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: Abu Hamza Al-Masri, Al Muhajiroun, al-Qaeda, Britain, Brits, Captain, Cherie Blair, Debbie Schlussel, Finsbury Mosque, GBP, Hamas, Hamza Al-Masri, Hook, Ken Livingstone, leader, Mayor, Muslim Brotherhood, New York Post, Omar Al-Bakri Muhammed, Reasons Why London, Richard Reid, spiritual leader, the New York Post, Tony, United Kingdom, Youssef Al-Qaradawi
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