Sunday, February 26, 2006

Quotes from The Second Mexican War By Lawrence Auster February 17, 2006

Kindly note that this piece should not be taken as me being against mexican or people of hispanic descent in any way.

"The Mexican invasion of the United States began decades ago as a spontaneous migration of ordinary Mexicans into the U.S. seeking economic opportunities. It has morphed into a campaign to occupy and gain power over our country—a project encouraged, abetted, and organized by the Mexican state and supported by the leading elements of Mexican society.

It is, in other words, war. War does not have to consist of armed conflict. War can consist of any hostile course of action undertaken by one country to weaken, harm, and dominate another country. Mexico is waging war on the U.S. through mass immigration illegal and legal, through the assertion of Mexican national claims over the U.S., and through the subversion of its laws and sovereignty, all having the common end of bringing the southwestern part of the U.S. under the control of the expanding Mexican nation, and of increasing Mexico’s political and cultural influence over the U.S. as a whole.

Cultural imperialism

We experience Mexico’s assault on our country incrementally—as a series of mini-crises, each of which calls forth ever-renewed debates and perhaps some tiny change of policy. Because it has been with us so long and has become part of the cultural and political air we breathe, it is hard for us to see the deep logic behind our “immigration problem.” Focused as we are on border incursions, border enforcement, illegal alien crime, guest worker proposals, changes of government in Mexico City, and other such transient problems and events—all of them framed by the media’s obfuscation of whether or not illegal immigration’s costs outweigh its benefits and by the maudlin script of “immigrant rights”—we don’t get the Big Picture: that the Mexican government is promoting and carrying out an attack on the United States.

Another reason we miss what’s happening is that our focus is on the immigrants as individuals. Thus our leaders talk about illegal immigrants as “good dads,” “hard working folks” seeking to better their lives and their family’s prospects. In fact, this is not about individual immigrants and their families, legal or illegal. It is about a great national migration, a nation of people moving into our nation’s land, in order to reproduce on it their own nation and people and push ours aside.

Thus, in orchestrating this war on America, the Mexican state is representing the desires of the Mexican people as a whole.

What are these desires?

(1) Political revanchism—to regain control of the territories Mexico lost to the U.S. in 1848, thus avenging themselves for the humiliations they feel they have suffered at our hands for the last century and a half;

(2) Cultural imperialism—to expand the Mexican culture and the Spanish language into North America; and especially

(3) Economic parasitism—to maintain and increase the flow of billions of dollars that Mexicans in the U.S. send back to their relatives at home every year, a major factor keeping the chronically troubled Mexican economy afloat and the corrupt Mexican political system cocooned in its status quo.

These motives are shared by the Mexican masses and the elites. According to a Zogby poll in 2002, 58 percent of the Mexican people believed the U.S. Southwest belongs to Mexico, and 57 percent believed that Mexicans have the right to enter the United States without U.S. permission. Only small minorities disagreed with these propositions.

Meanwhile, for Mexico’s opinion shapers, it is simply a truism that the great northern migration is a reconquista of lands belonging to Mexico, the righting of a great historic wrong. “A peaceful mass of people … carries out slowly and patiently an unstoppable invasion, the most important in human history” [emphasis added], wrote columnist Carlos Loret de Mola for Mexico City’s Excelsior newspaper in 1982.

You cannot give me a similar example of such a large migratory wave by an ant-like multitude, stubborn, unarmed, and carried on in the face of the most powerful and best-armed nation on earth.... [The migrant invasion] seems to be slowly returning [the southwestern United States] to the jurisdiction of Mexico without the firing of a single shot, nor requiring the least diplomatic action, by means of a steady, spontaneous, and uninterrupted occupation.

Similarly, the Mexican writer Elena Poniatowska told the Venezuelan journal El Imparcial on July 3rd, 2001:

The people of the poor, the lice-ridden and the cucarachas are advancing in the United States, a country that wants to speak Spanish because 33.4 million Hispanics impose their culture...Mexico is recovering the territories ceded to the United States with migratory tactics...[This phenomenon] fills me with jubilation, because the Hispanics can have a growing force between Patagonia and Alaska.

The Mexicans, as Poniatowska sees it, have changed from resentful losers—which was the way Octavio Paz saw them in his famous 1960 study, The Labyrinth of Solitude—into winners. What accounts for this change? Their expansion northward into the U.S., as the vanguard of a Hispanic conquest of all of North America—cultural imperialism and national vengeance combined in one great volkish movement.

Politicians echo the same aggressive sentiments. At an International Congress of the Spanish Language in Spain in October 2000, Vicente Fox, soon to become president of Mexico with the support of U.S. conservatives, spoke of the “millions of Mexicans in the United States, who in cities such as Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Miami or San Francisco, inject the vitality of the Spanish language and of their cultural expression.... To continue speaking Spanish in the United States is to hacer patria”—to do one’s patriotic duty. Fox was thus describing Mexican immigrants in the U.S., not as people who had left Mexico and still had some sentimental connections there, as all immigrants do, but as carriers of the national mission of the Mexican nation into and inside the United States.

At the same conference, the Mexican novelist Carlos Fuentes said: “In the face of the silent reconquista of the United States [emphasis added], we confront a new linguistic phenomenon,” by which he meant that Spanish was conquering English just as it conquered the Aztec language centuries ago. According to El Siglo, Fuentes received “an intense ovation.”

Government statements and policies

The Mexican invasion thus represents the ultimate self-realization of the Mexican people as they move onto a larger part of the world stage—namely the United States—than they have ever occupied before. But the migration, and the imperialism that celebrates it, do not in themselves constitute war. What makes this great national movement war is the Mexican government’s statements and actions about it, particularly with regard to the extraterritorial nature of the Mexican nation and its claims on the U.S. For years, Mexican presidents have routinely spoken of a Mexican nation that extends beyond that country’s northern border into American territory. President Ernesto Zedillo told a 1994 convention of the radical-left Mexican-American lobbying group, the National Council of La Raza, “You are Mexicans too, you just live in the United States.” One of Fox’s cabinet officers, Juan Hernandez, has declared: “The Mexican population is 100 million in Mexico and 23 million who live in the United States.” These are not off-the-cuff statements, but formal state policy. As Heather Mac Donald writes in her important article in the Fall 2005 City Journal:

Mexico’s five-year development plan in 1995 announced that the “Mexican nation extends beyond ... its border”—into the United States. Accordingly, the government would “strengthen solidarity programs with the Mexican communities abroad by emphasizing their Mexican roots, and supporting literacy programs in Spanish and the teaching of the history, values, and traditions of our country.”

Such solidarity not only keeps Mexican-Americans sending remittances back to the home country, it makes them willing instruments of the Mexican government. Fox’s national security adviser proposed the mobilization of Mexican-Americans as a tool of Mexican foreign policy, as reported by Allan Wall. The head of the Presidential Office for Mexicans Abroad said: “We are betting that the Mexican American population in the United States ... will think Mexico first.”

The Fifth Column

Once the Mexican people have been defined as a nation that transcends the physical borders of the Republic of Mexico, and once Mexican-Americans are defined as “Mexicans” who are to be represented by the Mexican government, claims of “Mexican” sovereignty and rights can be made on their behalf against the country in which they reside.

One such claim is to deny the authority of American law over them. Thus President Zedillo in 1997 denounced attempts by the United States to enforce its immigration laws, insisting that “we will not tolerate foreign forces dictating laws to Mexicans.” [Italics added.] The “Mexicans” to whom he was referring were, of course, residents and citizens of the U.S., living under U.S. law. By saying that U.S. law does not apply to them, Zedillo was denying America’s sovereign power over its own territory. He was saying something that the Mexican elite as a whole believe: that wherever Mexicans live (particularly the U.S. Southwest, which many Mexicans see as rightfully theirs) the Mexican nation has legitimate national interests. From this it follows that the normal operation of U.S. law on Mexicans living in the U.S. constitutes an “intolerable” attack on Mexican rights, which in turn justifies further Mexican aggression against America in the form of illegal border crossings, interference in the enforcement of U.S. laws, and just plain government to government obnoxiousness.

Employing this irredentist logic, President Fox refuses to call undocumented Mexicans in the U.S. “illegals.” He told radio host Sean Hannity in March 2002: “They are not illegals. They are people that come there to work, to look for a better opportunity.” But if people who have entered the U.S. illegally are not doing something illegal, then U.S. law itself has no legitimacy, at least over Mexican-Americans, and any operation of U.S. law upon them is aggression against the Mexican people.

Once we understand the cultural and national expansiveness that drives the Mexicans, the rest of their behavior falls into place. Consider Mexican Foreign Minister Jorge Castañeda’s non-negotiable demands—“It’s the whole enchilada or nothing”—that he issued in a speech in Phoenix, Arizona in 2001. America, said Castañeda (as recounted by Allan Wall), “had to legalize all Mexican illegal aliens, loosen its already lax border enforcement, establish a guest worker program (during an economic downturn) and exempt Mexican immigrants from U.S. visa quotas!” He also demanded that Mexicans living in the U.S. receive health care and in-state college tuition. As Castañeda summed it up in Tijuana a few days later, “We must obtain the greatest number of rights for the greatest number of Mexicans [i.e. in the U.S.] in the shortest time possible.” What this adds up to, comments Wall, is basically “the complete surrender of U.S. sovereignty over immigration policy.” And why not? As Castañeda had written in The Atlantic in 1995: “Some Americans ... dislike immigration, but there is very little they can do about it.”

Hitler pursued Anschluss, the joining together of the Germans in Austria with the Germans in Germany leading to the official annexation of Austria to Germany. The softer Mexican equivalent of this concept is acercamiento. The word means closer or warmer relations, yet it is also used in the sense of getting Mexican-Americans to act as a unified bloc to advance Mexico’s political interests inside the U.S., particularly in increasing immigration and weakening U.S. immigration law. Thus the Mexican government is using the Mexican U.S. population, including its radical elements, as a fifth column.

As reported in the November 23, 2002 Houston Post:

Mexico’s foreign minister, Jorge Castañeda, said his country would begin a “bottom-up campaign” to win U.S. public support for a proposal to legalize 3.5 million undocumented Mexican workers in the United States. Castañeda said Mexican officials will begin rallying unions, churches, universities and Mexican communities.... [Castañeda said:] “We are already giving instructions to our consulates that they begin propagating militant activities—if you will—in their communities.”

La Voz de Aztlan, the radical Mexican-American group that seeks to end U.S. “occupation” of the Southwest and form a new Mexican nation there, writes at its website:

One great hope that came out of the Zapatista March was that generated by the “alliance” that was forged by some of us in the Chicano/Mexicano Delegation and our brothers and sisters in Mexico. The delegation met with officials of the Partido Revolucionario Democratico (PRD) in Mexico City and discussed strategies that will increase our influence in the United States and further our collective efforts of “acercamiento.”

Mexico’s violations of our laws and sovereignty

Let us now consider some of the specific actions by which the Mexican government is carrying out the strategy outlined above:

- The Mexican government publishes a comic book-style booklet, Guía del Migrante Mexicano (Guide for the Mexican Migrant), on how to transgress the U.S. border safely (“Crossing the river can be very risky, especially if you cross alone and at night ... Heavy clothing grows heavier when wet and this makes it difficult to swim or float”) and avoid detection once in the U.S.

- As Heather Mac Donald puts it, Mexico backs up these written instructions with real-world resources for the collective assault on the border. An elite law enforcement team called Grupo Beta protects illegal migrants as they sneak into the U.S. from corrupt Mexican officials and criminals—essentially pitting two types of Mexican lawlessness against each other. Grupo Beta currently maintains aid stations for Mexicans crossing the desert. In April 2005, it worked with Mexican federal and Sonoran state police to help steer illegal aliens away from Arizona border spots patrolled by Minutemen border enforcement volunteers—demagogically denounced by President Vicente Fox as “migrant-hunting groups.”

- While the Mexican government sends police to protect illegal border crossers against criminals, rogue Mexican soldiers protecting drug smugglers have threatened U.S. Border Patrol agents, and even engaged in shootouts, as reported in the Washington Times in January 2006. Rep. Tom Tancredo says the activities of these renegade Mexican troops in support of drug traffickers amount to a “war” along the U.S.-Mexico border, and he has urged President Bush to deploy troops there.

- Meanwhile, sheriffs from Hudspeth County, Texas testified before the House Homeland Security Subcommittee on Investigations this month at a hearing titled “Armed and Dangerous: Confronting the Problem of Border Incursions.” They spoke of a dramatic increase in alien and drug smuggling. “The U.S./Mexico border is the weakest link and our national security is only as good as our weakest link,” said one sheriff. “Our border is under siege.” We need to understand that whether the Mexican government is behind the border incursions or is merely unable (or unwilling) to stop them, it ultimately doesn’t matter. As I said at the beginning, the Mexican war on America is supported by all segments of the Mexican society, even, apparently, the criminals. The situation is thus analogous to Muslim razzias or raids—irregular attacks short of outright invasion—used to soften a target country in anticipation of full scale military conquest. The outlaws and smugglers and the renegade soldiers may not be official agents of the Mexican government, yet they are serving its purposes by sowing mayhem along our southern border and demoralizing our population.

- A major role in Mexico’s revanchist war against America is played by the Mexican consulates in the U.S., reports Mac Donald. Now numbering 47 and increasing rapidly, they serve as the focal point of Mexico’s fifth column. While Mexico’s foreign ministry distributes the Guía del Migrante Mexicano inside Mexico, Mexican consulates, unbelievably, distribute the guide to Mexican illegals inside the U.S.

- After the U.S. became more concerned about illegal immigration following the 9/11 attack, the Mexican consulates were ordered to promote the matricula consular—a card that simply identifies the holder as a Mexican—as a way for illegals to obtain privileges that the U.S. usually reserves for legal residents. The consulates started aggressively lobbying American governmental officials and banks to accept the matriculas as valid IDs for driver’s licenses, checking accounts, mortgage lending, and other benefits.

- The consulates freely hand out the matricula to anyone who asks, not demanding proof that the person is legally in the U.S. Here is Mac Donald’s summary of the wildly improper role played by the consulates:

Disseminating information about how to evade a host country’s laws is not typical consular activity. Consulates exist to promote the commercial interests of their nations abroad and to help nationals if they have lost passports, gotten robbed, or fallen ill. If a national gets arrested, consular officials may visit him in jail, to ensure that his treatment meets minimum human rights standards. Consuls aren’t supposed to connive in breaking a host country’s laws or intervene in its internal affairs.

- As an example of the latter, the Mexican consulates automatically denounce, as “biased,” virtually all law enforcement activities against Mexican illegals inside the U.S. The Mexican authorities tolerate deportations of illegals if U.S. officials arrest them at the border and promptly send them back to the other side—whence they can try again the next day. But once an illegal is inside the U.S. and away from the border, he gains untouchable status in the eyes of Mexican consuls, and any U.S. law enforcement activity against him is seen as an abuse of his rights.

- The Mexican consulates actively campaign in U.S. elections on matters affecting illegal aliens. In November 2004, Arizona voters passed Proposition 200, which reaffirmed existing state law that requires proof of citizenship in order to vote and to receive welfare benefits. The Mexican consul general in Phoenix sent out press releases urging Hispanics to vote against it. After the law passed, Mexico’s foreign minister threatened to bring suit in international tribunals for this supposedly egregious human rights violation, and the Phoenix consulate supported the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund’s federal lawsuit against the proposition.

- The consulates also help spread Mexican culture. We are not speaking here of the traditional activity of embassies and consulates in representing their country’s culture in a friendly and educational way to the host country; we are speaking of consulates acting as agents of the Mexican state’s imperialistic agenda. Each of Mexico’s consulates in the U.S. has a mandate to introduce Mexican textbooks (that’s Mexican textbooks) into U.S. schools with significant Hispanic populations. The Mexican consulate in Los Angeles bestowed nearly 100,000 textbooks on 1,500 schools in the Los Angeles Unified School District this year alone.

- It has also been proposed that Mexicans in the U.S. vote in Mexican elections in designated electoral districts in the United States. Under this proposal, California, for example, might have seats in the Mexican Congress, specifically representing Mexicans residing in that state. The governing PAN party of President Fox has opposed this idea, not out of respect for U.S. sovereignty, but out of fear that most Mexicans in the U.S. would vote against the PAN. Meanwhile, another of Mexico’s three major parties, the leftist PRD, urges the designation of the entire United States as the sixth Mexican electoral district.

The follies of the victors

Throughout this article, I have spoken of Mexico’s revanchist campaign against the U.S. as though the Mexicans were carrying it out completely against our will. But as we are bitterly aware, this is not at all the case. Something has happened in America over the last 40 years that has not only opened us to the Mexican invasion, but has even invited it. From the refusal of many American cities to cooperate with the INS, to President Bush’s celebration of Mexican illegal aliens as the carriers of family values, to the Democratic Party’s insistence that all Mexican illegals in the U.S. be given instant amnesty and U.S. citizenship, it seems that America itself wants the Mexicans to invade and gain power in our country. Since we (or rather, some of us) have invited the Mexican invasion, does this mean we (or rather the rest of us) have no right oppose it?"

"To quote again from Jorge Castañeda’s 1995 Atlantic article:

Some Americans—undoubtedly more than before—dislike immigration, but there is very little they can do about it, and the consequences of trying to stop immigration would also certainly be more pernicious than any conceivable advantage. The United States should count its blessings: it has dodged instability on its borders since the Mexican Revolution, now nearly a century ago. The warnings from Mexico are loud and clear; this time it might be a good idea to heed them."

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

The most likely victim of a hate crime in the U.S. is a poor, young, white, single urban dweller according to report

Quote from: "'Hate crime' victims: Young, poor, white 210,000 targeted annually due to bias, statistics show" in WND:

"'Hate crime' victims: Young, poor, white 210,000 targeted annually due to bias, statistics show

Posted: February 22, 2006
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Joseph Farah
© 2006

WASHINGTON – The most likely victim of a hate crime in the U.S. is a poor, young, white, single urban dweller, according to an analysis of Justice Department statistics collected from between July 2000 and December 2003.

A November report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics detailing a study of 210,000 "hate crimes" a year during that period has gone virtually unreported by the U.S. press.

But it does contain some surprising numbers. While race is, by far, the No. 1 factor cited as the reason for hate crimes, blacks are slightly less likely to be victims and far more likely to be perpetrators, the statistics show.

As defined by the report, a collection of data compiled by the National Crime Victimization Survey and the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program, an ordinary crime becomes a hate crime when offenders choose a victim because of some characteristic – race, religion, ethnicity, religion or association – and provide evidence that hate prompted them to commit the crime.

The NCVS is a database of 77,600 nationally representative people interviewed every other year about their experience with crime, while the UCR data is based on law enforcement reports to the FBI.

About 56 percent of hate crimes were motivated, at least in part, by racial hatred, according to the study, and most were accompanied by violence.

While nine in 10,000 whites and nine in 10,000 Hispanics are victimized by hate crimes, only seven in 10,000 blacks are targets, according to the report.

"Generally, per capita rates of hate crime victimization do not appear to vary based upon victim's gender, race, ethnicity or educational attainment," says the report on all hate crimes reported by victims and police. "However, young people; those never married, separated or divorced; those with low incomes; and those living in urban areas did report experiencing hate crimes at higher rates."

In fact, those between the ages of 17 and 20 were far more likely to be victims than in any other age group – with 16 incidents per 10,000 people. Those never married, with 16 incidents per 10,000, or separated or divorced, with 26 incidents per 10,000, were also much more likely to be victims of hate crimes. Those with incomes less than $25,000 faced worse odds of victimization, 13 per 10,000, as well as those in urban areas, also 13 per 10,000.

The report says 38 percent of all those reporting hate crimes said the attacker was black, and in 90 percent of those cases, the victim believed the offender's motive was racial. In incidents involving white attackers, only 30 percent attribute the hate crime to race, while 20 percent attributed it to ethnicity.

The report says 40 percent of white hate crime victims were attacked by blacks, adding, "The small number of black hate crime victims precludes analysis of the race of persons who victimized them."

The report by the Justice Department is the one most often cited by hate-crime experts as depicting the true national story. It shows the number of incidents is more than 15 times higher than FBI statistics alone reflect.

While the annual FBI report, compiled since 1992, is based on voluntary reports from law enforcement agencies around the country, the new report, "Hate Crimes Reported by Victims and Police," found an average annual total of more than 200,000.

"It's an astounding report," said Jack Levin, a leading hate crime expert at Northeastern University. "It's not necessarily completely accurate, but I would trust these data before I trusted the voluntary law enforcement reports to the FBI."

According to the new report, hate crimes involve violence far more often than other crimes. The data show 84 percent of hate crimes were violent, meaning they involved a sexual attack, robbery, assault or murder. By contrast, just 23 percent of non-hate crimes involved violence. Other studies have suggested that hate-motivated violence is more extreme than other violence."

Monday, February 20, 2006

23/10/2005: Secretly taken poll reveals 45 percent of Iraqis support attacks on British and American troops

From The Telegraph: title: Secret MoD poll: Iraqis support attacks on British troops
by Sean Rayment, Defence Correspondent (Filed: 23/10/2005):

"The survey was conducted by an Iraqi university research team that, for security reasons, was not told the data it compiled would be used by coalition forces. It reveals:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces."

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Poll: 58% of British Muslims want people who criticise Islam to be prosecuted and only 69 percent believes it`s right to inform on terrorists

From ( Published: 3rd January 2005, title: War torpedoes Labour’s Muslim backing:

"The poll was conducted by the Guardian/ICM organisations."

"The special poll based on a survey of 500 British Muslims found that a clear majority want Islamic law introduced into this country in civil cases relating to their own community. Some 61 per cent wanted Islamic courts - operating on sharia principles – "so long as the penalties did not contravene British law". A major part of civil cases in this country deal with family disputes such as divorce, custody and inheritance.
The poll also found a high level of religious observance with just over half saying they pray five times a day, every day - although women are shown to be more devout than men. The poll reveals that 88 per cent want to see schools and workplaces in Britain accommodating Muslim prayer times as part of their normal working day."

"...86 per cent saying they believe it is unacceptable for religious or political groups to use violence for political ends. A further 69 per cent believe it is right that they should inform on people who are involved or connected with terrorist activities."

"President Bush and Tony Blair have said that the war on terror is not a war against Islam. Do you agree or disagree? March 2004 / Now
Agree 20% 14%
Disagree 68% 80%
Don't know 12% 6%"

In this context also see these previous posts regarding other polls of British Muslims:

Poll reveals 40 percent of British Muslims want sharia law in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain

More than a quarter of 18- to 24-year-old British muslims said they agreed with the views of jailed hate preacher Abu Hamza

UK poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a "legitimate target"

British Opinion Surveys From an Islamist Hell

Polls show support for London terrorists among British Muslims

Poll reveals 40 percent of British Muslims want sharia law in predominantly Muslim areas of Britain

From The Telegraph, Poll reveals 40pc of Muslims want sharia law in UK By Patrick Hennessy and Melissa Kite (Filed: 19/02/2006):

"Four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced into parts of the country, a survey reveals today."

"The most startling finding is the high level of support for applying sharia law in "predom-inantly Muslim" areas of Britain."

"Forty per cent of the British Muslims surveyed said they backed introducing sharia in parts of Britain, while 41 per cent opposed it."

"50pc said interracial relations were worsening
Overall, the findings depict a Muslim community becoming more radical and feeling more alienated from mainstream society, even though 91 per cent still say they feel loyal to Britain."

"Twenty per cent felt sympathy with the July 7 bombers' motives, and 75 per cent did not. One per cent felt the attacks were "right"."

"Half of the 500 people surveyed said relations between white Britons and Muslims were getting worse. Only just over half thought the conviction of the cleric Abu Hamza for incitement to murder and race hatred was fair."

The poll of 500 people was conducted for The Sunday Telegraph.

In this context also see the following previous posts on this blog regarding previous polls of British Muslims:

More than a quarter of 18- to 24-year-old British muslims said they agreed with the views of jailed hate preacher Abu Hamza

UK poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a "legitimate target"

British Opinion Surveys From an Islamist Hell

Polls show support for London terrorists among British Muslims

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

Americans Favor Israel

From Israel National News:

By Hillel Fendel

A Gallup poll shows that Americans are very pessimistic about Middle East peace, more sympathetic to Israel, and less favorable to the PA. Sympathy towards Israel increases with news-awareness.

The annual Gallup Poll on World Affairs was conducted on a random sampling of 1,002 adults on Feb. 6-9, some two weeks after the Hamas terrorist organization won power in the Palestinian Authority (PA). Some findings:

A plurality of Americans - 44% - believe the United States should conduct diplomatic relations with the PA only if Hamas recognizes Israel. Half that number believe the United States should deal with the PA regardless of its stance toward Israel, and one-quarter of Americans say the United States should not conduct any relations with the PA at all.

Ignorance on the Middle East conflict does not work to Israel's advantage, according to Gallup. Americans who say they follow news about world affairs "very closely" are more likely to sympathize with the Israelis (66%) than Americans who follow foreign news only somewhat closely (59%) or who do not follow it closely (52%).

Americans are much less favorable to financial assistance to the PA than they are towards a diplomatic relationship. A majority, 57%, oppose giving any financial aid to the Palestinian Authority while Hamas is in power, while 30% would give aid if the PA recognizes Israel. Just 5% favor giving aid even if the PA does not recognize Israel.

Gallup also asked whether American sympathies lie more with the Israelis or with the Arabs of the Palestinian Authority. The numbers this year: 59% are with Israel, and only 15% with the PA. These figures represent one of the most lopsided margins in favor of the Israelis ever recorded by Gallup.

When not compared with each other, Israel received a "favorable" rating from 68% of Americans, and the PA received the same from 11%. Last year at this time, Israel received 69% approval, and the PA - 27%. This year's readings are the most negative Gallup has found since it began asking about the Palestinian Authority in 2000, while last year's were the most positive.

The poll found that Republicans (77%) are significantly more likely to sympathize with the Israelis than are Democrats (50%) or independents (50%).

By a 2-1 margin, Americans now say there will never come a time when Israel and the Arab nations will live in peace. The 65% to 32% split compares with a roughly 50-50 split last year.

Quotes from "On the net: an open university for jihad" The Sydney Morning Herald

"On the net: an open university for jihad" The Sydney Morning Herald February 14, 2006, Paul McGeough:

"ABU Baraq and Abu Abdullah are insurgency foot soldiers on the front line in Iraq. But they are also becoming cyber warriors in a jihad. We meet in a private home in the suburbs of Baghdad. The fighters sit on an ornate sofa, explaining their cell leader's reluctant embrace of the insurgency's most sophisticated weapon - a powerful web-driven media campaign.

"Did you see us on Al-Jazeera two nights ago?" asks Abu Baraq. "We attacked an American Humvee.""

"But the recordings are not just for TV. In the 4½ years since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the US, there has been a global explosion in terrorism-associated websites, message boards and chat rooms, enabling terrorists and their sympathisers to bypass the filters of the mass media and to deliver their message direct to target audiences - unqualified and unadulterated.

Rita Katz, the director of the SITE (Search for International Terrorist Entities) Institute in Washington, says new websites pop up so fast that it is no longer possible to count them.

Loaded as much from caves as cafes around the world, these websites have become what Israeli analyst Reuven Paz describes as "an open university for jihad". They are used to inform, instruct and indoctrinate, which is why Paz is troubled by a new shift as the terrorists' cyber campaign goes multilingual. "Just two or three weeks ago about 150 announcements by al-Qaeda in Iraq were translated into French and now they are popping up more frequently in English and Italian too," he says.

In the aftermath of September 11, analysts were fascinated by Osama bin Laden's resort to satellite phones and his televised messages purportedly from a cave to the world. But the media operation pioneered by his pointsman in Iraq, Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi, makes bin Laden's communications effort look positively antiquated."

"But Zarqawi, remembered as a dim-witted thug by fellow inmates in a Jordanian prison in the 1990s, now moves hour-long videos of combat and diatribes on the web with a choice of download options; he posts webcasts and publishes a monthly internet magazine; and he issues as many as a dozen statements a day on the course of the war.

Zarqawi launched himself on the web with a chilling spectacle in May 2004 when he posted a weblink to a grotesque recording of himself using a butcher's knife to decapitate American hostage Nicholas Berg. Pressure on the link was so great that internet servers froze from Indonesia to the US, says The Washington Post."

"Publications like the al-Qaeda Encyclopedia of Jihad can be accessed without the risk of furtive border crossings, mosque or teahouse meetings that might be under surveillance."

"As an example, she cites visiting an interactive site on bomb-making recently where anyone can enter the chat room with a problem or a solution: "A man says, 'I have a problem making the remote trigger work - what do I do,' and he is immediately told precisely what to do.""

Quotes from "Focus: How liberal Britain let hate flourish" and "Where was the safe haven for terrorists? Here" (The Sunday Times & The Telegraph)

"Focus: How liberal Britain let hate flourish" The Sunday Times, February 12, 2006 by Richard Woods and David Leppard:

"WHEN Rachid Salama, a young Algerian, found himself homeless in London, salvation lay in a large mosque dominating a street corner in north London.
“The mosque was huge, clean and warm. Apart from the heavies on the door glaring and flashing their Afghanistan scars, everybody was extremely friendly and welcoming,” he said last week.

“Then I discovered how my brothers passed the day. Many were on benefits or living off charity so they could hang about discussing jihad all day. Whenever we were not praying, we were taken to watch TV. There were endless videos of mujaheddin activity around the globe.

“Jihadist nasheeds (songs) were played in the background, with medieval-style voice harmonies and deeply stirring lyrics about how brave mujhads are suffering for Allah and dying in order to defend Muslim lands. They sometimes climaxed with a question — are you going to stand by and watch Muslim civilians killed? “The atmosphere was intense. Any slight dissent was stamped on so quickly and aggressively that I realised that the best thing to do was nod and say ‘Inshallah’ with the rest of my brothers.”"

"The Algerian was never gulled by the talk of jihad and left the mosque to find work. But he, like other moderates, had failed to counter the extremism.

When Hamza was convicted of inciting his followers to murder non-Muslims last week, it became clear that the British authorities had also failed to counter the extremism — although they were only too well aware of what was going on."

"Unlike previous preachers who had usually spoken Pakistani or Indian dialects, Hamza gave his sermons in Arabic and English. He electrified his audiences. In May 1998 after the mosque had not filed any accounts for five years, the Charity Commission was called in to investigate. Hamza and his thugs scared off people with threats of violence.

“When I challenged Hamza over this,” said the former trustee, “he told me, ‘If you want a fight, I’ll give you a fight’.” A member of another mosque who confronted Hamza was also threatened.

The British authorities were outplayed as well. By the end of the 1990s British intelligence services were well aware of what was happening inside the mosque because one of Hamza’s audience was their agent. From 1999 Reda Hassaine, an Algerian journalist, was paid £300 a month by MI5 to spy on Hamza. Over 15 months he reported how Hamza repeatedly called for the murder of westerners and for holy war against all those opposed to Islam."

“He would sit down with boys as young as 10 in small groups and preach jihad to them,” said Hassaine. “He would talk to them about death, the war and going to paradise. He would tell them they had a duty to fight for Allah and that they had to use a sword and they had to kill in the name of Allah and they had to die.”

At the same time Hassaine was regularly reporting back to his MI5 handler, whom he knew as “Steve”.

“I told them Hamza was brainwashing people and sending them to Al-Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan, that he was preaching jihad and murder and that he was involved in the provision of false passports. I told them he was a chief terrorist.”

His MI5 handler did not appear unduly worried: he told Hassaine that MI5 thought Hamza was a harmless “clown”. Yet there was hard evidence that Hamza was far from a clown: in December 1998 British intelligence intercepted telephone calls between terrorists who kidnapped 16 western tourists in Yemen and a satellite phone linked to Hamza. Three British tourists were killed during an attempt to rescue them.

Yesterday Laurence Whitehouse, whose wife Margaret died in the Yemen kidnapping, demanded to be told how much British officials had known about Hamza’s involvement and why they had not acted against him earlier. He said the view that “as long as we have got him (Hamza) under our surveillance he will be okay” now seems to have been “naive at best”.

Was there an unwillingness to confront Hamza and other fanatics for fear of offending the wider Muslim community? The idea that it was preferable to have radical groups such as Al-Muhajiroun based here rather than plotting elsewhere had been widespread in Whitehall since the 1980s.

It had led to some commentators dubbing the capital “Londonistan” and to complaints from other governments, particularly France.

Certainly the British government was not outspoken.

When one MP raised concerns in parliament in May 2000 that UK nationals were being trained for jihad, Jack Straw, then home secretary, simply replied that it was a “matter for the police”.

Last week David Blunkett, who succeeded Straw as home secretary, blamed the police, MI5 and other officials for being reluctant to take on Hamza. “There was deep reluctance to act on the information coming out of Abu Hamza’s own mouth,” wrote Blunkett in a newspaper column. “Some in the police and security services did not want to believe how serious it all was.”

The remarks astonished senior police officers. On Friday they said they could not recall Blunkett ever saying that the police were not taking it seriously enough.

“I don’t know where he is getting it from, quite frankly. It’s absolute s***,” said one senior officer who was involved at the time. “I think Eliza (Manningham-Buller, head of MI5) would vouch for that.”

Blunkett made little mention of Hamza in the Commons and did not condemn him outright.

Instead, Islamic radicalism was quietly building just as political correctness over ethnic and religious minorities was marching ahead.

The authorities were wary of offending Muslim sensibilities, even in the case of Hamza. When police did finally raid the Finsbury Park mosque they treated the hotbed of terrorism with utmost respect.

“Every precaution was taken to avoid hurting Muslim sensibilities,” Lord Stevens, the former Metropolitan police commissioner, wrote in his autobiography. “All police officers who were to enter the mosque wore overshoes and headgear, and the raiding party included Muslim officers to handle copies of the Koran.”

Hamza had shown no such courtesy in his public rants. Instead he had described Britain as a “toilet” and urged his followers to turn it into an Islamic state. He had urged them to “bleed the enemies of Allah” and to “stab them here and there”."

"Where was the safe haven for terrorists? Here" The Telegraph 12/02/2006:

"In the wake of the terrible terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Britain drafted UN resolution 1373 which called on all governments to "Deny safe haven to those who finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts, or who provide safe havens; and to prevent those who finance, plan, facilitate or commit terrorist acts from using their respective territories for those purposes against other states."

That elementary measure was also a piece of blatant hypocrisy from the British government. For at least a decade, and possibly much longer, it had been covert British policy to provide, in Britain, a safe haven for radical Muslim terrorists to "finance, plan, support or commit terrorist acts".

That is why Abu Hamza - who was finally convicted of incitement to murder last week on the basis of evidence most of which was at least seven years old - was allowed to operate for so long from his mosque in Finsbury Park. It is also why the British government consistently refused requests to extradite known terrorists, not just from Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the Yemen and Jordan, but also from our neighbours in France. To the understandable fury of the French and many of the governments in the Middle East, Britain knowingly haboured and protected some of the most dangerous Islamic fundamentalists in the world.

To give just three examples: the plots to plant bombs on the Paris Metro in the 1980s and 1990s were hatched in London; so was the assassination of General Massoud in Afghanistan, days before the 9/11 outrages; and so was the kidnapping of Western tourists in Yemen. The government and security services knew what was happening: they were frequently alerted by pleas for action by increasingly desperate foreign governments. But they chose to allow the fanatics to continue their deadly activities.

It is difficult to understand the thinking behind this transparently self-destructive policy. The idea seems to have been that if we left Islamic fanatics free to plot terrorism here, they would reciprocate by not blowing up people in Britain. The short-sighted stupidity of that policy was definitively demonstrated by the deaths of more than 50 people on July 7 last year.

MI5 must bear the brunt of the blame for it. Constitutionally, the Director General (DG) of MI5 has the power to determine who counts as a threat to British interests: the DG cannot be ordered by the Prime Minister to consider a particular group or individual a threat. During the 1990s, the then DG decided that Islamic fundamentalists plotting terrorism in London and other British cities were not a real threat to Britain. MI5 wound down its "international terrorism" desk, on the grounds that Islamic terrorists in Britain were considered a threat only to other countries - and it was no concern of ours if they exploded bombs in foreign cities.

The resulting lack of intelligence on the activities of Islamic radicals meant that there was insufficient evidence to bring prosecutions. When the police, acting independently, began to realise the alarming nature of what some of the fanatics, Abu Hamza included, were doing, the Crown Prosecution Service insisted that there was "no realistic chance of conviction"."

Monday, February 13, 2006

More than a quarter of 18- to 24-year-old British muslims said they agreed with the views of jailed hate preacher Abu Hamza

From the IRIS blog:

More than a quarter of 18- to 24-year-old British muslims said they agreed with the views of jailed hate preacher Abu Hamza.

46% believe "the Jewish community in Britain is in league with the Freemasons to control the media and politics".

In my previous post regarding this poll I posted for instance that two fifths (37 per cent) believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”. . That post can be found here.

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Poll regarding support for Sharia in Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon

From Jihad Watch:

Robert Spencer:

"Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: Martin Kramer has kindly alerted me to this illuminating table, showing how widespread is support for the idea that "Sharia should be the only source of legislation" -- which is, of course, the goal of jihadists worldwide."

Martin Kramer:

"Asked whether Shari'a should be the only source of legislation, one of the sources of legislation, or not be a source of legislation, most Muslims believed it should at least be a source of legislation. Support was particularly strong in Jordan, Palestine, and Egypt, where approximately two-thirds of Muslim respondents stated that the Shari'a must be the only source of legislation; while the remaining third believed that it must be "one of the sources of legislation." By comparison, in Lebanon and Syria, a majority (nearly two thirds in Lebanon and just over half in Syria) favored the view that Shari'a must be one of the sources of legislation."

"Even more remarkable, responses didn't vary with level of education: "Pooled data from Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon, and Egypt indicate that 58% of respondents with low education, 59% of those with moderate education, and 56% with higher education believe that Shari'a must be the only source of legislation in their countries.""

"The Center for Strategic Studies at the University of Jordan in Amman published the results a year ago, under the title: "Revisiting the Arab Street: Research from Within.""

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

UK poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a "legitimate target"

From Jihad Watch:

"UK poll: 37% of Muslims in Britain think British Jews are a "legitimate target"

Robert Spencer:

"And those are just the ones fool enough to admit to the pollster what they were thinking. Tiny Minority of Extremists Update: "Poll shows voters believe press is right not to publish cartoons," from the TimesOnline, with thanks to Interested:

Nearly two fifths (37 per cent) believe that the Jewish community in Britain is a legitimate target “as part of the ongoing struggle for justice in the Middle East”. Moreover, only 52 per cent think that the state of Israel has the right to exist, with 30 per cent disagreeing, a big minority. One in six of all Muslims questioned thinks suicide bombings can sometimes be justified in Israel, though many fewer (7 per cent) say the same about Britain. This is broadly comparable to the number justifying suicide attacks in ICM and YouGov polls of British Muslims after the July 7 attacks."

"However, according to Populus, 12 per cent of 18 to 24-year-old Muslims believe that suicide bombings can be justified here, and 21 per cent in Israel. A fifth of all Muslims, and a quarter of men, say suicide attacks against the military can be justified, though only 7 per cent say this about civilians."

"A majority regard the Jewish community and its links to Israel with suspicion. More than half both think that it is right to boycott Holocaust Memorial Day and believe that the Jewish community has no interest in the plight of the Palestinians and has too much influence over British foreign policy."

"Populus was commissioned by a coalition of Jewish community groups to undertake a poll of 500 British Muslims between December 9 and 19 (of whom 30 per cent were in London and 55 per cent were aged between 18 and 34). The results have now been made available to The Times."

In this context I furthermore want to re-post three posts that I have previously posted on this blog:

British Opinion Surveys From an Islamist Hell

By Daniel Pipes | July 25, 2005

Estimating how many potential terrorists reside in one’s country is a highly inexact business, but there’s a striking correlation between a British government report recently leaked to London’s Times a new opinion survey commissioned by the Daily Telegraph.

Drawing on unidentified “intelligence,” the government report (analyzed by me at “The Next London Bombing”) finds as many as 16,000 “British Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activity.”

Then, using standard survey research methods, the reputable YouGov polling firm interviewed 526 Muslim adults across Great Britain online during July 15-22, weighing the data to reflect the British Muslim population’s age gender, and country of origin. The survey found that 1 percent of them, or “about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence” in the effort to bring an end to “decadent and immoral” Western society.

Should their ranks really be so thick, such a huge number of potential terrorists could cause for Britain an unprecedented security crisis, with all the attendant economic, social, political, and cultural ramifications one can imagine.

The YouGov survey contains many other statistics that should spark the interest, if not shock, of Britons and other Westerners.

· Muslims who see the 7/7 bombing attacks in London as justified on balance: 6 percent.

· Who feel sympathy for the “feelings and motives” of those who carried out the 7/7 attacks: 24 percent.

· Understand “why some people behave in that way”: 56 percent.

· Disagree with Tony Blair’s description of the ideology of the London bombers as “perverted and poisonous”: 26 percent.

· Feel not loyal towards Britain: 16 percent.

· Agree that “Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end”: 32 percent willing to use non-violent means and (as noted above) 1 percent willing to use violence “if necessary.” Just 56 percent of Muslims agree with the statement that “Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end.”

· Agree that “British political leaders don’t mean it when they talk about equality. They regard the lives of white British people as more valuable than the lives of British Muslims”: 52 percent.

· Dismiss political party leaders as insincere when saying “they respect Islam and want to co-operate with Britain’s Muslim communities”: 50 percent.

· Doubt that anyone charged with and tried for the 7/7 attacks would receive a fair trial: 44 percent.

· Would not inform about a Muslim religious leader “trying to ‘radicalise’ young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West”: 10 percent.

· Do not think people have a duty to go to the police if they “see something in the community that makes them feel suspicious”: 14 percent.

· Believe other Muslims would be reluctant to go to the police “about anything they see that makes them suspicious”: 41 percent.

· Would inform the police if they believed that knew about the possible planning of a terrorist attack: 73 percent. (In this case, the Daily Telegraph did not make available the negative percentage.)

Another opinion poll, this one commissioned by Sky News and carried out by Communicate Research (which interviewed 462 UK-based Muslims by telephone) found similar results:

· Muslims who agree with what the London suicide bombers did: 2 percent.

· Who believe there is a Koranic justification for the bombings: 5 percent.

· Disagree with the statement that “Muslim clerics who preach violence against the West are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion”: 46 percent.

· Think of themselves as Muslim first and British second: 46 percent. Another 42 percent do not differentiate between the identities. A mere 12 percent see themselves as British first and Muslim second.


(1) It is hard to say which is the most alarming of these many worrisome statistics, but two stand out. That less than three-quarters of Muslims in Britain indicate they would tell the police about an impending terrorist attack raises grave doubts about the Blair government’s tactic of getting Muslims to police their own community. That one-third of Muslims do not accept British society and want to end it, presumably to pave the way for an Islamic order, casts comparable doubts on Britain’s much-vaunted multicultural ideal.

(2) Even the Telegraph’s interpreter of its survey, Professor Anthony King of Essex University, feels compelled to sugar the results, calling them “at once reassuring and disturbing, in some ways even alarming,” whatever that means. In several specific instances, he turns hair-raising statistics into cheerful ones (that 73 percent would warn of an impending terrorist attack he deems “impressive”). The newspaper’s and the professor’s panglossian attitude makes one wonder what might wake the British to the Islamist hell growing in their midst.

Mr. Pipes ( is director of the Middle East Forum and author of Miniatures (Transaction Publishers).

Polls show support for London terrorists among British Muslims

July 23, 2005
From: AAP
A new poll says about a quarter of British Muslims sympathise with the motives of the London bombers, if not their methods.

And the survey in London's Daily Telegraph shows one-third of British Muslims believe Western society is immoral.
The poll asked Muslims if they felt the July the 7th suicide attacks in which 56 peopled died were justified, and six per cent said they were.

71 per cent said they weren't justified at all, and 11 per cent said they weren't justified on balance.

But asked whether they had sympathy with the feelings and motives of the four British Muslim bombers, 13 per cent said they had a lot of sympathy and another 11 per cent had a little.

A similar poll for The Sun newspaper showed 91 per cent of the Muslim respondents didn't feel the suicide bombings were justified by the Islamic holy book, the Koran.

Quote from "Where next?" by Zachary Shore in the Internationl Herald Tribune

"Most disturbing, some surveys find that the younger generation of Turkish Germans express surprising hostility toward Europe and the West. In one study, the sociologist Wilhelm Heitmeyer and his colleagues at the University of Bielefeld found that almost one-third of those polled agreed that Islam must become the state religion in every country.

Even though they live in Europe, 56 percent declared that they should not adapt too much to Western ways, but should live by Islam. More than a third insisted that if it serves the Islamic community, they are ready to use violence against nonbelievers. Almost 40 percent said that Zionism, the European Union and the United States threaten Islam."

"Zachary Shore is a fellow at the Institute of Interna- tional Studies, University of California, Berkeley. His book, ''Bigots and bin Ladens: The Challenge to Muslim Europe,'' will be published next year."

(From Where next? Zachary Shore International Herald Tribune Friday, July 15, 2005)

Friday, February 03, 2006

US State Department Condemns Jyllands Posten Muhammed Cartoons

From Reuters:

"These cartoons are indeed offensive to the belief of Muslims," State Department spokesman Kurtis Cooper said in answer to a question. "We all fully recognize and respect freedom of the press and expression but it must be coupled with press responsibility. Inciting religious or ethnic hatreds in this manner is not acceptable."

"We call for tolerance and respect for all communities for their religious beliefs and practices," he added."

As stated previously on this blog I published two of the cartoons as a way of fighting against the global Jihad. Here`s the link to that post.