ear is close to the ground on this subject. You know that I take an active interest in this global crisis that we are so obsessed by. Does the idea of Londonistan worry me? No. It could be that I am burying my head in the sand on this one but I do live in the 'thick of the action' on this one so hope that I have some insight, rather than self-delusion, to offer. But only time will tell.

I think that we can agree that London, in principle, should present a very tempting target to jihadhis worldwide owing to our central role alongside the US and our close physical proximity to the European mainland. Yet we haven't seen anything like the violent rioting by Muslims in France and Denmark despite this. 7/7 was pretty mild compared to 9/11. It had a devasting effect on those unfortunates caught up in it but it was 'business as usual' in that part of London the next day. I was in Kings Cross the next day. I would never have guessed that anything untoward had happened. If that's the best that the jihadhis can do then 'bring it on'!

I think that we are playing a cleverer game than our EU counterparts. Media friendly jihadhi imams simply make it easier for us to track their terrorist networks. Why drive them underground when all they are managing to do is to undermine their own cause? I could be mistaken but who knows? If it also serves to provoke heated discussions then it can only serve to educate the half-wits who are unable to see the bigger picture. Our Secret Service is the oldest in the world so let's hope that they've picked up a trick or two in the past 400 years.

They are definitely a weakened force in this country. Now we need to finish them off.

Keep up the good work,

Sword

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".