Al-Qaeda warns Britain to expect "very precise response" to recent honouring of Salman Rushdie

Overnight Britain had a video warning from al-Qaeda deputy Ayman al-Zawahiri that his terrorist group was preparing a "very precise response" to the recent knighthood for Salman Rushdie.  Conservative Member of the European Parliament, Dan Hannan supplied BritainAndAmerica with this reaction:

“Whenever something terrible happens, it is human nature to fit events into your existing belief system. If you are already convinced that Britain should not be allied to the United States, you will see terrorism as a response to our foreign policy choices. If you already believe that inequality is the worst problem in the modern world, you will tell yourself that “poverty breeds violence”.
   
The trouble is that the terrorists themselves evince only a marginal interest in these questions. We’d be better off taking them at their word. When they say that their real enemy is Western liberalism, we ought to listen carefully. After all, Osama bin Laden never cited Israel or Iraq among his grievances until comparatively recently: he was responding, as it were, to the Michael Moore interpretation of his actions. And, as this new statement reminds us, modern Islamist terrorism has had domestic British freedoms in its sights for far longer than our soldiers in the Middle East.
   
Yes, alright, foreign policy might be an aggravating factor at the margins. The radicals occasionally cite Chechnya, the Balfour declaration, the Crusades, the loss of al-Andalus. But when they say that their ultimate objective is to replace our way of life with a different way of life, we ought to believe them.”

Related link: Dan Hannan on terrorism being 'a middle class pursuit'

Comments

[JF]

Davod, I thought Muslims must pray five times a day. Isn't that more than in Judaism?

[davod]

JF:

Now it is more but at that time the Jews prayed more. I obtained my information from a theologian who is also an Imam. He mentioned that this was one the ways used to wean unbelievers over to Islam.

[Ken Stevens]

davod July 13, 2 10:10 PM
"A further part of the marketing of Islam were the number of times you have to pray in a day. Islam had two less than Judaism."

So, less is more, marketingwise.
On that basis, Christianity should have trumped the other two!

[Joanna]

You know, things like this remind me that being hated by Al Qaeda is something of a compliment, and being number 1 on their hit list more of an honor than anything else--an expensive and dangerous honor, but still...any country Al Qaeda doesn't count an enemy should be either bitterly ashamed for its cowardice, or very certain of its own unimportance in world affairs.

[Joanna]

pardon my bad grammar...ashamed of its cowardice.

[Dennis]

TomTom
"In much the same way the British went to sleep as Bhutto got funding from Saudi Arabia for his atom bomb in a country heaving with resentment and illiterate poverty with outposts in British cities"

It's funny you mention the poor illiterates who have outposts in British cities.
A significant majority of Asian immigrants are tremendously successful (even outperforming their ethnic British contemporaries in educational/business achievement) & have no interest in terrorism. They have no desire to depart from their comfortable detached residences, BMW X5's & lucrative businesses.
They are unlikely to be interested in spending time fighting for a restrictive religous premise that would restrict their freedoms and curtail their achievements.

We British seem to be constantly seem to be asleep while significant events occur & complain after global paradigm shifts affect us.
Instead of having petty arguments about a gaggle of pathetic terrorists and dormant historical grievences that have not got a chance of significantly altering our way of life?
Why do you 'apparently' intellectual commentators never discuss issues like the signing of the 'John Warner Defense Authorization Act' of 2007" (H.R.5122) (2) or the 'Military Commissions Act of 2006'.

The incorrect application of the laws refered to above would affect primarily U.S citizens, and in the U.K we had PM Blair's 'Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005' that effectively restricted the right of the British people to protest.

Why no discourse on the ability of the aforementioned laws to affect our apparently 'free' trans-atlantic way of life???

[Kevin Sampson]

"A significant majority of Asian immigrants are tremendously successful (even outperforming their ethnic British contemporaries in educational/business achievement) & have no interest in terrorism."

Correct. Their children, however, are a different story.

[Michael Blindomax]

Indeed our esteemed (by the left) british tolerance/appeasement is our own worst enemy.

All i ever hear from the apologists (none of them muslim) is that the vast majority of muslims are moderate and no threat, the point is the moderates will stand back and allow these things to happen in the same way that we stand back and allow these things to happen in the name of appeasement.

[Dennis]

Why is there still no comment on the legislation I referred to and the effect it has on our 'precious freedom'?
I might dare to suggest that it demonstrates a lack of fortitude or a willing connivance on the part of the contributors to this forum !!!!

[Joanna]

Dennis,

Perhaps the reason no one has answered is that your post seems rather disorganized. What exactly is it about the legislation you so dislike?

Most of the people here appear to believe Britain and America are fighting a war, and during wartime the traditional tension between freedom and security is going to have to err on the side of security. By all means, bring up the issues.