http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6931768/Anjem-Choudary-admits-Wootton-Bassett-march-is-publicity-stunt.html
If we think things through logically, everyone of us who were against the war from the beginning - Muslim or not - must want to be proven right. More and more politicians are agreeing with us. Those who felt strongly enough about it at the time actually resigned, eg Clare Short, the late Robin Cook, and most recently Eric Joyce.
We cannot, if we are being logical, wish the war well or the agents of the state who prosecute it.
Choudary is at least following the logic of his conclusions.
What would be the point of "honouring" the war dead who prosecuted a war you disapprove of?
In my opinion, he is the only one with the courage of his convictions. Virtually all Muslims disapprove of the war too, but revile Choudary because they don't want the unwelcome and aggressive attention of Islamophobes that is so easily aroused in the West.
It is the hypocrisy of the BNP that I find particularly cowardly and disgusting. They are supposed to be looking after their own white working class boys, yet they too are saying "honour our dead" and allowing a superb opportunity of opposing the war to pass by. Of course the government wants to prevent the march, and they have variously called Choudary's proposed march "abhorrent", "unacceptable" and "offensive".
Have they not heard that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"?
It would appear that they still have not worked out which is the enemy and which the friend.
While it is common knowledge that the BNP hate Muslims, it must ask itself who let them in in the first place.
It was of course their own white political establishment who let them in and then accused all who dared to complain about immigration of being "Nazi Fascist Racist Extremist" so they could suppress and then ignore the complaints of the white working classes who did not like having their neighbourhoods taken over by foreigners bringing in an alien faith.
It was after all the British government who started the stupid war in the first place and was responsible for successive decades of uncontrolled immigration.
It is time the BNP decided once and for all who their enemy and who is a potential ally and it appears that they are having difficulty sticking to a consistent line. The BNP Chairman Nick Griffin on Question Time spoke of "a truce with the Muslims" though on the same TV appearance he described Islam as "a wicked and vicious faith".
As recently as 10 December 2009, the Muslim Debate Initiative hosted a debate - an invitation the BNP accepted.
http://www.thedebateinitiative.com/#/islamification-debate/4536297387
http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.com/2009/12/historic-evening-of-debate-between.html
How is continuing to honour the dead soldiers fighting a war they disapprove of "supporting British troops"? If by "supporting" them we implicitly approve a policy of continuing to send them to their deaths, then British soldiers could do with less of this kind of "support", I would have thought. The BNP are just standing by while more are being sent to their deaths.
Painful though it is, the BNP must see the logic of not honouring those who died prosecuting the disastrous and dishonourable war of a discredited government.
They cannot have their cake and eat or have it both ways. It makes no sense to honour the fallen soldiers of a war you disapprove of.
To the bereaved, the message should be sympathy and the declared intention of preventing any more parents of members of the Armed Forces from suffering the same bereavement.
Were the BNP to support the Choudary's march they would actually be doing something constructive, rather than merely saying "British Muslims shall not criticise British troops even if they prosecute a war against Muslims we were also against from the beginning, just because they are Muslim".
It is inconsistent, idiotic, unconstructive, and frankly chauvinistic, but that should come as no surprise as it is the BNP we are talking about.
The sooner the war is stopped the better. Any opportunity to show disapproval of it is should be used to best advantage by all who oppose the war, Muslim and non-Muslim. If those who oppose the war are accused of being 5th Columnists, let us all, Muslim and non-Muslim, BNP and non-BNP be in it together.
That would send the strongest possible anti-war message to the government.
I would have thought this was pretty obvious, but sadly it is not. It appears that only Choudary and I see things this way.
Vote: Should Anjem Choudary's proposed march in Wootton Bassett be allowed to go ahead?
http://www.1party4all.co.uk/Home/Account/TopicForm.aspx?topicsId=145
THE VOICE OF REASON Solon, (born c. 630 BCE—died c. 560 BCE), Athenian statesman, known as one of the Seven Wise Men of Greece (the others were Chilon of Sparta, Thales of Miletus, Bias of Priene, Cleobulus of Lindos, Pittacus of Mytilene, and Periander of Corinth). Solon ended exclusive aristocratic control of the government, substituted a system of control by the wealthy, and introduced a new and more humane law code. He was also a noted poet.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Western men are no longer men - doom for Western civilisation as we know it!
Carol's thoughts on the Trinity 3:00 Internal dialogues 4:00 The Mystery of the Trinity solved 6:00 Men now compete with women to be...
-
Why do Christians not follow the morality of the Bible? Because the Church itself does not follow Biblical principles and is only interes...
-
Key: CK = Claire Khaw CD = Claudia Dalgleish EB = Eddy Butler MC = Mark Collet TC = Tess Culnane CD on Facebook This past month... -
Beta males will never get female attention if it is OK for women to have premarital sex. If you want beta males to have a reasonable ...
12 comments:
The BNP is part of the Establishment, sausage.
The abhorrence of most Muslims with Choudry's proposed demonstration at Wootton Bassett has to do with the sanctity of funerals and burials that they believe in. These are solemn and sad occasions and should not be abused. I think this abhorrence is probably shared by many Christians, and perhaps the BNP's reticence is a reflection of an awareness that this is not the place nor the occasion for such a demonstration. Were Choudry to participate in a mass demo against the Wars at Parliament Square with a demand for the prosecution of all those involved in procuring them, then I think you would find most Muslims and many others supportive. David Rosser-Owen.
Both the BNP and the Islamic fundamentalists seek a rigid monocultural wasteland society. So Fascists should stick together, obviously.
It makes things a lot easier for the decent people to round themn up.
Choudary describes British troops as 'butchers' and 'cowards'.
If he instead directed his protest towards the Labour and Conservative politicians who instigated the war, then no-one would mind.
British troops - effectively or not - are trying to deal with the threat of al-Qaeda.
Choudary supports al-Qaeda, and in particular he backs the imprisoned Abu Hamza who played a part in instigating the 7/7 tube and bus attacks which killed and injured innocent British people.
It would be ludicrous for the BNP to support terrorism against the British people - although presumably you do.
Secondly the establishment politicians who allowed mass immigration have no connnection to the BNP - whether or not they both happen to be 'white'.
It is absurd to racialise everything in this way.
whether or not the war is opposed or agreed with - death should be respected. I am anti the war and certainally dont honor the dead that pass through wooten basset as how can there be honor for people who are not fighting for a just cause? however, i do respect life and death and believe that the families of the dead who may be of various opinions should be allowed to grieve their loved ones in peace.
Jeff, I refer you to Choudary's open letter to the families of British soldiers in Afghanistan since it would be fairer to judge him on what he has actually said than on reports of his alleged links with Al Qaeda and support for the 7/7 bombers:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6930015/Anjem-Choudary-an-open-letter-to-families-of-British-soldiers-in-Afghanistan.html
As far as I know, he has repeatedly referred to the Covenant of Security and declared that this means he is not allowed to encourage or commit acts of terrorism in this country.
"British troops - effectively or not - are trying to deal with the threat of al-Qaeda."
What if you are trying to deal with an infestation of rats in your own house by burning down another's?
Should you continue with such a policy and continue to dismiss the protests of this homeowner as irrelevant and unimportant?
It would appear that national chauvinism prevents you from even considering for one moment that that there might be anything wrong with British foreign policy.
I am sure if Choudary were actually guilty or suspected of supporting terrorism against the British people he would have been imprisoned a long time ago.
To accuse me of supporting terrorism against the British people merely because I am against the war in Afghanistan and want Choudary's march in Wootton Bassett to take place is a ridiculous accusation and you know it.
Since you are not prepared to question the wisdom of invading Afghanistan and Iraq and cannot quite accept that Muslims too feel the same degree of anger and outrage over this war as you do over the 7/7 bombing - presumably because you think they are subhuman whose opinions do not matter, then I suppose you must feel it is absolutely right for British troops to stay in Afghanistan and kill as many Muslims as they can while they're there.
If that is your view, then I guess he is entitled to his that British troops in Iraq behaved like "cowards" and "butchers".
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23661850-britains-most-reviled-man-i-wear-that-badge-with-pride.do
We are talking about Afghanistan now anyway.
Kerri, I happen to agree with Choudary's strategy of maximum publicity. They could demonstrate in Westminster, but there is something really timetabled and soul-less about the such an event.
Why should the dead not be used as a warning to the living?
A warning not to die for nothing, or nothing more than the already discredited reputations of Bush, Blair and Brown?
"We urge you to embrace Islam and save yourselves and your family from the hellfire and not to believe the lies and distortions which the Western media and non-Islamic regimes would have you believe about Muslims and their true intentions"
Just one sentence from Choudary's 'open letter' reveals him to be a kind of Muslim Dave Spart.
Utter rubbish combined with the usual threats.
As I mentioned, Choudary backs people who promote terror in this country - people such as Abu Hamza and Omar Bakri Mohammed, who vowed in 2004 that Muslims would give the West "a 9/11 day after day after day".
He has since been deported.
The value of Choudary is that:
(a) he increases support for the BNP
(b) he actually makes the war in Afganistan seem worth fighting.
As Evelyn Waugh wrote in Men at Arms, 'the enemy was in view at last, huge and hateful'.
Whilst Choudary is more gobby and irritating than huge and hateful, the principle is essentially the same.
His presence in Wootten Bassett would be bound to increase the popularity of the war.
You ask: "Why should the dead not be used as a warning to the living?"
Why not indeed? Quite! That is exactly what happens whenever the bodies of fallen soldiers are ceremoniously lifted through the streets of Wootten Bassett.
Any further comment from Choudary - which in any case tends towards the Spartist and fatuous - is irrelevant.
Counter-productive too, I would argue.
Finally you seem fond of producing the discredited trio of Bush, Blair and Brown as joint instigators of the war.
Er, shouldn't that now be Bush, Blair, Brown and Obama who has, after all, just approved more troops for the conflict?
If there were riots during Choudary's march through Wootton Bassett, it would be a good thing, as far as I am concerned.
Riots would further discredit the government and discredit the war.
All who are against the war ought to support any action that discredits the government and discredits the war.
The trouble with you, Jeff, and so many other people is that you care more about showing hatred for Choudary than about preventing any more unnecessary sacrifices being made by British soldiers.
I have been suggesting again and again that the BNP should support Choudary's marc.
Nobody will get hurt because they wouldn't allow it to take place anyway, but honour will have been satisfied on both sides if you take the right line.
Saying you support Choudary's march is more newsworthy than saying you want to tear him from limb to limb, like the rest of the country.
Ultimately, it is all about publicity, is it not?
Getting the publicity without getting hurt, in other words.
I would love to march WITH him at Wootton Bassett in protest against British war crimes in Afghanistan from 1838 to the present day and ongoing. But, unfortunately, I can't get transport (least of all in the snow) and I fear it would be misunderstood in the Nationalist Movement and would affect my standing in it (if I've got any left, which I doubt). If we claim to be Nationalists and to be free in Our Own Country, then how on Earth can we possibly deny the Afghans the same right to be free in theirs and support the Brit Establishment's subservient, lickspittle attitude to their American paymasters? Why are British troops taking orders from an American General? In Lt Col George Washington's time, he took orders from British Generals, not the other way round. What has it got to do with NATO : the NORTH ATLANTIC Treaty Organisation: Afghanistan is not in the North Atlantic. We opposed the Red Army's invasion of Afgh 1979-1987, so why repeat their mistakes? And why put all the Muslims in the World against us for nothing. (All Peter Hitchens arguments).
David, I believe the moderate Muslims are not keen to stick their necks out denouncing the war because it is no skin off their noses if non-Muslim British soldiers get killed.
I am pretty sure most of them do not approve of the war and care less about the lives of the white proletariat who find themselves in the Armed Forces and obliged to prosecute an illegal war.
These so-called moderates simply prefer not to upset anyone and arouse the ire of those who would call for their expulsion and who are of the opinion that Muslims being Muslims should not make too much of a noise over the war if they don't want another nasty blast of Islamophobia.
The Pomp and Circumstance of Glorious War (as Othello called it)brings out the best in people, as well as the worst. But it is also a powerful instrument of historical change & economic & technological development.
There are plenty of other reasons for grief and anger (we all ... See Morehave to die and we all quarrel). These are normal human emotions. And they cause war, rather than being caused by it.
Women love losing their sons! They don't want them around the house eating, farting and taking up space after the age of 18. Many brothers & sisters are not particularly close; they squabble and fight from tots to teens, then quarrel over parents' inheritances. As for lovers; well love comes and goes.
Even if Johnny does come marching home again, his girl will have written him a "Dear John" letter by then and found someone else with more £££££. Women also love being war widows: the pension and inheritance may well be worth more than the divorce settlement she would have got, if she had gone to law. And enemy action saves lawyers' fees. Mind you, he would have had to pay those too, even if the IED didn't get him first, the divorce would've hit him just the same.
Post a Comment