Answering some issues
February 06, 2002 ~ 12:17 a.m.
I received two responses to my January 31 entry, and I must say, they were quite outstanding:
Mr. Levski opined that our dependence upon foreign oil will always hamper our efforts to stamp out terrorist activities in the Middle East, an assertion that is succinct and straight to the point. In light of this fact, the need to explore domestic fuel sources, such as the rich supply sitting untapped in Alaska or in the American West, has never been greater. I�ll be the first to demand that any damage to the environment be kept to an absolute minimum. But to supply our citizens with a home-derived source of fuel would be advantageous beyond compare in our anti-terrorist campaign. Accept it or not, Saudi Arabia is an ally only in the loosest sense of the word imaginable. To be able to back the Saudis up against the wall and demand their full and unquestioning compliance with US policy or be automatically classified in the same camp as our enemies would be brilliant. But, for the time being, it is unthinkable, dependent upon their oil as we are.
Writingmark suggested that Americans hold solely their own counsel in their efforts to battle the terrorists and the nations that encourage them. He fingered England as one of the nations we can�t trust, largely because Britain harbors militant Islamic sects, and because they are kicking up a fuss over the treatment of Taliban prisoners in Guatanamo Bay. Let�s examine this:
Britain does have a large Muslim community, based in London and many other large English cities, such as Birmingham, Leicester and Manchester. There have been crackdowns on suspected terrorists, with police making several arrests of suspected Al-Qaeda members and launching investigations into the activities of community mosques. There is no doubt that the government is afraid of the repercussions of bearing down too hard on such a significant population. They are especially unsure of their approach and response to the home-grown Muslim antagonists in light of the numerous riots that occurred all throughout last year in the North. Although the rioting involved the Indian population centers, it also drew significant levels of Pakistani and other Asian Muslim unrest. But, essentially, what can Britain do? These people entered with their families as immigrants during times of peace and are technically British citizens. England is no more to blame for its Muslim population than America is for its Asian or Hispanic population. It is a scary reality that Britain houses so many communities agitating for a jihad, but it is a reality nonetheless.
Still, the government could show some mettle and move a little swifter in their crackdowns against suspected terrorists and the mosques that provide them spiritual support. Many British Muslim clerics have defiant anti-Western attitudes and are viciously anti-Semitic. Today�s issue of The Times, reports that a Muslim cleric named Abdullah el-Faisal, currently living in and on tour throughout Britain, calls for the killing of Jews and lectures schoolboys about their need for jihad training. He has preached that �the way forward is never the ballot; the way forward is the bullet,� and justified the September 11 attack by claiming that Americans themselves attacked the WTC in 1993 and then quickly imprisoned a cleric named Omar Abdal-Rahman for it. According to him, the 9/11 atrocity was Allah�s payback. One of his recent speeches was delivered in an educational center run by the council for the London borough it is located in. The biggest item of news in the story, however, is that no official action has been taken to restrain either him or his evil message. The Times rightly brands him �Britain�s sheikh of race hate.� I cannot blame Britain for its immigrant population, in least in terms of years gone by, but I can call the authorities out on its failure to act against certain clerics such as el-Faisal.
As for the ugly business over the treatment of prisoners at Guatanamo Bay�which I personally feel is too good for them, considering they have a roof over their heads�condemnation here in Britain has been surprisingly few and far between. Although Home Secretary Jack Straw demanded that the prisoners� human rights be recognized, the government officially declared recently that America had the right to deal with the prisoners as they saw fit. The British government is satisfied that the US is dealing with its prisoners at Guatanamo as fairly as circumstances allow (and sometimes, they don�t allow for much, as this is a highly dangerous group of detainees). A poll on �The Wright Stuff,� a popular morning talk show, revealed that a whopping 90 percent of respondents were content to leave the prisoners to face American justice. The rest of Europe has been complaining, but to their credit, the British, by and large, have been reasonable over the whole matter. Certainly, the US could do far worse in terms of friends than Great Britain.
As The Sun, a British tabloid, deftly put it after the September 11 attack: �It should be evident to all that the Americans, the Canadians, and the Australians are the only ones we can honestly and completely trust to defend our way of life at all costs and cooperate with our efforts to stamp out this evil.�
I agree. When it comes to looking after ourselves and implementing the policies with which to do so, it is only the alliance between the four major English-speaking nations of the US, the UK, Canada and Australia that can be relied upon. As for everyone else, I back Writingmark�s assertion. Everyone else�s friendship and goodwill is suspect unless they can somehow manage to convince me otherwise.
� M.E.M.
|
[Sign My Guestbook]
[View My Guestbook]
|
Copyright � 2001-2007 by M.E. Manning. All material is written by me, unless explicitly stated otherwise by use of footnotes or bylines. Do not copy or redistribute without my permission.
AMERICA FOR TRUE AMERICANS!