Ignore The Terrorists And Maybe They'll Go Away
Those granola-chomping lefties at work again, huh? Well, no, the bangers and mash-chewing British (West Midlands) police. They came down on UK's Channel 4 for supposed distortions in their documentary in which reporters went under cover to expose the hate and violence-fomenting of well-funded Saudi-backed clerics in Britain.

Nick Cohen writes in The Guardian that the police reported Channel 4 to a British TV oversight board for supposed distortions:

The many who were foolish enough to believe the police's accusations must have accepted that, for instance, Ijaz Mian, who preaches in Derby, was a good democrat. Only trick camerawork and sly editing had turned him into the man who appeared in the film raving: 'King, Queen, House of Commons. If you accept it then you are a part of it. You don't accept it but you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim you have to fix a target, there will be no House of Commons.'

Similarly, when Abu Usamah of the Green Lane mosque in Birmingham bellowed on air: 'Take that homosexual man and throw him off the mountain', his apparently murderous homophobia was not a genuine expression of his prejudice, but a Truman Show illusion.

Ofcom found there was no evidence that Channel 4 had misled the audience. The station offered the police and CPS the chance to apologise. They refused. So Channel 4 sued for libel and after wasting hundreds of thousands of pounds of taxpayers' money, the authorities last week finally retracted and grovelled.

Normally they say why they are going after journalists. In the case of Channel 4, however, the CPS and West Midlands police have never condescended to explain their behaviour to the public. The National Secular Society wants an inquiry to force them into the open. Until we get one, the best explanation lies in Patani's title: assistant chief constable (security and cohesion).

Since 9/11, not only police officers, but New Labour ministers, the Home Office, Foreign Office and pseudo-left journalists and councils have sought to promote 'cohesion' by appeasing Islamist groups which aren't quite as extreme as al-Qaeda. They have turned them into the sole authentic representatives of British Islam, although as Haras Rafiq and Abdal-Hakim Murad show, they are nothing of the sort, and branded serious investigation into obscurantist politics as religious prejudice.

Elements within the government thought that if they could co-opt the Muslim Brotherhood and Jamaat-i-Islami and ignore their foul beliefs, they would isolate the terrorists to their right. Even Labour now admits that the policy has been a practical failure and moral shambles. Elsewhere, however, a mushy multicultural feeling persists that it is somehow 'insensitive' to apply universal values.

For anybody who's still a deluded multi-culti type, a few words on what Islam is all about -- by Ron Marlar, on familysecuritymatters:

Islam is much more than a religion; it is a doctrine of law that governs all areas of life, and there exists within Islam no Western concept of the separation of church and state. Islam believes in the integration of mosque and state while the West believes in the separation of church and state. Therefore, the form of government under which many Muslims live is a theocracy...far from a democracy, which is the form of government under which we thrive in the West.

This vast disparity in how we organize our societies would not be a problem for us if it were not for the fact that Islam seeks to dominate. Simply put, the aims of Islam, according to Islamic doctrine, are:

1. To take over the world for Allah by establishing a worldwide caliphate
2. To rule the land by Shar'ia law (Islamic law)
3. To subjugate or kill infidels who are defined as:

a) those not born Muslim,
b) those who have not submitted to Islamic faith belief or
c) those who have left Islamic faith belief, and

4. To take - exile - any survivors to a safe place.

Mohammed put forth these aims early in his founding of Islam. They are repeated often in the history of the several resurgences of Islam, and most recently, loudly and clearly by most prominent Islamic voices. No true, adherent Muslim denies these aims. Rather they live by them, perhaps closeted, even living quietly among us here in the U.S.

Marlar's call to action:

It is way past time to wake up people, to stop aiding, abetting, apologizing for and supporting Islam. The burden is on Muslims - the believers in and practitioners of Islamic faith belief and its aims - to explain themselves to the rest of the world.

Let's listen carefully for Islamic leaders and followers to condemn Islamic terrorism, not to lead, participate in or sit by in silent celebrations of it. Let's see if we can hear an Islamic leader or even our Muslim personal friends utterly condemn the events of 9/11/2001 as the barbaric acts they truly were, and also condemn 9/11's perpetrators as the mass murderers they clearly were, at least as we view it in the West.

Since an adherent Muslim sees 9/11 not as a brutal attack of mass murder but rather as a way to advance Islam's aims, we may well be listening for quite some time.

Your job? Not just to listen but to ask: If you know Muslims and when you encounter Muslims, ask them what they're doing to speak out against terrorism, and whether they're doing something to combat terrorism, and if not, why not?

Remember the old AIDS sign seen around New York and other cities, "silence = death"? Well, here, too.