2 readers online now  |  69 million page views

You are going to hate me for this

Reader comment on item: [London Terrorism:] British "Covenant of Security" with Islamists Ends

Submitted by Octavio Johanson (Italy), Jul 8, 2005 at 12:50

People might be offended by what I am about to write.

In 1994, an Algerian terrorist bombed the Parisian underground and he ran off to London. When French authorities asked for him to be sent back to France, extradition was denied. Only recently has he been sent back to France.

On top of that, groups banned in the United States are headquartered in London. Al-Muhajiroun is a good example.

Let me add that 17 out of 19 of the 9/11 hijackers had been in London and that the Finsbury Park Mosque was notorious for its links to Islamic terrorism.

When the United States re-claimed some terrorists, Britain refused to cooperate.

When European countries tried to join forces against terrorism, Britain refused to cooperate.

Now we learn from Daniel Pipes that London terrorism was based on a "British covenant with Islamists" which means that British authorities were fine with terrorism as long as it did not hit London.

The New Statement stated it very clearly. "the presence of vocal and active Islamist terrorist sympathisers makes British people safer, while the full burnt of terrorist plotting is suffered by people in other countries".

The name "Londonistan" was used to indicate the world of Islamic terrorism in London.

Britain has given sanctuary to terrorists from Syria, Yemen and Egypt.

The mayor of London Ken Livingstone has often supported Militant Islam and the Scottish MP George Galloway has done worse by supporting Saddam Hussain.

The British Press, and especially The Guardian, has always thought that the Americans had deserved 9/11.

The former US Ambassador in London broke into tears as he was insulted by a crowd on BBC on September 12, 2001.

As a matter of fact, Britain has played double games in the war on terror. On the one hand, Britain has been the USA's staunchest ally. On the other hand, Britain has harboured terrorism at home, and, as long as the targets were other nations, that was fine.

As a German anti-terrorism agent put it, "all the clues lead to LONDON". He also added that European police was powerless against Islamic organisations, because they were free to operate in Britain".

This mornig an article by one Tariq Ali on the London Guardian justifies the bombing.

On Sempember 12, 2002, the first anniversary of the 9/11 bombing was celebrated as a Towering Day in History by the faithful at the Finsbury Park Mosque.

Jihad Videos are freely available at the Stanford Mosque in East London.

The London Central Mosque, near Baker St, was home to one Abu Quatada, a dangerous terrorist who has gone missing after 9/11.

Zacharia Mussaui, the 20th hijacker, lived happily in London and graduated at South Bank University.

Recently, there was an anti-Israeli demonstration in Central London which encouraged Muslims to "bomb Israel".

When the French re-claimed the Algerian bomber, the New Statemen ttold them to "get lost".

A mosque has been dedicated to Saddam Hussain in Birmingham.

In other words, Britain has been active in fighting against terrorism in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it has played double games by harbouring terrorists in its own territory and jeopardizing the United States and Continetal Europe.

The British intelligentsia has always thought that the Americans deserved 9/11 and that the Europeans were a bunch of Islamophobes and racists.

The crimes against humanity that happened in London on July 7, 2005, can be blamed on the attitude of the British authorities of have given shelter to terrorists.

The British people have brought this horrible tragedy on themselves.
Submitting....

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".

Comment on this item

Mark my comment as a response to You are going to hate me for this by Octavio Johanson

Email me if someone replies to my comment

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".

See recent outstanding comments.

Follow Daniel Pipes

Facebook   Twitter   RSS   Join Mailing List

All materials by Daniel Pipes on this site: © 1968-2021 Daniel Pipes. daniel.pipes@gmail.com and @DanielPipes

Support Daniel Pipes' work with a tax-deductible donation to the Middle East Forum.Daniel J. Pipes

(The MEF is a publicly supported, nonprofit organization under section 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Contributions are tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law. Tax-ID 23-774-9796, approved Apr. 27, 1998.

For more information, view our IRS letter of determination.)