manny_ramirez
12.07.05, 20:13
Bardzo dobry artykul Marca Steyna dajacy sporo do myslenia. Przetlumacze
jeden akapit
Terroryzm sie skonczy jak kultura w ktorym sie rozwija przestaje go
tolerowac. Byloby niewielu albo w ogole samobojcow-zamachowcow jesli
ich "meczenstwo" nie byloby gloryfikowane przez imamow i politykow, jesli ich
zdjecia nie wisialby w sklepach na Zachodnim Brzegu, jesli muzulmanskie banki
nie oferowalyby specjalych znizek dla rodzin "meczennikow", jesli szkoly nie
prowadzilyby zawodow na temat "kto chce zostac meczennikiem"
Mocne i jak prawdziwe slowa.
Terrorism ends when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would
be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if "martyrdom" were not
glorified by imams and politicians, if pictures of local "martyrs" were not
proudly displayed in West Bank grocery stores, if Muslim banks did not offer
special "martyrdom" accounts to the relicts thereof, if schools did not run
essay competitions on "Why I want to grow up to be a martyr".
www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/07/12/do1202.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/07/12/ixopinion.html
Islam does incubate terrorism
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 12/07/2005)
'There are no Muslim terrorists. There are terrorists," Father Paul Hawkins
of St Pancras parish church told his congregation on Sunday. "The people who
carried out these attacks are victims of a false religion, be it false
Christianity or false Islam."
Oh, dear. "Britain can take it" (as they said in the Blitz): that's never
been in doubt. The question is whether Britain can still dish it out. When
events such as last Thursday's occur, two things happen, usually within hours
if not minutes: first, spokespersons for Islamic lobby groups issue warnings
about an imminent backlash against Muslims.
In fairness to British organisations, I believe they were beaten to the punch
by the head of the Canadian Islamic Congress whose instant response to the
London bombings was to issue a statement calling for prayers that "Canadian
Muslims will not pay a price for being found guilty by association".
In most circumstances it would be regarded as appallingly bad taste to
deflect attention from an actual "hate crime" by scaremongering about a non-
existent one. But it seems the real tragedy of every act of "intolerance" by
Islamist bigots is that it might hypothetically provoke even more intolerance
from us irredeemable white imperialist racists. My colleague Peter Simple
must surely marvel at how the identity-group grievance industry has
effortlessly diversified into pre-emptively complaining about acts of
prejudice that have not yet occurred.
Among those of us who aren't Muslim, meanwhile, there's a stampede to be
first to the microphone to say that "of course" we all know that "the vast
majority of Muslims" are not terrorists but law-abiding peace-loving people
who share our revulsion at these appalling events, etc.
Mr Blair won that contest on Thursday, followed closely by Brian Paddick and
full supporting cast. If "of course" Mr Blair and Mr Paddick and the rest do
indeed know that "the vast majority of Muslims" do not favour terrorism, is
that because they've run the numbers and have a ballpark figure on the very
very very slim minority of Muslims who do? And, if so, what is it? 0.02 per
cent? Or two per cent? Or 20 per cent?
And, if they haven't run the numbers, why do they claim to speak with
authority on this matter? If it were just a question of rhetorical
sensitivity, I'd be happy to go along with Mr Paddick's multiculti pap and
insist that "Islam and terrorism don't go together" - events in Beslan, Bali,
Israel, Nigeria, Kashmir, etc, notwithstanding. But the danger in
separating "Islam" from "terrorism" is that it leads the control-freaks of
the nanny state into thinking that "terrorism" is something that can be dealt
with by border security, ID cards, retinal scans, metal detectors. It can't.
Terrorism ends when the broader culture refuses to tolerate it. There would
be few if any suicide bombers in the Middle East if "martyrdom" were not
glorified by imams and politicians, if pictures of local "martyrs" were not
proudly displayed in West Bank grocery stores, if Muslim banks did not offer
special "martyrdom" accounts to the relicts thereof, if schools did not run
essay competitions on "Why I want to grow up to be a martyr".
At this point, many readers will be indignantly protesting that this is all
the fault of Israeli "occupation", but how does that explain suicide bombings
in Afghanistan and Pakistan, where there's not a Zionist oppressor for
hundreds of miles? Islam has become the world's pre-eminent incubator of
terrorism at its most depraved. Indeed, so far London has experienced only
the lighter items on the bill of fare - random bombing of public transport
rather than decapitation, child sacrifice and schoolhouse massacres.
Most of us instinctively understand that when a senior Metropolitan Police
figure says bullishly that "Islam and terrorism don't go together", he's
talking drivel.
Many of us excuse it on the grounds that, well, golly, it must be a bit
embarrassing to be a Muslim on days like last Thursday and it doesn't do any
harm to cheer 'em up a bit with some harmless feel-good blather. But is this
so?
Why are we surprised that "Muslim moderates" rarely speak out against the
evil committed by their co-religionists when the likes of Mr Paddick keep
assuring us there's no problem? It requires great courage to be a dissenting
Muslim in communities dominated by heavy-handed imams and lobby groups that
function effectively as thought-police.
Yet all you hear from Mr Paddick is: "Move along, folks, there's nothing to
see here." This is the same approach, incidentally, that the authorities took
in their long refusal to investigate seriously the 120 or so "honour
killings" among British Muslims.
Just as the police did poor Muslim girls no favours by their excessive
cultural sensitivity, so they're now doing the broader Muslim community no
favours. The Blair-Paddick strategy only provides a slathering of mindless
multiculti fudge topping over the many layers of constraint that prevent
Islam beginning an honest conversation with itself.
Unlike Malaya or the Mau-Mau or the IRA, this is a global counter-terrorism
operation across widely differing terrain, geographical and psychological. We
need to be able to kill, constrain, coerce or coax as appropriate.
Kill terrorists when the opportunity presents itself, as 1,200 "insurgents"
were said to have been killed in one recent engagement on the Syria/Iraq
border the other day. Constrain the ideology behind Thursday's bombing by
outlawing Saudi funding of British mosques and other institutions. Coerce our
more laggardly allies like General Musharraf into shutting down his section
of the Saudi-Pakistani-Londonistan Wahhabist pipeline.
But the coaxing is what counts - wooing moderate Muslims into reclaiming
their religion. We can take steps to prevent Islamic terrorists killing us,
most of the time. But Islamic terrorists will only stop trying to kill us
when their culture reviles them rather than celebrates them.
There are signs in the last week's Muslim newspapers, in London and abroad,
that some eminent voices are beginning to speak out. At such a moment,
Britain should be on the side of free speech and open debate. Instead, the
state is attempting to steamroller through a grotesque law at the behest of
already unduly influential Islamic lobby groups. One of its principal effects
will be to inhibit Muslim reformers. Shame on us for championing Islamic
thought-police over Western liberty.
--
