Sunday, 22 September 2013

Cameron on the Nairobi outrage – Dave, enough with the Islamophilia already!

In a snatched interview with the BBC this afternoon, the British Prime Minister, David Cameron confirmed that three British nationals have died at the hands of Muslim killers in Nairobi, and warned us to expect more bad news. Then, without prompting, he demonstrated our left-liberal elite’s obsession with exonerating  Islam for any blame for the seemingly endless acts of barbaric savagery committed by self-professed adherents of the religion of peace:
The other thing to remember is that these appalling terrorist attacks that take place, where the perpetrators claim they do it in the name of a religion, they don’t. They do it in the name of terror, violence, extremism and their warped view of the world. They don’t represent Islam or Muslims in Britain or anywhere else in the world.
Come again? 

Are we safe in assuming that the psychopaths who are now known to have killed at least 59 people in an upmarket shopping mall in Nairobi are Muslims? Tick.

Did they identify the people they captured asbelievers or infidels, and then let the believers go? Yup.

Do these Islamist terrorist gangs routinely butcher Christians? A suicide bomb attack on a Christian church in Peshawar earlier today killed at least 78 worshippers. Christians are being routinely slaughtered in many Muslim countries these days, often with the collusion of the authorities. So I guess that would be a definite yes.

Do Islamist killers wish to establish a universal caliphate with a view to establishing Islam as the world’s sole religion? Indeedy.

Can we expect Muslims here in the West and in Islamic countries to hold mass “Not in our name!” rallies and marches in order to make it absolutely, pellucidly clear to the rest of us that they’re really really angry about their religion being used as an excuse by psychopathic mass-murderers to maim and kill entirely innocent people? Well, no, of course not – we non-Muslims are evidently supposed to intuit their disapproval by extra-sensory means.

I don’t know if it’s the fault of our liberal media, which evidently prefers to interview self-appointed terrorist-supporting Islamic “spokesmen” rather than those who condemn terrorism, or whether it’s the unhierarchical structure of their religion which means that it’s hard to identify an equivalent of the Pope or the Archbishop of Canterbury to speak for Muslims in general – but there doesn’t seem to be any problem finding angry, articulate enthusiasts for, say, allowing female Muslim hospital-workers to wear veils when dealing with patients, or for Muslim defendants being allowed to hide their faces in court (something that isn’t even allowed in Pakistani courts).

Now, Christians occasionally do things of which other Christians disapprove – for instance, that group of American nutters who disgrace the name of our religion by turning up at the funerals of US servicemen to claim that they deserved to die because there are gays in the military. Ditto, co-religionists who bomb abortion clinics. We disapprove of such people and don’t consider them part of the Christian brotherhood. And I doubt that any bona fide priest belonging to any decent-sized Christian sect – let alone their leaders - would whisper a single word in defence of such grotesquely unChristian behaviour. But there seem to be plenty of imams happy to preach that killing infidels is not only acceptable, but admirable, and there are Islamic theocracies which advocate destroying Israel and driving Jews into the sea, and many Islamic governments seem to turn a blind eye to the persecution of Christians in their own countries. So pretending that what’s happening in Nairobi isn't supported by a sizable minority of Muslims is ridiculous and dishonest.

So why do Western governments regularly trot out this frankly risible line? (Remember, the US authorities classified the murder of 13 people by US Army major, Nidal Malik Hasan, at Fort Hood in 2009 as an act of workplace violence rather than terrorism, as if this jihadist had simply gone postal rather than acting in the name of his religion.) Was Dave trying to ensure that millions of frenzied  British Christians wouldn’t swarm out of their homes to burn down mosques and lynch anyone they came across who looked vaguely swarthy while shrieking “Jesus is really nice”? Or was he trying to save thousands of British Muslim spokesmen the trouble of besieging TV, radio and newspaper offices demanding to apologise for the actions of misguided co-believers? Or was he hoping to convince the Muslim “community” to vote Tory in 2015? Or was it by way of an apology to all those lovely al-Quaeda freedom-fighters in Syria for not being able to provide air support for their noble struggle?

Or was he trying to ensure – old softy that he is – that any supporters UKIP might have lost this week due to the idiotic behaviour of a moronic MEP will be replaced by yet more Tories deserting the Conservative fold because their leader has an uncanny knack of saying and doing things which seem specifically designed to drive away his party’s traditional supporters.

If anyone can shed any light on what Dave’s craven display of Islamophilia is meant to achieve, do tell.


  1. If you'd asked me this question (as to why Dave goes into islamaphilial raptures any time there's an Islamic-inspired atrocity) a few years ago I would have opined that he sincerely believed (or, rather, believed: sincerity is not one of Dave's strong suits) without much thought (let alone evidence) that the extremists were a minority in the Ummah generally and the UK in particular and that the rest were just content to get on with their quotidian lives.
    Now I would say that Dave still believes that active Moslem extremists are a minority in the community of Islam. However, despite well-founded suspicions that the majority of believers support the elimination of infidels by conversion - forced or otherwise - or worse, he doesn't really care. His driving motive in his political life is to secure and, if possible, maintain himself and his colleagues in power. He calculates that trumpeting the essential peacefulness of Islam will gain him more votes than he would lose (as well as avoiding the cold-shoulder at all those international strutting-sessions he so clearly enjoys).
    Sure, he's probably deluded if such a calculus is restricted to the Conservative vote but, applied in aggregate to the 3 main political parties, he's probably right on the money (or, at least, the falling support for and public cynicism concerning the established parties is not thereby unduly accelerated by their leaders' - Cameron's not alone here - unwarranted islamophilia)

  2. Spot on, Umbongo. Until 9/11 I'd always assumed that the vast majority of British Muslims were as appalled by Islamist terrorists and their mad beliefs as the rest of us. Then I saw a group of Muslim schoolkids being interviewed on the news the day after the event, and they were laughing about the "yuppies" throwing themselves out of the windows of the Twin Towers, and I realised how wrong I'd been.

    As for sucking up to immigrant voters - I'm just not sure how this helps. Recent research funded by Lord Ashcroft appears to show that the Tories will lose the next election because they're 14% behind Labour in some 30 key marginals, which Cameron can only win if he entices back UKIP defectors. Prostrating himself before Muslims really isn't going to help.