July 7, 2005, - 1:59 pm

A Few Reasons Why London Was Attacked . . . .

By Debbie Schlussel
I’m surprised the British are surprised they were attacked by Muslim terrorists, today. It’s not surprising, given the following (and we should learn some lessons here):

1) Abu Hamza Al-Masri and his Finsbury Mosque: Sheikh Hamza, a/k/a Captain Hook (he has hooks for hands, as he lost both in an explosion), regularly preached hate at his mosque. And surprise, surprise, it produced Richard Reid, the Shoe Bomber, among the mosque’s other “luminaries.” Masri was involved with Muslim extremist group, Al-Muhajiroun (affiliated with Al-Qaeda), and planned to host “The Magnificent 19” celebration, honoring the 9/11 hijackers. Brits pay over a million pounds a year to PROTECT Abu Hamza. Could Hamza’s trial, which just started, have something to do with the attacks? Muhajiroun’s British leader, Sheikh Omar Al-Bakri Muhammed claimed he was disbanding the group, so that all members could join Al-Qaeda and commit jihadist attacks, per his fatwa.
2) Britain welcomes extremist terror-supporting imams, like , spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (not to mention Caribou Coffee and Loehmann’s), about whom I wrote in the New York Post in 2002 (plus O’Reilly and Hardball appearances), a longer version of which appears . We revoked his visa because he wouldn’t renounce Hamas and supports homicide bombings. He can’t come to the U.S. Britain had no such problems with Qaradawi. While Qaradawi defended his support for “martyrdom operations,” London’s imbecile of a mayor, Ken Livingstone (a/k/a the anti-Giuliani), welcomed him, saying “You are not unanimously welcomed here today. In this, you are not alone. People who raise awkward truths are often like this.” And they wonder why London was bombed?!
3) Illegal immigration of radical Muslims to Britain from French refugee camps, such as Sangatte. This has been a constant source of problems between the two countries, with Britain constantly complaining but doing nothing about it, while these escapees smuggle themselves through the Chunnel.
4) Cherie Blair (Mrs. Tony) and other British lawyers who fight for the rights of radical Muslims (and, unfortunately, win) at the expense of their country. Wanna wear a jilbab? Me neither.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

5 Responses

Pertaining to the Blairs, I feel that since they are in the public spotlight – especially with one as a political icon – it is imperative for them, during the war on terror, to show a positive and human side toward Muslims. Their goal is to rid terrorism, yet this can be accomplished with a balance of tolerance and acceptance for religious nuances.
I agree that we should not be forced to accept every person’s use of religion for their actions to be deemed appropriate and sacred. However, it seems intelligent to me for the Blairs to attempt a balance by promoting tolerance and espousing anti-terrism views.
The support that Mr. Blair provides to the U.S. is amazing; yet, it is obvious that such actions open his country to attacks and enmity. Once again, a wise move to save face by having a wife who fights for fundamentals of the assumed enemy.
I don’t believe the British were surprised as much as they provide a happy facade hoping for fantastical neutrality.

Henry C. Alphin Jr. on July 7, 2005 at 7:37 pm

I kind of half-agree and half-disagree with your piece.
First off, it still would’ve been nice in your article to offer condolences, etc. like almost every other columnist, group, organization, even ones who then go on to say things similar to what you said about the bombing, which is not totally off base, but more later. Those people on the buses and trains still deserve a mark of sympathy. Not doing that simply makes your article come across as cold and completely uncaring.
It is true that when even the Sun (I think that’s the front page you’re showing, not the Daily Mirror, but I could be wrong) exposes “Captain Hook” for who he is, something is amiss in Britain in not preventing the sources from coming in to begin with.
On the other hand, I think that British anti-terrorism facilities (at thwarting the attempt once the intelligence is there) are at least the equal of the U.S. if not slightly sharper. While I would not rank them anywhere near the world-class expertise of the Israelis in this manner (certainly not at stopping the source pre-emptively, something even the U.S. is only beginning to dare to do), at the very least they have experience dealing with the IRA for three decades that we in America do not. Other than a couple of minor bombings by some Puerto Rican nationalist group in the mid-1970s what terrorist acts have actually occurred within America for us to deal with and learn from between World War II and 9/11? (I’ll credit the lack of acts post-9/11 to our intelligence services, but not the pre-9/11 calm) Many news sources have noted that for this once very unfortunate incident, there were dozens if not hundreds of others thwarted by Scotland Yard and MI-5.
While I agree with you in that I hope a big lesson was learned and they will focus more on preventing the sources from getting to the U.K. in the first place, I won’t stoop down to the point of a near-gloating “I told you so!” as your piece almost borders on.

hairymon on July 8, 2005 at 12:30 pm

In regards to your first comments hairymon: Debbie is pretty much like any writer on the internet these days. They really only care about their own agenda which in her case and Ann Coulter’s is to try and be as controversial as possible in order to appear on talk shows and promote their books. It’s all self promotion.

Clompo on July 8, 2005 at 4:31 pm

I normally think it’s wrong and rude to respond twice to these (encourages lots of “flaming” on forums) but I did want to note that in my haste to write the first entry regarding our relative “lack of experience” in domestic terrorism prior to 9/11 I did forget one important event, the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing.
While it does not diminish my initial point, not noting that is a huge error and does a grave disservice to those poor victims (as this article does to some extent to the ones in London), so since you can’t edit entries once they are posted I wanted to note this again.

hairymon on July 9, 2005 at 9:15 am

As long as most Muslims believe
That they can stand back and
Act all innocent saying “who me?”
Then they will go right on
Tacitly backing terrorist tyranny
As long as they believe they
Only really have to speak up
To keep any pressure off of them
They will remain quietly politely corrupt
As long as minding your own business
Resembles keeping your head in the sand
They will turn a blind eye to the ones in
Their midst they know are making evil plans
As long as it’s all about their religions rights
And them not giving their honest best
This whole religion of peace thing will remain
A Foul no regard for human life breeding nest
It’s also about how long we let them
Get by with the little lost orphaned look
While a very sick deadly set of them
Madly chant death to America while
Holding aloft their sacred holy book
Let’s hear some loud denouncements
Let’s see some cooperation that’s clear
Get with us and start working hard for freedom
Or frankly get the Hell out of here
12:07 pm
transcribed this time
9:45 am

neilsthepoet on July 9, 2005 at 10:47 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field