JS
Reader comment on item: Piggybacking on Terror in Britain
in response to reader comment: Statistics, etc.

Submitted by Sword of Islam & The Babies of Beslan (United Kingdom), Sep 12, 2006 at 19:19

Left wing? Please cite one example of anything that I have contributed that approaches being described as such! Is this related to 'pro-Catholicism' in some way? If so, I must profess to being perplexed given the fact that Catholicism is generally associated with the 'right' of the political pendulum rather than the 'left'. Nor am I even Catholic (well, not since my school days anyway!) I simply have a major problem with unsubstantiated urban legend - probably because it is the weapon of choice among the jihadhis out there.

The central point of the discussion is that you specifically described 'Catholics' as 'loving' Islam - with no evidential material to back it up. I responded by questioning this and providing demographic data that suggested that predominantly Catholic countries do not especially provide a more appealing environment for Muslims than do those that are typically described as being Protestant. Two Catholic countries that are geographical 'neighbours' to Islam have lower migration and settlement of Muslims than do the bulk of countries in Northern Europe. This alone may not be conclusive evidence but it supports, however weakly, my belief that your assertion is simply daft. I would happily revise this opinion is were able to provide something more weighty to back up what you say (and if true it surely can't be that difficult) but thus far this has not happened. If there is a 'movement' of any kind that encourages Islam to grow in the West it is "socialist' secularism, ie France and the backwards belief that the religious beliefs and practices of immigrant groups should be treated as 'sacrosanct'. Socialism is, was, and always will be the natural enemy of civilisation.

Religion simply isn't an issue for 'Christians' in Europe whether they be Catholic or Protestant. Certainly not nearly as much as is the case in North America, Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The only people who tend to attempt to draw European Christianity into the equation are generally those fighting a jihad who would find more willing recruits if it were a case of Christianity v Islam or better still if they could splinter Western faith groups. Raising suspicions of Catholicism in such a way with no evidence whatsoever to back it up is a service to the cause of Islam. You are clearly a 'sleeper' agent!

Tony Blair is certainly not being 'hounded out' due to anti-American sentiment. The Tony Blair-Gordon Brown rift was in existance long before 9/11. They effectively re-modelled the New Labour party between them and had an understanding that Tony Blair would hand over the reins to Gordon Brown at some point during his premiership. He's been in power for a decade. Iraq or no Iraq, he would have been on his way out. If anything, Iraq is an issue that has kept leadership crises at bay until this point. He would probably have left some time ago but the fear of it being misinterpreted as a 'victory' for Islam was probably more than he could bear. Anybody who thinks that a transfer of power between either of the two main political parties will significantly affect foreign policy is very much mistaken. There may have been disagreement about the need to go to war but that is a moot point and there is surprising little dissention regarding the presence of troops as a peacekeeping body. As for anti-Americanism, well, Corporate America has always been a unifying cause for the champions of socialism before, during and after Saddam.

The New Labour government has always been split into at least two factions, those especially loyal to one or other of the two founders, ie Blair & Brown. Obviously, those with allegiances to Brown see this as an opportunity for political advancement so want Blair out as soon as possible. They also fear that without sufficient time for Brown (in the likely attempt that he succeeds Blair as leader) before the next elections they would well find themselves out of government before they have the opportunity to 'get their feet under the table' after their 'regime change'. It's opportunism and has happened before and will happen again. Just ask Mrs Thatcher. However, Mr Brown may be in for a very nasty surprise as his blatantly machievelian machinations designed to hasten Blair's departure may well explode in his face and usher in another rival altogether. I certainly hope so. The worst that will happen is that the next Prime Minister will have considerably less 'political savvy' than Blair but that's 'a given' anyway.

If Iraq was the political hot potato that people often seem to think it is then clearly Blair would not have been re-elected shortly after we invaded. Neither of the two main political parties are likely to dramatically reverse any of Blair's policies once he's gone.

I will be sad to see Blair go. My natural affiliations have always been to the opposition Conservative party but Blair has never been frightened of taking unpopular decisions in support of a righteous cause. That's a rarity in a landscape of political opportunism and worthy of all the praise that we can muster. It's just a pity that the malcontents out there will always strive to rid themselves of Caesar.

---

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 for relevance, substance, and tone, and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome, but comments are rejected if scurrilous, off-topic, vulgar, ad hominem, or otherwise viewed as inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the Guidelines for Comments. For informational purposes, we identify countries from which comments are sent.