As I mentioned Thursday, things are not going well in Pakistan;
President Gen. Pervez Musharraf declared a state of emergency in Pakistan on Saturday ahead of a crucial Supreme Court decision on whether to overturn his recent election win and amid rising Islamic militant violence.
Eight Supreme Court judges immediately rejected the emergency, which suspended the current constitution. The government blocked transmissions of private news channels in several cities and telephone services in the capital, Islamabad, were cut.
“The chief of army staff has proclaimed a state of emergency and issued a provisional constitutional order,” a newscaster on state Pakistan TV said, adding that Musharraf, who took power in 1999 coup, would address the nation later Saturday.
Dozens of police blocked the road in front of the Supreme Court building, with the judges believed inside.
A large roundup of news links and analysis at Pajamas Media. This is a situation with grave implications for the region and beyond, (and needless to say, the campaign in Afghanistan). Musharraf’s military rule or a democratically elected Taliban – how’s that for a choice?
Update – Jonthan Foreman on the under-reported facts:
In the Punjab, far from the frontier there was a major suicide bomb attack against the Pakistani Air Force, killing eight officers and cadets (probably a reprisal for air strikes in Waziristan in October). There was intense fighting in the Swat valley, a popular vacation area on the edge of the tribal area, with Pakistani helicopter gunships striking militants of the TNSM, a.k.a. the Pakistani Taliban. Another suicide bomber exploded himself and seven other people in a high security area of Rawalpindi near General Musharaf’s official residence (on the anniversary of a Pakistani missile attack on an extremist TNSM madrassa last year). Whatever Musharraf’s actual motives, I can think of lots of countries where this level of violence might prompt a state of emergency….
The State Department response — calling for immediate free elections — is idiotic. Break down Pakistan’s instability into just some of its component parts — Islamist militancy, tribal unrest, deep-seated ethnic separatism, feudal oppression, sectarian hatred, an incompetent and corrupt ruling elite, an ill-educated population, a paranoid and conspiratorial culture — and it’s far from clear that dictatorship is the disease or elections the cure.
It’s interesting that the official Indian reaction has been so careful. Said a Foreign Ministry spokesman: “We regret the difficult times that Pakistan is passing through…We trust that conditions of normalcy will soon return, permitting Pakistan’s transition to stability and democracy to continue.” New Delhi clearly realizes that Musharraf for all his faults may be preferable to any alternative. …
And:
It would be hard to think of a bigger mess than Pakistan: nuclear; half the population radically Islamic; vast sanctuaries for the architects of 9/11; a virulent anti-Americanism in which aid and military credits are demanded but never appreciated; dictatorship at odds with America’s professed support for Middle-East constitutional government-all the while doing little to hunt down al Qaeda while assuring us that the possible radical alternative, with some reason,
is far worse.
That about sums it up, I’m afraid.
I wouldnt assume that the Taliban would be elected there. That doesnt mean they wouldnt gain power in the fractured politics in pakistan though.
Musharef is an uncertain ally, the longer you keep the lid on the bigger the blowback will be, think Iran where the islamists were able to make common cause with the democratic opposition. The democrats were ruthlessly eliminated after the SHah was deposed. Same model will happen in Pakistan.
Grave implications indeed, and not only because of the extremely frightening prospect of Al Queda with nukes, but also that Pakistan has a long history of an uneasy standoff with India, home to another bunch of nukes. Pakistan fallen leads to India destabilized and the whole region in turmoil.
…I remember at the 9/11 memorial service where Franklin Graham made a comment on screen that we should use nuclear devices against the Taliban and bin Laden.
I was a bit taken back, coming from a preacher, but as time wears on, me thinks he was right.
Time for a glass parking lot.
We are about 3 ticks away from WW4. Good thing that we(NATO)have plenty of firepower and troops in the area. The battle lines could shift soon, and our forces will not have to travel far. If the Pakistani nukes fall into the wrong hands, there will be missiles flying from Israel and India. I cannot foresee these two nations waiting to be attacked by fanatics armed with nuclear weapons.
Ok, for all you Lefties out there who keep screaming that America is a tyranny and Bush is its dictator, take a good look at the real thing: Musharaf and Pakistan Ever wonder why there’s so many Pakistanis in Canada, the land of apostates and unbelieving swine? Its because life SUCKS back home.
And as Woodporter says, let us not forget that Pakistan not only has nukes, they have big friggin’ missiles to launch them on.
Having a big-ass army in Afghanistan looking pretty good this morning, Lefties?
Oooh, tough call. Continue to blindly support Musharraf, a US-endorsed but otherwise dubious “ally” whose respect for democracy is at best questionable and whose rule has corresponded with a growth in Islamic extremism at the borders, or support genuinely open elections that, yes, risk allowing Islamic parties to legitimately displace Musharraf from power but which also hold the potential of producing a democratically determined, and therefore truly legitimate and far more powerful, consensus against fundamentalism.
Imposing military rule, suspending the constitution, breaching the executive-judicial boundary, declaring martial law, expelling the Chief Justice, arresting legal opponents, exiling political opponents — all forgivable sins, apparently, so long as you toe the War on Terror line?
I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the Palestinians?
How about an immediate moratorium on immigration from Pakistan?
That country carved out of the Indian sub-continent has proven to be troublesome throughout its history.
While the predomiantly Hindu country of India has moved on, Pakistan has continued to export its brand of hatred around the world.
Afghanistan? The Taliban has its base in Pakistan.
9/11? Khalid Shaik Mohammed, mastermind of the insane attack, was captured in Islamabad.
Pakistan is a mess. Canada does not need to be a safe haven for a country whose main exports are anger and oppression.
Wow, ‘enemy of your enemies’ is pretty complimentary about fundamentalist Islamic parties in power. Kate’s response says it all. In Palestine they turned on their own people, and it’ll happen in Pakistan. The biggest killers of Muslims are their own fundamentalist branch.
This could get completely out of control.
Up until now, Pak support for the Taliban and Al-Queada has been minimal, or at least surreptitious. If Pakistan becomes an Islamofascist state, support for the bad guys would increase exponentially..Far greater than NATO can handle with the present commitment.
I wonder if NATO has a contingency plan for going to war with Pakistan in Afghanistan? If the number of terrorists increases from a few hundreds to many thousands, will we be able to reinforce the VanDoos?
Or will we run and await the inevitable nuclear conflagration?
As feared, the war with Islamofascism is heating up; we better get our heads around that reality.
*sigh*
Yeah. Our forces in Afghanistan will just roll right over the Pakistani army on Pakistani territory. Did you take your stupid pills today? Or are you smoking too much of that whacky tobacky?
Sorry, the blockquote made no sense. Humble apologies. The part I meant to quote was this:
Couple of other observations
1)Pakistan was created to be state for Muslims so they would have a home not dominated by Hindu’s. And the people complain about Israel because…..???
2) This martial law could be for a number of reasons, including ensuring the teansition goes properly, not leaving an opening for radicals to take advantage of the judges ruling
3) Bhutto has been awfully quiet
4) The large Pakistani middle class have no desire to be run by the Taliban. The 18th century tribes in the Northwest dont know the difference.
5) The Indians wont stay idle if there are problems.
6) The Chinese are going to be involved somehow….they get to poke a stick at the Americans and the Indians simultaneously…..
7) Troops being nearby isnt necessarily a good thing, how in the world do you reinforce them, given their location.
Ahh yes religous fanatics with nuclear missles…..priceless
…sometimes i wish someone from either side would push the button and get this over with.
This ‘should we’ or ‘shouldn’t we’ thing is wearing our various militaries down and giving leftoids a voice.
set you free. We have been watching and praying while some friends of ours await the ok from the Canadian immigration department re: getting into to Canada from Pakistan. He is a Canadian citizen, she was born in Pakistan, came to Canada for 3 years of school, married him,have a Canadian born son and they went back to spend a few years with her family. They have been waiting a year for the ok to come back. She was declined. There is something wrong with the immigration system for allowing others in but not this lovely gentle Christian woman with her Canadian husband and son.
Kate, Ann: What’s the alternative? That you support the idea of democracy only when it elects governments you like?
I never said I’m supportive of fundamentalist Islamic parties in power. I’m saying that by supporting the principle of democracy, there’s always the inherent risk that others will choose parties that your or I or we don’t ourselves approve of. This is especially so now that our leaders in the West are actively pursuing the policy of “exporting” democracy overseas. Are you saying that you’d rather we continue supporting Musharraf, despite his increasingly dictatorial posture, because you’d rather not take that risk? Because you don’t trust the Pakistani people enough to support their right to a truly democratic process? Because you presume that, given the chance, they’ll no doubt elect a fundamentalist Islamic party to office?
bluetech:
You bring up a good exception.
Anybody who disavows the murderous traditions of her fellow countrymen would be welcome.
Anybody who’s already in Canada and is proven to be inciting violence in the name of God should be immedately deported.
tomax7, I’m curious: how do you reconcile your faith with your apparent support for a preemptive nuclear strike, which would assuredly result in the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives?
As a fellow Christian, I find your enthusiasm for extreme military solutions highly troubling.
Enemy of your enemies. I agree Musharraf is playing games here, fearing loss in democratic election. The problem is, as you have stated, if Islamists get into power, they could be much worse. Unfortunately that is the flaw of democracy, though it’s still better than alternatives. My concern is thast Islamists will immediately seize power and suspend democracy once again. Which is worse, Musharraf suspending democracy or the Islamists. This is not a pretty picture. Luckily, we can deter the state of Pakistan; but, we cannot deter AQ and their ilk, who would like nothing better than massive, even nuclear, war. OTOH, AQ has not acquired means of nuclear or radiological attack (so far), even with Pakistani rogue elements present.
West might as well move on Pakistani/Afghan border areas now, and clean them out (no, not nuke them). Otherwise, as Kingstonlad says, we will be fighting them much closer (or even at) home, a point Christoph seems to have missed.
Musharraf only became ally of West/US out of self-preservation and expedience. Maybe we would be in a safer place if he hadn’t become our ally. We could have drained that swamp years ago. I predict we will end up having to do so anyway.
SYF…yes this is an exceptional case. This is when we hope common sense would prevail instead of beaurocratic procedural bungling. And yes we know too many that have been allowed in without question, while others have been rejjected for inane reasons. Fodder for another post.
In the meantime we wait and pray.
A related and excellent article:
The Coming Third World War
by Paul Weston
gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2007/11/coming-third-world-war.html#readfurther
Contains some very provocative questions directed at lefty multiculturalists.
“lefty multiculturalists” are a big problem right here, we’re soon going to have to come out of our collective comas. Our education systems are awash with the ideology of the Left.
Pakistan is a ticking time bomb as is much of the ME and environs.
As to allowing people from those areas of the world into this country it’s already tougher under this Conservative government. Finally some common sense calling the shots, it’s long overdue.
There will always be sob stories, some may be legitimate but they’ll just have to decide when and if they become Canadians they should remain here and stop traipsing back and forth to the lands they FLED.
Liz J: “As to allowing people from those areas of the world into this country it’s already tougher under this Conservative government. Finally some common sense calling the shots, it’s long overdue.”
Yeah, not really.
– 3w.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2006/permanent/12.asp
– 3w.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2006/permanent/13.asp
– 3w.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2006/permanent/28.asp
Posted by: Liz J at November 3, 3:54PM?????
NOT REALLY!!!!!!
En. of my en: We don’t like either of those options, which is why Kate wrote this:
“Musharraf’s military rule or a democratically elected Taliban – how’s that for a choice”
Perhaps the fundamentalists wouldn’t have a chance in a democratic election if Musharraf wasn’t a military dictator.
Seeing as we’ve got to choose, I’d go with the one who hasn’t said “Death to the Great Satan” a gazillion times, seeing as we’re the Great Satan and the one side might just act on their threats once they get the bomb.
You do pose a good question. I guess if a fundamentalist, death-cult party gets in through fair elections, the people who elected them have to bear the consequences of sanctions, possible war, etc.
After all, the U.S. is definitely bearing the consequences of electing Bush again in 2004, aren’t they? Universal condemnation by nations who gladly hide behind his use of force for their protection as well as his own country’s.
Shamrock: “Unfortunately that is the flaw of democracy, though it’s still better than alternatives.”
Agreed.
“Which is worse, Musharraf suspending democracy or the Islamists.”
But Shamrock, why are those the only two choices? Why presume that the suspension of democracy is here both inevitable and necessary? Why assume that, given an open election, Pakistanis would necessarily vote in favour of extremist rule?
*****
Ann: “We don’t like either of those options, which is why Kate wrote this…”
Except that line you quoted, “Musharraf’s military rule or a democratically elected Taliban – how’s that for a choice,” wasn’t in the original post. Kate added that afterwards.
“Seeing as we’ve got to choose…”
Who said we have to choose? Oh right, Kate did. When she says, “Jump!” you say, “How high?”
The problem with Islam (at least one problem) is the they don’t have the ability or desire to make their religion a part of their lives.
Most civilized countries have religion and it serves many in their populations well. Countries that have no religion have not done as well. (Cuba the former Soviet Union and even to some extent Scandinavia in other ways).
The Greeks discovered, for the most part, the right way to live . “all things in moderation” “know thy self”.
Unless and until, the Islamic world can find some balance between the real and the fantastic, they will be at war with themselves and the rest of the world.
The solution is within themselves to find. The best thing we can do is to contain them to their own enclaves/countries and try to insulate ourselves from the spillage of their insanities into our realm.
When we let the mentally handicapped out of institutions some time ago and onto our streets we created huge social problems with homelessness, crime and drug abuse. If you extrapolate this to letting those crazies in the Islamic world out of their countries we invited far worse problems for us. This has been proven on both counts.
Just as we cannot go into an asylum and convince the insane to be sane, we may not be able to do this with the Muslim world. The difference is that the Muslims have the potential to get sane, but probably not after millions of deaths and some strong new leadership arising in their own societies. As it is they are being held hostage by their current leaders.
I believe (and human nature dictates) there is a majority in their world that would prefer a peaceful society where they can still have their faith, but unless and until they are being led by a more sane type of leader, they will continue descend into their vortex of violence, poverty and mayhem.
The trick for us is to not get caught in that vortex. We must keep them out of our countries and especially their jihadist mullahs. Mosques are the seed pods. They are planting throughout the Western world and we are letting it happen.
The Islamic Jihad is their fight more than it is ours. It will be as hard to stay out of it as it is for the hockey player to stay on the bench during a brawl, but we will need to do something different since our own Left is making it impossible to participate to the degree that we may need to in order to have some sort of effect. Although, I am finding it harder to see what we can do to these whacks with guns … shoot one and two more take their place. That is why I think we should take the contain and isolate route.
Once they are starving in their own prison countries, reality may penetrate some of those turbans and and few new ideas may occur.
Need is the mother of invention.
We too, need to invent some new ways of dealing with this global problem.
“Which is worse, Musharraf suspending democracy or the Islamists…But Shamrock, why are those the only two choices? Why presume that the suspension of democracy is here both inevitable and necessary? Why assume that, given an open election, Pakistanis would necessarily vote in favour of extremist rule?”
enofmyen, I don’t think this is inevitable or necessary, I just suspect that’s what will happen. Anyway, we’ll have to leave that to the Pakistani people. I’m simply drawing on what happened elsewhere, like, as Kate stated, the Palestinian areas. Do you honestly believe AQ would allow free elections, and not do everything in their power – propagagnda and violence for example – to prevent someone like Bhutto (a woman, oh the sacrilege of it all!!!), gaining power through free elections?
I don’t think the Taliban themselves could be elected; after all they weren’t elected in Afghanistan, they seized power with foreign help.
Maybe, just maybe, Musharraf knows some things we don’t. I don’t really trust the guy, but perhaps he understands the implications of free elections in that country, even if he is self-interested.
An example to explain my argument – I assume Harper will win majority in next election, but I don’t know that for sure. Even if one hates Harper, that doesn’t mean they’re prepared to suspend democracy.
Maybe Musharraf is wrong to impose martial law; it doesn’t mean Pakistan will be a more stable or responsible country after elections.
Yes, we have to accept the results of democratic elections, warts and all. It doesn’t mean the result will be good or desireable.
After all, the U.S. is definitely bearing the consequences of electing Bush again in 2004, aren’t they?
Come again? Just what “consequences” are at play in this development?
Keeping Pakistan’s nuclear arsenal out of the hands of their religious fanatics is the better choice, the choice that Bush made in supporting Musharraf. Makes sense to me. I don’t think you really understand statescraft and the world at large regarding their approval/disapproval of Bush. France, Germany and Britain are publically on the same page as Bush regarding this same situation in Iran as are the rest of Europe whether it is in their interest to say it out loud. They are far more ME oil dependent than we are, so what they say publicly isn’t the same as privately in state department channels.
Venezuela had a democratic election and got Chavez, Russia got the re-Stalinizing and arms dealing to Iran Putin and the Palestinians elected the terrorists Hamas. “Democratic” election results in countries that first don’t have a civil society with a free press in place aren’t exactly equal to countries that do. There isn’t really a free election when the opposition has no press exposure or courts that will defend free speech.
You and The enemy of your enemies in your fuzzy convoluted “democracy”-trumps-all illogic don’t seem to get that.
I guess if a fundamentalist, death-cult party gets in through fair elections, the people who elected them have to bear the consequences of sanctions, possible war, etc.
Duh!! Well, that’s mindnumbingly self-evident, except those missles in the case of Pakistan would be directed at India for sure and us too. So, this is a little more serious than voter regret in Pakistan.
I assume you are a young person, you better start to think harder than you are and wipe away the silly memes you’ve memorized from the MSM and the lefty morons on campus. Life isn’t stock phrases that get strung together in a mentally muddled manner without analysis. We are entering a world where you better pray there is a Bush to stand up to these menaces because you haven’t got much future if there isn’t.
I don’t mean to insult you. Consider it part of the learning curve.
En of my en., you’ll jump when Gore says “how high”, I imagine. Straight into that flood he predicts we’ll all drown in.
I happen to agree with Kate. That’s allowed, isn’t it, in your little world? To agree with someone who isn’t a fan of your inane we’ve-heard-it-all-before-the-west-is-evil-bush-is-evil-everything-is-relative-and-good-except-for-evil-conservatives stance on things?
Penny, you need to reread my posts. I’m on your side.
So, Mr. Enemy guy there, leaving aside all the “democratic” election BS, how are you liking that nice, big army on the ground right next to the nuclear armed dictatorship? Looking pretty good today, eh?
You can thank Mr. Harper and Mr. Bush for that. G’head, thank ’em. I’ll wait.
ann – re-read your post and am notchanging of attitude toward them. Hey, maybe you need to re-read what you write.
We aren’t assembled here, thanks to Kate’s efforts, to be dullards who can get away with posting anything, but, seekers of truth, the hallmark of an enlightened forum, again thanks to Kate, so, re-read your postings and mine. I’ll let others decide who’s side you presented yourself as on.
hmmm…and we wonder why there is ‘fighting and wars among us’?
And penny, I like Bush and would have voted for him in both elections if I was an American. Sorry to have offended you in any way. I still think you misread my posts. But hey, it’s a free country.
Sorry for the typos. Haste creates waste.
Oh, and, ann, your posts on another thread on the Hillary video here…“Americans are tired of leaders with principles, because principles always make at least one side angry, and take too much work and time to live by”…is insulting and the rantings of an intellectual dullard if you had any insight into American history or world history which you obviously don’t. I’m satisfied that my post at 5:17 on this thread pretty much captures your attitude. You need to re-read yourself.
Sorry, ann, you can’t have it both ways. When things aren’t going your way “Go to hell and leave me alone!” isn’t going to work. But, it’s not surprising to watch you devolve into a foul-mouthed child in defending yourself.
That wasn’t me, penny. I’ve appreciated your posts on a number of occasions and would not have referred to you like that.
I think you need to understand the use of irony and sarcasm a little better. But I’m still glad you’re on the right side.
Pete in Ontario
How to reconcile our faith in using nuclear? I guess by the reasoning it will show the terrorists and others the West is a military might.
Slaughter of thousands? Possible, but in reality God slaughtered more in one day…
Military and military actions are not against the Bible.
Misuse and lack of responsibility is. Would it be misuse of nuclear weapons? Well that’s why we debate, come to a conclusion and see the results.
So far, the conclusion we’ve been using has been mildly effective, but given Iran and now Pakistan are in jeopardy of becoming a threat not only to surrounding countries, but the whole world, then we can debate all we want and have the bomb on our doorstep sooner than expected.
Thanks, Penny. Love ya.
Conservatives rule!!!
tomax7 – I entreat you to read the latest statements made by the Vatican regarding the need for global nuclear disarmament for the benefit of humanity. Owing to the indiscriminate nature and disproportionate volume of their destructive potential, the use of nuclear weapons by any state is inherently immoral.
You may find these documents of particular interest (I’ve omitted the ‘www.’):
– gsinstitute.org/docs/Roche_Register_2006_print.pdf
– vatican.va/roman_curia/secretariat_state/2007/documents/rc_seg-st_20071016_disarmament-security_en.html
How to reconcile our faith in using nuclear?
This is off-topic, but the experience amused me (my apologies in advance).
I was discussing energy solutions with a technologically-aware friend and said, “I think the Americans will go nuclear”. I was referring to, of course, nuclear power generation in the next 5-10 years.
The look on his face was priceless until he figured out what I was talking about.
Then everything got quiet and uncomfortable. We haven’t discussed this since.
Believing too much in peace to be a pacifist yet being too much of a peacemaker to seek war I think I found the solution. In the 10th century Czar Vladimir marched his people into the Dnieper River in mass baptism and so brought the Rus to Christianity. Imagine what would happen if the west were to by force of arms march the entire Pakistani people into a river and as they came out assure them that they had now put Islam behind them and they can’t go back because now they are Christian.
Given that … Musharraf’s survival in the short to medium term is the ONLY way that Pakistan will emerge as a democracy and not a theocracy intent on irreversable rush to totalitarian and apocalyptic behaviour … while armed with nuclear weapons ….. Musharraf is by an order of magnitude the lesser of evils in this situation.
It’s like this:
Scenario #1 – Musharraf = temporary tyrant + progress to long term peace = questionable solution with potential for good outcome
Scenario #2 – Musharraf Gone = free reign for Islamfascist barbarians = completely bad solution with no potential for good outcome and high probability of nuclear disaster
For those of you who think the US poses a Nuclear threat to this region …. Think again!
India is 100% the most likely to lay a Nuke on Islamibad.
China is 100% the most likely to walk in and take over after the fact!
You’d all better hope that the General prevails.
As should any Pakistanis who have an ounce of sense.
If you don’t mind me chipping in, here’s a point on our perspectives, regarding the two possible outcomes discussed above, as members of Western civilization:
– Military dictatorship: close enough to our traditions to make us clearly see it as evil.
– Islamic theocracy: so alien to us that we are half-tempted to see it as exotic, or just plain odd.
Perhaps this beyond-the-Thule aspect is why so many people who raise the alarums about Islamist anti-liberalism feel as if they were shouting into the wind.
What’s the alternative? That you support the idea of democracy only when it elects governments you like?
A so-called democratic system that would allow election of those who seek the demise of that system isn’t democratic to begin with. That’s how Hitler came to power.
That’s why the U.S. passed the Communist Control Act of 1954.
Pete in Ontario.
With all due respect, the Vatican and me don’t see eye to eye on things.
“Perhaps this beyond-the-Thule aspect is why so many people who raise the alarums about Islamist anti-liberalism feel as if they were shouting into the wind.”
Well said, Daniel M Ryan.
Even a cursory look into Islam reveals that it is foundationally evil. That the state is the religion. That the state has its own laws which are not only in absolute opposition to democracy, but are in opposition to free will and human rights. And that the commands and rewards for violence are not given to a place and time, as in the OT, but are perpetual, until the whole world is for allah and his prophet, under Islam.
This is the truth. The truth manipulated and deflected by obfuscation through another allah blessed Islamic war tactic. Taqiyya and kitman. Which is to be practiced against infidels.
“War is deceipt” – Mo
Therefore, the only trustworthy Muslim is an apostate. The argument about moderate muslims and terrorists is irrelevant as long as the ideology is left unchanged. Both subscribe to exactly the same Quran, Hadiths, and Shariah law.
The west must incrementally create laws directed against the political and violent practices of Islam. Essentially neutering it. It must also place a moritorium on Islamic immigration.
Anything less is suicidal.
Most people commenting on Islam in this and other forums do not have the slightest clue what it is. Yet hold to their ignorant points-of-view, even convictions, that it is equal. This is wishful thinking and not based on fact.
They, rather than examing the ideology separate from its adherents, contend that any criticism is racist and bigoted.
Fortunately, more and more are coming around to reality.
I don’t see why you are banning Irwin, Kate. Isn’t he just stating the fact, as Enoch Powell did in
Britain, that anyone who dares to criticize Islam or in Powell’s case non-white immigration is bigoted and racist? If Britain had listened to Powell who was not a racist but a realist they would not be in the position they are today where it is against the law to criticize muslims as you are inciting racial hatred so free speech is now muzzled.
penny
U blew it big time on ann’s post
I saw that right away
You’ll notice that comment has been deleted, David. I didn’t write it.