Coincidence is not acceptance

Submitted by Saul Green (United Kingdom), Aug 30, 2006 at 09:35

Dear Daniel,

Whilst a large majority of Britons may accept that British foreign policy makes attacks more likely this does not mean that they are in favour of appeasing or falling in behind the Islamacists. A poll by the Spectator showed that 53% were in favour of a tougher foreign policy as opposed to 12% for a softer one, with 24% for no change. 73% belived we are in a war against Islamic terrorists who threaten our way of life.. The downside to the poll was that 45% thought we should be coloser to Europe than America (only 14% the other way round).

As it happens I believe that British foreign policy has made us more likely to attack but I support British foreign policy on the whole because the alternatives seem to involve a build up to a worse scenario. If Churchill had thrown the towel in, in 1940 tens of thousands of Britons would have been spared death bybombing. Life might have gone somewhat worse for hundreds of thousands of Jews, Communists, homosexuals and gypsys later of course. Not to mention all those who would have died under decades of Nazi occupation.

So, although I and others have a view which might coincide with Islamacists, lite or hevy, that by no means says that we accept the whole package. Don't take the views of the 'liberal' chatterati as representing the ordinary Brit.

Best wishes

Saul Green

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".