Sunday, September 25, 2005

Mass Murder Creates Public Image Problem

Is there any genre of reportage which is more bogus than the one in which a dhimmi journalist meets with some Islamopaths and reluctantly cocludes that, darn it, the media ain’t dhimmi enough ?

The latest example of this unlovely species is to be found here, and what a prize specimen it is. Even the headline is snortworthy -‘Young Muslims confront key issues’. Huh ? Little evidence of confrontation is obvious in this article. Take the opening lines:

What is it like to be a young British Muslim?
How do you achieve greater integration in the climate of suspicion and fear after both 9/11 and the London bombings?
These were the questions at the heart of a pioneering conference in Leicester this week attended by over 100 Muslim sixth formers and college students, aged 16 to 19.

So, that’s it ? That’s the problem with mass slaughter, that it creates a ‘climate of suspicion and fear’? Self-obsessed, much ?

Incongruously, they met at the Walkers Stadium, the home of Leicester City Football Club.
Welcoming them, the chief executive of the club asked how many of them were football fans. Only a small minority indicated they were.
Hardly any had been to a match at the ground, even though they all came from fairly nearby, either Leicester itself, Coventry or Birmingham.
This was a sharp reminder of the cultural divide that can exist.

Yes, let’s whip out the nano-violin and play a sad song for all those Islamopaths prevented from watching Leicester City by the brutal Infidel stewards carefully filtering out any splodey dopes who want to watch the match.

No, wait, that doesn’t happen...In fact, it’s not obvious what Mike Barker thinks does happen. This is the very essence of dhimmitude, the reflex belief that whatever the details, it’s the Infidels that are at fault for not prostrating themselves sufficiently

Of course, you could put it another way, and say that this is a perfect microcosm of the relationship between Islam and the rest of the world. They’ll use the facilities when it suits them, but when it comes to putting something back…forget it, Kufr! These people feel absolutely no sense of loyalty to anyone outside the Ummah. For further proof of that consider this later on:

Yet the raw energy of the discussion was not about the bombers but - perhaps surprisingly in this context - about the media.

No-one quite blamed the media for the summer's terrorism (although some came close to it) but they were incensed at the way they felt Muslims had been portrayed since the London bombings

Yes, indeed, the real problem with the mass murder of fellow citizens is that it draws bad publicity. There are super models less self-obsessed than this. Fortunately, they have a solution:

The consensus view was that there should be more restrictions on the freedom of the media.

Further proof that all you need to do to defeat Islam is to explain it clearly.

The thing is though that even a BBC journalist can’t stop the crazy leaking out:

Not surprisingly, they found the "British Muslims" label rather unhelpful. They felt they each belonged to several cultures: youth culture, British-Asian, Pakistani, Indian.
Norman Tebbit's cricket test - whether people from ethnic minorities support the England team or players from their family's country of origin - would have meant little to them.
"Why do we need so many labels?" they asked.
The one thing they agreed on was that their religious identity was paramount. One summed it up this way: "You should always have Islam at the top of your list, then comes Pakistani, or British or whatever."

So they have multiple identities but Islam is the only one that really matters ? Why do the Leftards get so teed off when I point this out ? Ditto, try this comment:

Like other young people, they were not always willing to do as their parents told them but their reasoning was different.
Generally they seemed to find their parents less devout than themselves. So "if your parents tell you to do something that is within Islam, you can do it, but if it is against Islam, you cannot".

A-huh, no signs of fanaticism there.

Most encouraging of all was their desire to integrate with British society, to play a great role in public debate - providing they could retain their faith identity and follow the tenets of the Koran.

See, that’s kind of the problem. It’s a bit like saying Harold Shipman was a fine doctor, apart from all the murders. I’m guessing that at the least, we should know what it is that their ‘faith identity’ involves. Trouble is, the BBC and its fellow travellers would rather run driveling PC pieces about ‘cultural divides’ than produce an actual, factual account of what Islam means.

No comments: