Dare to Speak: Islam vs Free Democracy and Free Enterprise (II)
Please read Part I first.
The House of Islam’s Relationships with non-Islamic Nations
With regard to Islam, the U.K. seems to be repeating a bit of history it may rather forget: the years leading up to World War II. While the West’s conflict with Islamic terrorism is more complex than that cataclysmic battle between nations, the parallels are striking:
The full scope of Nazism’s threat was not appreciated by the British public, which, in the bloody aftermath of World War I, sought to avoid another conflict at all costs.
With their policy of appeasement, Britain stood by as Hitler expanded his reign into Austria and Czechoslovakia. Neville Chamberlain even condoned these actions through his participation in the 1938 Munich Conference, from which he returned declaring: “My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honour. I believe it is peace for our time.” 
In the spirit of open-mindedness, Britain legitimized Nazi Germany, as well as Hitler’s views on Arian supremacy.
In fact, sympathy for Hitler went as high as the ruler of Britain itself, in the form of King Edward VIII. In 1936, Edward abdicated the British throne to marry Bessie Wallis Warfield, an American divorcee. Shortly thereafter, the newlywed couple visited Chancellor Hitler, in 1937. If fortune had not been so kind as to see Edward renounce the throne, Hitler may have been far more successful with his campaigns of hate.
At this point, it is important to note that Britain was not the only “civilized nation” with native apologists for Hitler. Europe as a whole offered him unwitting support in numerous ways. For example, the Olympic Committee of those days allowed the 1936 Olympics to take place in Berlin.
In the United States, Hitler had none other than Henry Ford and Charles Lindbergh as advocates. In fact, Ford was so supportive that in July 1938, on his seventy-fifth birthday, he flew to Germany so that Hitler could award him the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle.  Charles Lindbergh also flew to Germany in 1938 for an award, the Service Cross of the German Eagle, which he received from Hermann Goering. Lindbergh later became spokesman for the America First Committee, which opposed U.S. involvement in World War II.
From a sense of guilt, Britain joined the rest of Europe in legitimizing Hitler’s outrage over the settlement of WWI, thereby disabling its ability to stand up to him.
While Imperial Germany did not start World War I, it was certainly finished by it. After several years of relative success in battle, Germany collapsed from within. It was crippled by a general strike, which then-Corporal Hitler blamed on the Jews. This strike was soon followed by a revolt against Kaiser Wilhelm, who fled for his life to the Netherlands.
The Treaty of Versailles crippled Germany economically and humiliated the German people. It carved away vast German territories, stripped it of its military, and weighed it down with massive war reparations. German rage at this treatment, together with Germany’s inept form of democracy called the Weimar Republic, led to Hitler’s rise. His message of vengeance, which he called redemption and justice, resonated with the German people, and produced a nation determined to destroy every country and people that had humiliated it.
Britain, together with the rest of Europe, saw Germany’s rage and backpedaled on the harsh terms of Versailles. They allowed Germany to violate those terms by first rearming itself and then reclaiming lost territories. They did not realize that their appeasement policies would be interpreted as weakness, and would encourage more aggression.
Britain, along with the rest of Europe, continued to seek diplomatic solutions long after it was clear that diplomacy was a euphemism for capitulation.
Immediately after his accession to the Chancellorship in 1933, Hitler began to dismantle the Treaty of Versailles, beginning with German rearmament. This brought him the support of many industrialists, who stood to profit from weapons production. With his power base secure, Hitler began to implement his dark vision with lightning speed:
1933: Dachau concentration camp built and then used to help eliminate opposing political parties.
1933: First Nazi book-burnings.
1933: Withdrawal from the League of Nations.
1934: “The Night of Long Knives,” during which a wide assortment of political rivals within the Nazi party were assassinated.
1935: Saarland reclaimed by Germany.
1935: Secretly developed Luftwaffe (Air Force) announced, in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.
In response to these aggressive actions, Britain’s Prime Minister Stanly Baldwin, and Foreign Minister Samuel Hoare, chose to work with Hitler rather than confront him. They and Hitler signed the Anglo-German Naval Agreement, which allowed the German navy parity at 35% of the British Navy. Hitler then instituted the Nuremberg Laws, which, among other things, defined Jewishness along racial terms rather than religion. He then made it a crime for Jews to marry Aryans, raise the German flag, and join the German military. He also rescinded their right to vote.
In 1936, the Nuremberg Laws were supplemented by prohibitions against Jews working in professional jobs. In March of that year, Hitler also masterminded Germany’s reoccupation of the Rhineland, which he was able to celebrate a few months later at the Summer Olympic Games hosted in Berlin.
During this entire period, Hitler managed to soothe European alarm with words of peace, claiming a simple desire for German parity with other European nations. For example, on May 21, 1935, he went so far as to say, in a major political speech: 
The blood shed on the European continent in the course of the last three hundred years bears no proportion to the national result of the events. In the end, France had remained France, Germany Germany, Poland Poland, and Italy Italy. What dynastic egotism, political passion, and patriotic blindness have attained in the way of apparently far-reaching political changes by shedding rivers of blood has, as regards national feeling, done no more than touched the skin of nations. It has not substantially altered their fundamental characters. If these states had applied merely a fraction of their sacrifices to wiser purposes, the success would certainly have been greater and more permanent.
Despite Hitler’s overt hostilities, these words were all Britain and other European powers needed to hear, because it was what they wanted to hear. Unfortunately, Hitler’s words of assurance corresponded in no way with his actions.
As the nations of Europe watched with trepidation, Hitler became even bolder. In 1938, like a chess master, he annexed Austria in a diplomatic coup. A telling description of the times comes from an account of Hitler’s rise found in The History Place: 
Hitler knew that civilized men such as Schuschnigg [the Chancellor of Austria], and those who followed, would readily compromise to prevent the loss of life. They would all learn too late that Hitler did not value life and that war was his ultimate goal.
In his build-up to the Austrian coup, Hitler knew how to play the victim, portraying the Austrian Nazis as a persecuted minority. For example, on February 20, 1938, shortly after his visit from the former British King Edward VIII and his new wife, Hitler declared that it was “intolerable for a self-conscious world power [Germany] to know that at its side are co-racials who are subjected to continuous suffering because of their sympathy and unity with the whole German race and ideology.” Austrian Germans responded by taking to the streets and wreaking chaos upon the embattled Austrian government.
A few months after annexing Austria, Hitler turned his sights on Czechoslovakia, employing the same “victim” gambit to stir up political and social unrest among the German Czechoslovakians. Then, through a daring series of maneuvers, which climaxed with the September 30 Munich Agreement, he intimidated Britain and France into letting him annex Czechoslovakia’s Sudetenland militarily. Britain and France signed this agreement without even consulting the Czech government. The twin results of this settlement were Chamberlain’s hopeful “Peace for our time” speech and Hitler’s complete contempt for Britain and France. During this time, Winston Churchill, who had been sounding alarms about Hitler for years, continued to be ignored.
While Hitler was negotiating with Britain and France, he managed to save some quality time for Henry Ford, to award Ford with the Grand Cross of the Supreme Order of the German Eagle as a birthday gift.
From Sudetenland, Hitler continued his expansionist policies with utter disregard for the supposed allies of the nations he invaded. His next victim was Poland, in 1939.
Britain could not muster the will to respond to Germany until directly attacked.
Germany’s 1939 invasion of Poland shredded the Munich Agreement and forced Britain and France to declare war. Despite this declaration, the British took little action. Germany went on to conquer Denmark, Norway, the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg, and France as Britain stood by. This period became aptly known as “The Phony War.” Then, after defeating all of Britain’s nearby allies, Germany directed its malice at isolated Britain itself.
By the time Britain responded in force, it was too late. Its neighbors were defeated, and Britain was cornered. Its eventual victory can only be credited to Winston Churchill’s leadership, U.S. intervention, and Hitler’s overconfident attack on the Soviet Union.
After recapping the years that led to World War II, analogies between Britain’s handling of Nazism and its current handling of Islam become evident. Before discussing them, however, we should note that Britain is not the only Western nation guilty of these mistakes, which grew out of the West’s climate of moral relativism and indiscriminate inclusiveness. This point leads to an essential moral question: If we say that there are no absolutes of good or evil, then how can we claim that the deeds of any people, no matter how murderous, are evil? After all, even the Nazis had their point of view – shouldn’t they have been respected?
Of course not. And with this realization, we are prepared to see how Britain’s old mistakes regarding Nazism illuminate the mistakes being made today with Islam:
The full scope of Islam’s threat is not appreciated by the British public, which, in the bloody aftermath of World War II, seeks to avoid another conflict at all costs.
Islam is not bashful about its nature. Translations of the Koran and other Islamic texts are readily available through stores and the web. Search engines make it possible to find answers to virtually any question about Islam, almost instantaneously. The doors of Mosques are open every Friday, waiting to share Islam’s message.
Through any method of research, Islam will reveal that it holds non-Muslims in contempt and seeks to deprive them of the full rights of citizenship. Its believers are also glad to discuss the inferior status that Islam assigns women, although they may call it equal but different. And, even if the Muslims you meet may deny it, a few pointed questions will quickly demonstrate that Islamic Law is fundamentally incompatible with the tenets of Free Democracy and Free Enterprise.
Despite all of this, the British have continued to let Islam grow in their midst. They seem to assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Muslims will somehow give up Shari’ah, don bowlers and umbrellas, and join British society. They ignore the fact that Muslims see Islamic Law as Allah-given, unchangeable, and all-encompassing, with an authority that supersedes secular law and demands Infidel submission.
British resolve to avoid conflict is reflected in the BBC’s decision not to use the term “terrorist” when describing attacks in Israel, the United States, and even the U.K. Instead, the BBC uses words like “bomber” or “gunman,” because the word “terrorist” contains a value judgment that implies injustice on the part of the attacker.
This conflict avoidance also reveals itself in the way that radical Islam has flourished in the U.K., with people connected to terrorism walking freely in the streets, such as Rached Ghannouchi, whose An-Nahda party attempted to assassinate Tunisia’s President Zine al-Abedine ben Ali. 
Perhaps the most blatant example of this cowardice is the conclusion of a study by Britain’s Royal Institute of International Affairs (also known as Chatham House) following the London subway bombings. This study announced that the U.K. is at risk of terrorism because of its involvement in Iraq.  This statement implies that the U.K. might have been able to avoid terrorism by doing what the terrorists wanted.
The falsehood in Chatham House’s conclusion is clear after one considers the nationalities of the Muslim terrorists who carried out the attacks: They were not Iraqis. One was Jamaican and the other three were British, of Pakistani origin. Moreover, the Iraqi territory that the British have overseen has been relatively peaceful, because that region is largely Shiite, and the Shiites were glad to see Saddam go. Despite misgivings over the “Infidel Occupation,” Iraqi-British relations were not deteriorating. In truth, the bombers were simply looking for a plausible pretext to justify their actions. They could have just as easily blamed their attack on British indifference to the French policy on head scarves.
On a personal note, I have British friends who remind me of this baffling determination to ignore Islam’s threat despite numerous terrorist attacks around the globe. My most memorable experience was with an educated and well-seasoned Certified Public Accountant, who normally exhibits sharp analytical skills. One day, we got on the subject of Islam and, in answer to his questions, I suggested that he might want to read the Koran. I gave him my copy. Months later, I asked him about his progress with the book. He told me that he had started to read it but found it difficult to follow. He then told me that he did not have to read the Koran to understand Islam anyway, because he had some friends who were Muslims and they seemed like nice people.
In the spirit of open-mindedness, Britain legitimizes Islam, as well as Islam’s views on Muslim supremacy.
In many ways, this point was already made in the preceding paragraphs. But there remains an important corollary: Blind tolerance leads to self-defeating views and moral paralysis. That is, if an intolerant ideology calls itself a religion, many people give it unquestioned acceptance, even if it calls for global political domination and persecution of other religions. For these people, blind tolerance and inclusiveness has disabled their ability to see danger signs, and may even cause them to attack their defenders.
The U.K. reveals how blind tolerance can lead to self-destructive paralysis in the following article, which tells why Israel recently decided to suppress information that linked a subway bomber to a 2003 terror attack in Israel:
Report: U.K. bomber linked to ’03 Israel attack
Reuters, July 17, 2005
LONDON – Israeli security sources played down a report on Sunday that a key suspect in this month’s London bombings is believed to have helped plan a pro-Palestinian suicide attack in Tel Aviv two years ago.
Maariv Daily said Muhammad Sidique Khan traveled to the Jewish state in 2003 and that Israeli defense officials suspect he helped two fellow British Muslims carry out a suicide bombing at a beachfront bar that year that killed three people.
British police named Khan, 30, as a member of a cell that killed at least 55 people in the July 7 bombings in the capital.
Israeli officials are under orders from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon not to draw links between the London attacks and Palestinian militants to avoid offending British sensibilities.
In other words, Prime Minister Sharon would not allow members of his government to link the U.K. subway bombers to those who attacked Israel on behalf of the Palestinians, because he feared that doing so might offend the many British who support the Palestinians.
British resolve to maintain its traditions of tolerance, in spite of bloody evidence that one of the groups they defend is viciously intolerant toward them, could one day lead them to turn against natural allies, and protect enemies, in the war on terror.
From a sense of guilt, Britain legitimizes Islamic outrage over Britain’s colonial past, and its current occupation of Iraq, thereby disabling its ability to stand up to Islamic terrorists.
As with other former colonizers, many Britons feel a sense of guilt over their nation’s colonial past. One cause of this guilt is the former belief in European racial superiority, which helped justify colonialism. Horrified by the grotesque mirror that Hitler held up to them, Britain recoiled from its imperialist ways.
However, before the British delve further into self-loathing, they should take heart, because the institutions they established in colonial times ultimately benefited the new nations. Some are among the most successful nations in the world, while others have gone on to be at least more successful than they were before colonization. A good gauge of how well those nations have prospered since their colonial days is the extent to which they adopted Western institutions introduced by Britain.
When considering Britain’s legacy, one should consider the chaos of those territories before the British arrived. They should also consider how determined the British were to leave their one-time colonies with stable governments and viable economies. In comparison, the Ottoman Empire voraciously exploited conquered lands, ruthlessly suppressed independence, and left behind nations that were deeply wounded, struggling to heal even today.
Similarly, after ousting Saddam, the U.K. and the U.S. have worked diligently to help Iraqis build their own indigenous version of democracy, to provide a stable government that would protect the rights of all. They have persisted in this worthy goal despite the attacks of insurgents and a population that appears poorly adapted to democracy.
While some in Britain may think that Tony Blair’s policies on Iraq were misguided, no one can honestly claim that he was mean-spirited, murderous, or exploitive. In fact, a quick review of recent history shows that nearly everyone killed in Iraq today is a victim of sectarian violence and terrorism, not the Coalition of the Willing.
Why is Iraq swarming with terrorists? Because there are so many causes for which Muslims are willing to slay and be slain:
There are Sunnis who want to take back the power they enjoyed under Saddam Hussein and lost to the Shiites.
There are Shiites who seek revenge on the Sunnis who formerly oppressed them.
There are Sunnis who seek revenge on the Shiites who have killed their relatives.
There are Sunnis and Shiites who oppose democracy because they believe it allows non-scholars to usurp Allah’s legislative authority.
There are Sunnis who seek to disgrace and chase out the Infidel occupiers.
There are also Shiites who are so filled with hate for Infidels that they seek to destroy members of the very Coalition that rescued them from Saddam’s persecutions.
The terrorists opposed to the Coalition of the Willing have found those forces nearly unassailable, despite the slow attrition of about two soldiers per day. Therefore, the terrorists have decided to change tactics and defeat the purpose of the Coalition rather than the coalition itself. Their plan now is to:
Destabilize Iraq’s new government.
Kill the innocent civilians that the Coalition came to protect (especially civilians of opposing religious sects).
Make the Coalition forces appear impotent.
Discredit the concept of democracy.
Turn popular opinion against the Coalition.
A recent bombing of innocent civilians in Baghdad shows this plan in action:
Three car bombs kill up to 43 in Iraq
By Bassem Mroue, Associated Press Writer, The Boston Globe, August 17, 2005
BAGHDAD, Iraq –Three car bombs exploded Wednesday near a crowded bus station and a nearby hospital where survivors were being taken, killing up to 43 people in the deadliest suicide attack in Baghdad in weeks…
Police said the first bomb blew up at the Nadha bus terminal, the city’s largest, shortly before 8 a.m. as swarms of travelers were boarding buses. As Iraqi police rushed to the scene, a suicide driver detonated his vehicle in the station’s parking lot.
Another suicide bomber blew up his car a half-hour later across the street from nearby Kindi Hospital, where ambulances were transporting the injured.
“We want our voices to be heard by the president of the republic and every official to tackle such violence,” shouted one dazed security guard who refused to give his name. “All those who were killed are innocent people. There were no American nor Iraqi troops on the scene.”
Despite such testimonies, many Britons are quick to accept terrorist claims that it is legitimate to murder innocent civilians because of Britain’s presence in Iraq. Many war protestors even blame the Coalition for the thousands of civilians who have died since Saddam’s downfall, as if the Coalition, and not the terrorists, did the killing.
People who blame the United Kingdom for the actions of Islamic terrorists are worse than unfair. They actually undermine the goal of peace that they claim to pursue. These people mislead themselves by thinking that they will be able to satisfy the terrorists by complying with their demands. As with Hitler, capitulation only encourages the terrorists, and leads to more demands and more terror.
Britain, along with the rest of Europe, continues to seek diplomatic solutions long after it has become clear that diplomacy is a euphemism for capitulation
This phenomenon is most apparent in Britain’s, France’s, and Germany’s 2006 attempts to sway Iran from its nuclear aspirations. A far more subtle place where diplomacy has given cover for conquest is in the fabric of Britain’s own society. While militant clerics incite terrorist acts against the West, the British government, in the name of free speech and open dialogue, protects their right to do so.
After the subway bombings of July 7, 2005, British faith in diplomacy and dialogue began to lose favor, and they began to crack down on those who incite violence. However, before then, the United Kingdom allowed radical Muslim clerics to fill their listeners with anger and hatred. Time and again, the U.K. took little action against radicals until after terrorist acts were committed.
For example, native son Richard Reid, otherwise known as the “shoe bomber,” was recruited in a mosque by a widely known militant cleric:
Shoe-bomb suspect met with al-Qaida suspects, British newspaper reports
Associated Press, January 5, 2002
LONDON (AP) The man accused of trying to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives hidden in his sneakers was seen in London with suspected members of the al-Qaida terrorist network, a British newspaper reported Saturday.
A worshipper at London’s Finsbury Park mosque, Rashid Hussain, was quoted by The Times as saying he saw Richard C. Reid at the mosque in 1998…
London-born Reid converted to Islam while in prison for petty crimes. He later worshipped at the same south London mosque as Zacarias Moussaoui, charged with conspiracy in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks.
The mosque’s leader, Abdul Haqq Baker, has said young converts there were courted by extremist groups. He suggested Reid might have had contact with more radical mosques such as the Finsbury Park mosque in north London, home of militant Egyptian-born cleric Abu Hamza al-Masri.
Abdul Haqq Baker, the mosque’s leader, said that he was aware of young converts at his mosque being courted by extremist groups. This raises important questions: Why did he let this happen? Why didn’t he report what he saw? His place of worship was being used as a recruitment center for murder, and he knew it. Yet he did nothing to stop it.
Also, why did British authorities allow the Finsbury Park Mosque to keep operating? How could they not see that the preaching of violence would ultimately lead to violence?
It is because leaders in the Islamic community, such as Mr. Baker, continue to claim that Islam is peaceful and that terrorists are an aberration. On the basis of these assurances, Britons go about their business, just as they did with Hitler in the 1930s.
Even in the aftermath of London’s subway bombings, which killed 55 people and injured hundreds, Britain’s tendency to hear what it wants goes on. For example, in a show of unity with other leaders in London after the bombings, Sheik Zaki Badawi, the head of Britain’s Council of Mosques and Imams, said: “Anyone claiming to commit a crime in the name of religion does not necessarily justify his position in the name of that religion.” 
Let me repeat that: He said, “Anyone claiming to commit a crime in the name of religion does not necessarily justify his position in the name of that religion.” These are not words of assurance.
Another example of Britain’s continuing capitulation, even after the subway bombings, was described in the New York Times: 
The Thursday bombings also rippled through the world of arts and entertainment with the inevitable moments of bitter irony and bad taste.
Waterstone’s bookshop in London scrambled to cancel print advertisements for “Incendiary,” a new novel written in the form of a letter to Mr. bin Laden by a woman whose husband and son died in a London terrorist attack…But some of the ads were irretrievable, including posters already hung in the London Underground, where three of the four bombs went off.
What was Waterstone’s afraid of? Offending Muslims for implying that Islamic terrorism was behind the bombings? Or possibly driving home the point that Islamic terrorism is not fiction?
Meanwhile, multitudes in the U.K. and other Western nations cling to the soothing words of Muslims who tell them what they want to hear, even when it directly contradicts what they see with their own eyes. For example, The Koran for Dummies explains that: 
The Koran says that while [non-Islamic] beliefs and practices theologically contradict the Islamic way of life, it is not the responsibility of the Muslims to judge others. Rather, the Book says that God [Allah] alone has the responsibility and right to judge “Muslims, Jews, Sabians, Magians (fire worshippers), and Polytheists” on the Day of Judgment, since only God is aware of all things (22:17). God’s condemnation and punishment of certain souls should not be misunderstood as a call for Muslims to take these souls to account in this world. Muslims themselves are to be judged by God, and are in no position to judge others.
The Koran also teaches that even those who speak or act towards Muslims in an unjust and ignorant manner should not be treated with the same dishonor. Rather, Muslims are instructed to respond with words of peace (25:63), and to repel evil with good, so that friendship replaces hatred (41:34; 25:72). From the Koran’s perspective, treating even your personal enemies with respect eventually leads to good relations with that person.
With the aid of a very select group of Koranic verses, the author tries to conceal the Koran’s over-all message, and convince readers that people like Salman Rushdie and the Danish cartoonists have nothing to worry about, at least until Judgment Day. This claim contrasts sharply with the Koran’s true message, which was discussed in the section entitled The treatment of non-Muslims.
Britain could not muster the will to respond to Islam’s threat until directly attacked.
Until the London subway bombings, Britain’s apparent policy for avoiding Islamic terrorism was to make itself a safe haven for terrorists. The following New York Times article describes the fruits of this strategy:
BOMBINGS IN LONDON: THE MESSAGE
For a Decade, London Thrived As a Busy Crossroads of Terror
By Elaine Sciolino and Don Van Natta Jr.; Souad Mekhennet and Tim Golden contributed (New York Times), July 10, 2005
Long before bombings ripped through London on Thursday, Britain had become a breeding ground for hate, fed by a militant version of Islam.
For two years, extremists like Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed, a 47-year-old Syrian-born cleric, have played to ever-larger crowds, calling for holy war against Britain and exhorting young Muslim men to join the insurgency in Iraq…
In a sermon attended by more than 500 people in a central London meeting hall last December, Sheik Omar vowed that if Western governments did not change their policies, Muslims would give them “a 9/11, day after day after day.”
For years, there was a widely held belief that Britain’s tolerance helped stave off any Islamic attacks at home. But the anger of London’s militant clerics turned on Britain after it offered unwavering support for the American-led invasion of Iraq. On Thursday morning, an attack long foreseen by worried counterterrorism officials became a reality.
“The terrorists have come home,” said a senior intelligence official based in Europe, who works often with British officials. “It is payback time for a policy that was, in my opinion, an irresponsible policy of the British government to allow these networks to flourish inside Britain.”
Those policies have been a matter of intense debate within the government, with the courts, the Blair government and members of Parliament frequently opposing one another.
For example, when the Parliament considered a bill in March that would have allowed the government to impose tough controls on terror suspects – like house arrests, curfews and electronic tagging – some legislators objected, saying it would erode civil liberties. “It does not secure the nation,” William Cash, of the House of Commons, said of the bill. “It is liable to create further trouble and dissension among those whom we are seeking to control – the terrorists”…
Counterterrorism officials estimate that 10,000 to 15,000 Muslims living in Britain are supporters of Al Qaeda. Among that number, officials believe that as many as 600 men were trained in camps connected with Al Qaeda in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Before Sept. 11, 2001, British officials monitored radical Islamists but generally stopped short of arresting or extraditing them. After Sept. 11, the government passed legislation that allowed indefinite detention of terrorism suspects. But last year, it was overturned by Britain’s highest court, the Law Lords, as a violation of human rights law.
Complicating Britain’s antiterrorism strategy is its refusal or delays of requests for extradition of suspects by some allies, including the United States, France, Spain and Morocco.
Moroccan authorities, for example, are seeking the return of Mohammed el-Guerbozi, a battle-hardened veteran of Afghanistan who they say planned the May 2003 attacks in Casablanca, which killed 45 people…
But the British government has no extradition treaty with Morocco and has refused to extradite Mr. Guerbozi, a father of six who lives in a rundown apartment in north London…
For 10 years, France has been fighting for the extradition of Rachid Ramda, a 35-year-old Algerian, over his suspected role in a bombing in Paris in 1995 staged by Algeria’s militant Armed Islamic Group…
Another prime terrorism suspect who operated in London for years is Mustafa Setmarian Nasar, the suspected mastermind of the Madrid bombings…
Across Britain, since Sept. 11, 2001, nearly 800 people have been arrested under the Terrorism Act of 2000…Of that number, 121 were charged with terrorism related crimes, but only 21 people have been convicted.
Even last week’s bombings did little to curtail the rhetoric of some of the most radical leaders, who criticized Prime Minister Tony Blair for saying that the bombings appeared to be the work of Islamic terrorists.
“This shows me that he is an enemy of Islam,” Abu Abdullah, a self-appointed preacher and the spokesman for the radical group Supporters of Shariah, said in an interview on Friday…
Mr. Abdullah declared that those British citizens who re-elected Mr. Blair “have blood on their hands” because British soldiers are killing Muslims. He also said that the British government, not Muslims, “have their hands” in the bombings, explaining, “They want to go on with their fight against Islam.”
So far, there appears to be little effort to restrain outspoken clerics, including prominent extremists like Sheik Omar, who has reportedly been under investigation by Scotland Yard.
Sheik Omar, who remains free, is an example of the double-edged policies in Britain. He is a political refugee who was given asylum 19 years ago and is supported by public assistance. Asked in an interview in May how he felt about being barred from obtaining British citizenship, he replied, “I don’t want to become a citizen of hell.”
Hopefully, as the United Kingdom digests its subway bombings and the ramifications of their past policies toward Islam, they will begin to act on the obvious fact that people who espouse terrorist views do not deserve the right to have their liberties protected.
Were London’s subway attacks direct enough to fully unveil Islam’s threat to the British? Or will Britain continue to see Islamic terrorism as something that deserves no more than police action? Will Britain continue to grasp for assurances from “moderate” Muslims, who say that Islam is a religion of peace, while citizens try to contain their fears of a Muslim uprising?
Only time will tell whether Britain will continue to ignore its history with the Nazis, and repeat it with the Muslims.
For the United Kingdom, and all of the other nations discussed in this section, the common experience is that Islam breeds fear and hatred among all inhabitants, non-Muslim and Muslim alike. The hostile presence of Muslim groups that do not assimilate with their host nations, and which lash out at non-Muslim citizens, marks an unwelcome resurrection of tribalism in places where it had been long dead. It also marks a loss of free speech, and freedom from fear, as Denmark recently realized.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 9:
 The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, Simon and Shuster, 1960.
 Who Financed Hitler: The Secret Funding of Hitler’s Rise to Power 1919-1933, by James Pool & Suzanne Pool, The Dial Press, 1978, page 129.
 See The History Place website: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-hossbach.htm.
 ibid: http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/triumph/tr-austria.htm.
 The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, by William L. Shirer, Simon and Shuster, 1960.
 Jane’s Intelligence Review Vol. 7; No. 4, April 1, 1995, page 175.
 Study: U.K. at ‘risk’ for supporting Iraq war, Reuters, MSNBC, July 18, 2005.
 Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions, by Alan Cowell, New York Times, July 11, 2005.
 BOMBINGS IN LONDON: ARRESTS; Show of Resolve as Religious Leaders Try to Cool Tensions, By Alan Cowell, Souad Mekhennet, and Jonathan Allen, The New York Times, July 11, 2005.
 The Koran for Dummies, by Sohaib Sultan, Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2004, Chapter 10, section entitled Limits to an inclusive theology, page 149.
 Ibid, Chapter 14, section entitled Preserving Honor, page 207.