Fisking Robert Spencer

I wrote on Monday how MPACUK was trying to turn the peaceful praying of a few thousand Muslims at Capitol Hill into a political event. Now it's the turn of the other side. Robert Spencer has written a piece about the event trying desperately to spin it into something it wasn't. Spencer's point is to claim that the event was a "missed opportunity" at which the organisers should have spent their time denouncing terrorism. He tries very hard to make us believe that they didn't because they don't disagree with terrorism and that, in fact, they want to impose Sharia Law on the United States. Here is a fisking of the main points from the article:

Organizer Hassen Abdellah had explained before the event that it was designed "to show we are not terrorists, but that most of us Muslims here love America and abide by its laws."

Here Spencer tries to give the impression that the event was organised primarily as a protest against Islamic terrorism. If that were the case then not denouncing terrorism is a bit odd. But it simply isn't true. Here is what Newsweek reported, more accurately:

The gathering is not supposed to be political, Abdellah said in an interview. No placards or signs allowed. No major famous imams or popular celebrities scheduled so far. No real agenda other than to pray together. "We want this to be purely about Islam," he said. "We want to change the perception of Islam to show we are not terrorists, but that most of us Muslims here love America and abide by its laws."

So far from being an event to oppose terrorism it was, from the start, supposed to be a non-political event. The aim was never to be "Muslims against terrorism" but rather to be "Muslims as people". The organisers wanted people to see that Muslims are not all about terrorism all the time and this is what they did. 3,000 Muslim people prayed peacefully on Capitol Hill and nothing more. But to some, it seems, Muslims are all about terrorism and therefore everything they do must either be supporting terrorism or opposing it. There can never be anything neutral and this is where Spencer falls over the line into anti-Islam racism/hatred.

If the Islam on Capitol Hill event was really supposed to show that Muslims were not terrorists, wouldn't it have been a good opportunity to denounce those jihad plots and the Islamic doctrines of warfare and supremacism that inspired them in the first place?

No, Robert. Clearly Spencer is starting with the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists unless they declare otherwise. From that point of view in order to show that Muslims are not terrorists they must say so. But for the rest of us who start with the assumption that Muslims are not terrorists they need do nothing to show us that they are not.

But Hassen Abdellah, asked on the morning of the prayer meeting to denounce these plots, demurred, saying that the event was not meant for denunciations.

No link to a source but here is what he told Fox News in an interview:

Muslims, individually and collectively, repudiate these acts, but I don't think tomorrow is the place for us to repudiate specific acts. Tomorrow is about our faith; it's not about politics. Because if we involve politics in the Jummah prayer, then what we'll do is only bring on other controversies. We're trying to bring people together.

Hardly refusing to address the question simply not wanting to bring politics into the event which is what they said from the start.

Yet Brooklyn imam Abdul Malik, who preached the sermon at the gathering, found ample time to denounce the immorality of American popular culture and indulge in several oblique denunciations of Christianity. He emphatically recommended Islam as the cure for America's ills - and this was a political prescription, not solely a religious one.

Again no source for this other than Spencer's claim. But here is what he did tell the crowd:

But I will say something it took me my whole adult life to come to: America is not perfect, but I want to tell the truth: It is one of the best places in the world to live.

Hardly sounds like a raving Islamist!

I spoke to several Muslims at the event; all said they'd like to see Islamic law, Sharia, come to the United States - a sentiment rife with political implications that remain a matter of indifference on the part of officials sworn to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution.

Once more just the word of Robert Spencer to go on and I'm sure it is easy to find people in a crowd of 3,000 who would like to see at least elements of Sharia adopted in the US. Did any of these people suggest that Sharia should be imposed? If I went into a crowd of Christians I bet I could find several who would say that abortion should be banned and homosexuals locked up. In fact, some Christian protesters at the event were shouting:

Abortion is Murder!! Homosexuality is Sin!! Islam is a Lie!!

So even if true it indicates very little. Ask any religious Jews whether they want to see the Messiah arrive and Jewish Law return and they will say "yes". Isn't it easy to say that Jews want to see Jewish law come to the United States?

Islam on Capitol Hill was supposed to show that Muslims are not terrorists. Yet not a word was said at the event about the Muslims arrested for terrorist activity that same week, or any assurances given that the assembled Muslims were working to root out this problem from the Islamic community.

Again, Spencer starts with the assumption that all Muslims are terrorists or supporters unless they say otherwise. In reality, Muslims are not terrorists and therefore need not say or do anything to prove that. The event was never supposed to be political, it was designed to show Muslims as people and for some that is impossible. Muslims are all about terrorism for Spencer - they either denounce it or they support it.

What's more, the Islamic terrorists' stated goal is the imposition of Sharia, with its denial of free speech and legal equality, and that seemed to be just fine with most of those [my italics] who prayed Jummah prayer on Capitol Hill on Friday.

Where did this come from? Even if we accept Spencer's account that the "several Muslims" he spoke to were foaming-at-the-mouth Islamists he hardly spoke to most of the people there.

In conclusion, Spencer bemoans the lack of any specific denunciation because for him Muslims are all about terrorism. They must denounce it every time they gather or else they support it.

It was hardly a comforting message to give to free Americans.

On the contrary - it is very comforting to free Americans to know that Muslims are people; it just doesn't fit with Spencer's world view.

Islamists and BNP agree - it's the Zionists!

The emergence and rise of the EDL seems to have caused some confusion and concern. Islamists are confused as to how to react. Up to now it was simple - everything the Islamists didn't like was a Zionist plot. The terrorist attacks carried out by Islamists were Zionist plots. Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were Zionist plots. Bad press was Zionists etc etc.

As we all know, when Islamists talk of Zionists they generally mean Jews. And Zionist plots must have someone Jewish involved to be valid. Not normally hard to find since there are plenty of Jewish people working in important posts in the Western World. But the EDL doesn't have Jews involved with it and hence the confusion. No Jews means no Zionist plot so how can Islamists react without sacrificing their simple world view?

Fortunately for them the EDL are also aware that Islamists hate Jews so, as part of their provocation, they march with Israeli flags. And that, you see, is all that Islamists need to draw the link. Hence articles on MPACUK's website entitled "Exposed! The EDL and Its Zionist Connection" and "Far-Right and Zionist Thugs Unite Against Palestinians". The evidence for the connection is the flag:

their [the EDL's] motives were soon revealed by their racist chanting and by the unfurling of an Israeli flag by the EDL skinheads.

and

Together they chanted “We hate Muslims” while waving Israeli flags

Some Islamist groups are more subtle. Take the IHRC as an example. It is not a coincidence, I think, that the images they use to illustrate their articles about the EDL are the ones in which Israeli flags appear prominently. See here and here.

So much for the Islamists, what about the BNP? Well, they're concerned. The EDL are gaining much publicity with their own brand of racism and anti-Muslim feeling. The BNP is worried for two reasons. Firstly they might well lose support as the EDL gains ground because the two have similar aims. Secondly, though, the BNP is terrified that the EDL will make them look bad. They have tried hard over the last decade or more to look respectable and become electable and have sadly, succeeded to some extent. If people link the EDL to the BNP, even just by having common membership, then this could ruin their plans.

So finally the BNP find common ground with the Islamists - they blame it on the Zionists. In an audio message on the website of Simon Darby (the BNP's Deputy Chairman) Griffin explains how he thought the EDL was a conspiracy by the British State (again any excuse to ensure that the EDL being racist doesn't make people realise that the BNP is also racist) but now realises that it is a Zionist false-flag operation. (see here for the audio from about 6.55 and here for some of the transcript).

Once again we find that the common denominator among these three groups of extremists is anti-Semitism. Scary times for Britain's Jews if they find themselves caught in the crossfire.

Anti-Semitism at MPACUK?

The Board of Deputies of British Jews has apparently written a submission to the Commons’ Communities and Local Government Committee arguing that Prevent money should not be given to groups including the Muslim Council of Britain that espouse Islamism. MPACUK isn't happy about this. They say as follows:

This just highlights a common suspicion in this country concerning many Jewish bodies over their unheeded support for Israel's oppression. We call on all Jewish organisations to abandon the racist Zionist political ideology and look towards creating a long lasting peace in Palestine.

If I understand this right, MPACUK is giving an ultimatum to all Jews in the UK - reject Israel completely or be considered a whole-hearted supporter of Zionism and any and all crimes (real and fictional) that MPACUK and other Islamist groups consider Israel to be guilty of. Since in the mind of the Islamist a supporter of Israeli "oppression" seems to be a perfectly valid target for attack this seems to me very much to be MPACUK declaring all Jews to be "enemies" unless they meet the Islamist standard of Israel-rejection (eg Neturei Karta).

The Prevent Strategy

The Government's "Prevent" programme for trying to stop the spread of Islamism in the UK has come in for some attention recently. The Tax Payer's Allowance released a report on the 8th September detailing the various organisations that had received money under this scheme (read the report from here).

The report revealed that much of the money went to groups who did not oppose extremism (but who were not extreme themselves) while some went to extremist groups. Matthew Sinclair argued that the strategy should be scrapped essentially because the scheme is impossible to implement properly. Ed Husain argued that it should be continued but fixed.

I think Prevent should be scrapped for two important reasons. The first is that not only can it not be implemented properly but that it cannot work. The money must go to one of three groups. The recipient may be inactive in the area of extremism (neither opposed to it nor encouraging it) in which case the money is wasted. The recipient may be a proponent of extremism in which case the money is counter-productive. But even if the recipient works to oppose extremism the receiving of money from the State will undermine its efforts completely. No one with animosity towards the British State (the kind of people Prevent is supposed to encourage to turn away from extremism) is going to listen to groups funded by the British State. Perhaps this is why Rochdale Council refused to disclose who they gave money to claiming that it would be commercially detrimental to a third party.

But the main reason why Prevent should be scrapped is that it is wrong. The State should not be in the businesses of funding some ideas and not others. The State should not put its weight behind some ideology and should not preach to us what we should or shouldn't believe. If we want to be a liberal country we must allow the free flow of ideas, not gang up to fund some against others.

Scrap Prevent and let people believe what they want. Use the money to make sure that the Islamist cannot blow me up, don't use it in an attempt to force people to believe what the State wants them to believe.

Pre-charge Detention, Outrage and Decadence

The big topic of the day, obviously, is the Government's bid to extend pre-charge detention to 42 days. Sean O’Neill in The Times asks why we would need this. He points out:

There is no widely perceived need for more authoritarian legislation. So far there has been no case where the police would have liked more than the current 28-day limit and only 11 suspects have been held for more than 14 days.

So why do police chiefs want up to 90 days? He explains:

It is during a wave of multiple, complex terror plots or attacks that, security sources say, the power to hold suspects for up to 42 days will be necessary.

They argue that the time to legislate for emergency detention powers is now – when it can be properly considered – rather than in the frenzied atmosphere of a national emergency.

The assumption behind this plan is clear, then. One day the police will have a suspect in custody, will be forced to release him after 28 days and he will go on to kill people. And then there will be such an outrage against the police and government that they will rush through an extension. The essential accusation is that we, the British public, would be so distraught at the loss of life that we will accept, nay demand, that our leaders compromise on our high standards to ensure our protection.

And he's probably right. Just this week we found out that a terrorist had been released a whole 17 days early from prison and there was such an outcry that the government very quickly changed its policy. It would seem that faced with the choice of danger of some deaths or compromise on moral high standards we will compromise every time.

What is more, in the comfort of our safe armchairs, when is all is fine and calm, we will oppose these moves. We will cite freedom and people will talk about doing the terrorists' work for them. But as soon as the bomb goes off and people die we will be shouting for action against those very freedoms.

There is surely only one word for this, decadence. The Islamists accuse the West of this and we are guilty as charged. When all is peaceful we extol the virtues of civil liberties and freedom. We laud ourselves for our high moral standards and unshakeable values. But in reality we're scared, terrified. As soon as something goes wrong, someone dies, we will turn our backs on those freedoms in a heartbeat.

In WWII Britain's ability to take the punishment of the Blitz, of the V1s and 2s allowed us to stand firm for what we believed in. And we rightly look back at that with pride. People died and we accepted that as the price of freedom. A heavy price, but one we were willing to pay. Today we're not willing to pay that price. The result is evident.

We will compromise, demand compromise, on our standards to avoid the deaths of some citizens. We demand that Afghanistan and Iraq are left to fend for themselves against the Islamists lest some of our brave soldiers die in defence of democracy and freedom. We are at a point where safety and calm are more important to us than morality and liberty. We are truly decadent. We should be ashamed.

Fighting Our Supporters

Hassan Butt is a former terrorist. He admits this freely. He admits to having recruited British Muslims for jihad and raising money for terrorism. He admits all this because he has turned his back on Islamism and now fights against it. As part of that fight he is writing a book about terrorism and Islamism.

Last Sunday, Nick Cohen in the Observer spoke about the police's attempt to force the manuscript and sources to be handed over for investigation. He concluded:

If Butt and Malik are prosecuted, how the jihadis will laugh at the stupidity of a country that can't tell its allies from its enemies. 'Look,' they will say to their recruits, 'look at what happens to Muslims who go over to their side. Are they thanked? Are they honoured? No, they're prosecuted. All Muslims are the same to the British and there's no point in trying to please them.'

Well, the police won the right to force the book to be handed over. Newsnight reports:

Hassan Butt's co-author, an independent journalist, has been ordered to deliver draft manuscripts and notes for the book to the Greater Manchester Police.

The question must be asked, how stupid are we? What do we want? Do we want prisons full of Islamic terrorists or do we want a Britain free of Islamic terrorists? I think most people would prefer the latter. And this man is working, partly through this book, to help bring that situation about. We should be helping him, not impeding him. The police have already stated that he poses no danger, he has already done some work with the government to help stop Islamism being spread in Britain. So why would we interfere with that work?

Just a few days ago the Defence Secretary Des Browne suggested that we should try to reach out to members of the Taliban who might be persuaded to stop fighting. If we're prepared to reach out to them, why will we not do the same to the British Islamists. It seems that this government's approach to terrorism is muddled at best, but it looks more like incompetence and ineptitude.

Reality Denial at MPACUK

We all know that MPACUK is deluded about Islamic terrorism, apparently convinced that it has nothing to do with Islam or ideology but rather is entirely caused by our foreign policy decisions. To that end it must have been disturbing to hear the likes of Hassan Butt, a former Islamist, declare:

By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

How can MPACUK continue to peddle the line that Islamism is the result of foreign policy when Islamists themselves say that it isn't? The answer is simple - believe it's all a conspiracy. To that end they are asking the question:

Hassan Butt-Al Qaeeda Or Mi5? - You Decide!

This is not the first time that people have tried to claim that British Islamists are evil stooges of the State desperately trying to provoke hatred against peace-loving Muslims who only want to oppose the terrible foreign policy of Britain. Back in 2006 after Abu Izzadeen, another British Islamist, heckled the then Home Secretary, one George Galloway wrote:

Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following.

The formula is simple, declare that ideology has nothing to do with Islamism and that it is all foreign policy. When evidence is presented that this isn't true declare that that evidence was part of a Government conspiracy. And the media still quote these people as the "moderate voice".

BBC Whitewashes Fitna

Dutch MP Geert Wilders posted his film Fitna on the Internet last night. Let me say that the film is anti-Islamic in as much as it makes no attempt to distinguish between Islam and Islamism. It is also not very dissimilar to probably thousands of videos available on YouTube and other similar sites. But for all that it fails to distinguish between Islamism and Islam and between most Muslims and extremists it does contain some serious messages. Not new ones but real ones.

The BBC's report on the film (which is only about 15 minutes long) is a whitewash. The report says:

The opening scenes show a copy of the Koran, followed by footage of the attacks on the US on 11 September 2001.

What it doesn't mention is that the copy of the Koran is shown along with selected quotes. The film is drawing attention to specific, disconcerting verses in the Koran, not the Koran in general. Not that there aren't similar verses in other scriptures, but the BBC report implies that it is simple a copy of the Koran and doesn't tell the reader that the focus was on specific and real verses.

The report continues:

And pictures appearing to show Muslim demonstrators holding up placards saying "God bless Hitler" and "Freedom go to hell" also feature.

What was that? "Appearing to show Muslim demonstrators"? They were Muslim demonstrators. What game is the BBC playing here? Is it peddling the line spread by some extremists that any Muslim who carries out terrorist attacks or the like isn't a Muslim? Surely it is not playing dumb, pretending that the people shown might be Christians or Jews?

And lastly:

The film shows a young girl in a headscarf making derogatory comments about Jewish people.

"A young girl in a headscarf". Muslim is what they mean to say. You might argue that the entire film is about Muslims so it is obvious, but then why mention the headscarf? And given the comment above about "appearing to show Muslim demonstrators" it isn't so obvious that the BBC is not trying to glide over the M-word. Truly this report is a whitewash of the contents of the film.

UPDATE: Even The Independent manages to include the details the BBC has tried to hide. It's report says:

It interspersed images of the 9/11 attacks and other bombings with quotes from the Koran.

...

The film shows ... Muslim women with banners reading, "Be prepared for the real Holocaust" and "God Bless Hitler".

If The Independent can do it, why can't the BBC?

Terrorist Has Sentence Cut

Dhiren Barot has had his sentence cut from 40 years to 30. The court of appeal said that the longer term was for, "the terrorist who has been convicted, after trial, of a serious attempt to commit mass murder by a viable method."

The defence had argued that the plot to murder hundreds or thousands was far from completion at the time of arrest. And, it would appear, that the judges agreed.

The Lord Chief Justice also said:

A terrorist who is in the grip of idealistic extremism to the extent that, over a prolonged period, he has been plotting to commit murder of innocent citizens is likely to pose a serious risk for an indefinite period if he is not confined.

Why then did he cut this man's sentence? Do we have to wait for him to actually kill thousands of innocent civilians before we can keep him locked away? With judges like this how are we to fight an effective war against Islamism?

"The Islamist" Review

A review of the new book "The Islamist" appears in The Telegraph. In short, the book explains that Islamism is not driven by foreign policy, nor ignorance or poverty. It is driven by an ideology that demands the total domination of a radical, fundamentalist interpretation of Islam.

The book also explains that being a religious Muslim can stop Muslims being indoctrinated into the Islamist cult of death (my words). The author claims that his religious devotion during his time as an Islamist was just a show and that he was actually not keeping his faith at all.

The book thus reiterates what has been said here many times before: the war is between Islamism and the West and is not against Islam.

Our Foreign Policy?

The German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, has said that Islamist terror is the biggest threat "to the security and stability of Germany." For those that have forgotten, Germany have not taken part in the war on Iraq, nor Afghanistan. Yet, they are on the receiving end of Islamist terrorism. Can people still argue that this is caused by our foreign policy?

Former MI6 Head Calls on Muslims

Former MI6 head, Sir Richard Dearlove, told a conference that Muslims are best placed to root out extremism in Britain. He said:

At the moment it is very easy for al-Qaida to recruit its foot soldiers. The most effective way for Muslim communities to police the al-Qaida influence in the UK is to do it themselves. Community policing in the UK has failed in this specific area.

Would this failure have to do with the government and media giving all their attention to groups run by extremists and Islamists. A group who's head threatens Britain with 2 million home-grown terrorists is not a group that will tackle terrorism. A group that boycotts Holocaust Memorial Day is not a group that will oppose extremism. A group who's leaders call for non-cooperation with police and who support Hamas and Hezbollah is not a group that want to stop Islamism.

By giving these groups all the attention, the moderate majority are effectively silenced and ignored. Instead the debate about Islamism is skewed because we take the opinion of Islamists as mainstream. The government must lead on this by completely ignoring such groups. If we stop shining the spotlight on the extremist groups we might start to find the moderate groups out there.

Abu Hamza Extradition

Abu Hamza begins his fight against extradition to the US today. In February he was sentenced to 7 years in prison and, if extradited, will be tried in the US, returned to Britain to finish his sentence here before going back to America to serve whatever sentence he has there.

One thing to remember, the British government only arrested and tried Hamza after America sought his extradition. If they hadn't done so, he would still be inciting hatred freely outside Finsbury Park Mosque with police protection.

Positive News From Venice

Two stories have emerged from a meeting in Venice of the six largest EU members. The first is that security officials have backed a plan to profile mosques across Europe to try and prevent Islamist clerics from radicalising young Muslims. The increasing threat from home-grown Islamists has shown that more needs to be done. Just one example would be the Finsbury Park Mosque where Abu Hamza was allowed to preach hatred for years before anything was done.

The second piece of good news is that John Reid has called for a changing in the Human Rights Laws to reflect the nature of the war with Islamists. He said:

We need to work to modernise the law - still protecting human rights and still providing equity and justice - but reflecting the reality of the conflicts and struggles we now face.

...

The right to security, to the protection of life and liberty, is and should be the basic right on which all others are based. Now, more than ever, it should be the fundamental starting point of all our principles and practices across Europe.

With John Reid stepping down next month, let's hope his successor will act on his words and reform the Human Rights Laws so that our rights to safety and security are treated with at least as much importance as the "right" of criminals and terrorists.

Naturally, Human Rights groups are not happy. Shami Chakrabarti, from Liberty, is quoted by the BBC News as saying:

In this struggle, we have to work with allies around the world to make sure they up their game on human rights because terrorism is being bred in countries which have the worst human rights records.

Obviously, Ms Chakrabarti doesn't watch the news and has failed to spot that many Islamists are being bred right here in Britain. Unless, of course, Liberty think Britain have the worst human rights records.

And here's something for all the BBC bias watchers. Note how early the BBC chooses to quote Ms Chakrabarti's comments. Even before quoting what John Reid had said (which is what the article is actually about) three paragraphs are devoted to Liberty's response. Why place the response before the actual statement? Surely it isn't to ensure that people read Liberty's point of view before that of John Reid? Surely it isn't to ensure that Chakrabarti is above the fold?

Cameron Ideas

The leader of the opposition (and possibly future PM) has spent a few days living with a regular Muslim family to find out what it's like. He makes some conclusions which are cause for concern.

He says that, "Every time the BBC or a politician talks about “Islamist terrorists” they are doing immense harm." But goes on to say that, "Of course it’s impossible every single time to say “terrorists who are following a perverted strain of the true religion of Islam” but if we’re going to use shorthand we have got to do better."

There is a contradiction here. On the one hand he seems to appreciate that the terrorism stems from an ideology and that that ideology is based on an extreme interpretation of Islam. Yet, at the same time, he wants us all to use a different word that would hide that link between the violence and Islam. If we hide the link then we prevent ourselves from understanding the cause and therefore we cannot deal with it.

Any new word will still mean the same thing and therefore is there any point inventing a new word? We should be making clear exactly what "Islamism" means. It is because so many people excuse terrorism as a reaction to foreign policy that the term "Islamism" is not understood. If we were honest in saying that the cause of terrorism is an ideology called "Islamism" and we discussed Islamism openly then there would be no misunderstanding of what the term means. It is precisely because we won't tell it like it is that the term is worrying for Muslims.

One other statement that is cause for concern is the following sentence: "My final thought yesterday was that integration is a two way street." Cameron then went on to explain that Britain has many social problems that are putting people off integrating. Hopefully, he simply means that the social issues need to be addressed because they present problems for Western culture. But, the phrase implies that he might mean that we need to address these issues because some of those who have chosen to immigrate here demand it. The latter would be a boon for the Islamists who would see yet more evidence of the weakness of Western culture and how quickly it will back down if you shout and demand loud enough.

What this country (and the West) needs is strong leadership. We need a Prime Minister who will stand up to Islamist pressure and make it clear that the West will fight for its values and will not be dictated to. David Cameron's statements indicate that he might not be that man.

Londonistan Calling

An interesting piece by Christopher Hitchens in next month's Vanity Fair entitled "Londonistan Calling". Worth reading if you have time (it's quite long).

Two main points that he makes. Firstly that Islamist terrorism is not about Iraq or foreign policy but about an ideology. Secondly, that the government has not done anywhere near enough to tackle this problem. One of the points he makes is that the government regularly tries to "engage" with the Muslims in Britain but always seems to pick out people who have Islamist ideals.

The reason is fairly obvious; they shout the loudest. But the government (and media) need to stop holding these Islamists (from the MCB and MAB and others) up as examples of Muslim opinion. These guys are not representative; they are the problem.

Blair and Iraq

Much discussion has been given to Blair's legacy. Particular focus is put on the Iraq war with the majority of the media and leftist commentators telling us that Iraq will ruin Blair's premiership. However, the truth is far from that.

In our war with Islamism there are two eventual outcomes; either we win or lose. If we lose then Iraq will not matter. If we win, though, Iraq together with Afghanistan will be seen as the first stirrings of the West. For decades we in the West have backed down to Islamist pressure and in many cases still do. This has been seen as weakness and emboldens the Islamists. Iraq bucked that trend.

Ask yourself the following simple question; since Saddam didn't have WMDs why did he play around with the inspectors? He knew this would give the impression that he was hiding something. Giving full cooperation with the inspectors would have undermined the cause of going to war and he'd probably still be there.

The answer is that he assumed that the West wouldn't act against him because he assumed that the West is weak. And, looking at the millions of people marching through the streets in support of a murderous tyrant, who can blame him for thinking that. So, our invasion of Iraq showed that the West isn't quite so weak.

In this context Iraq will be remembered as the West's first major step to fully confronting Islamism. It is a milestone on our road to being able to stand up for ourselves and being prepared to do what it takes to ensure the safety of our citizens, culture and civilizations. Iraq will indeed be Blair's legacy and it will leave him standing as one of the best PMs we've had alongside Churchill.

Terror Suspect's Bigamy

The Sun is reporting that Khalid Khaliq, who was arrested this week in connection with the 7/7 attacks, was a bigamist. Deborah Cummings claims that she married Khalid and had three children with him before discovering that he was already married. And, as if that wasn't bad enough, he brought his other wife to live with them in the same house.

Does this ring a bell? Back in September we revealed that Abu Izzadeen was seeking another wife or three. The story was later picked up and confirmed by the Daily Mail. Is bigamy popular amongst Islamists?

Charity Commission Must Do More

A Home Office and Treasury report calls on the Charity Commission to work more closely with the police and security services to prevent organisations abusing charity status to raise money for terrorism. Home Office Minister, Tony McNulty, said, "Disrupting the flow of funds is a key part of the global effort to combat terrorism".

One case in point is the Iqra bookshop in Leeds. It was raided in 2005 because it produced and sold Islamist propaganda encouraging terrorism. It was frequented by Mohammed Siddique Khan and Shezad Tanweer. Just this week Khalid Khaliq a worker there was arrested in connection with the 7/7 attacks. Still, Iqra remains a registered charity despite these revelations. (see here and here)

More Arrests Over 7/7

The police have arrested four more people in connection with the suicide bombings 2 years ago. Those arrested are:

Hasina Patel - wife of Mohammed Siddique Khan
Arshad Patel - brother of Hasina
Imran Motala - related to Hasina and Arshad
Khalid Khaliq - worked in an extremist Islamic bookshop frequented by MSK, and lives on the same road as Shehzad Tanweer. He was a close friend of both MSK and Tanweer.