Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Mark Steyn: Blunkett's ban will fan the flames
The Telegraph (U.K.) ^ | 07/13/04 | Mark Steyn

Posted on 07/12/2004 4:10:20 PM PDT by Pokey78

A couple of years back, I mentioned the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and received a flurry of lively e-mails. It was Valentine's Day 1989, you'll recall, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his extraterritorial summary judgment on a British subject, and shortly thereafter large numbers of British Muslims were marching through English cities openly calling for Rushdie to be killed.

A reader in Bradford recalled asking a West Yorkshire officer on the street that day why the various "Muslim community leaders" weren't being arrested for incitement to murder. The officer said they'd been told to "play it cool". The calls for blood got more raucous. My correspondent asked his question again. The policeman told him to "F--- off, or I'll arrest you."

Isn't that pretty much how it's likely to go once David Blunkett's new protection for Islam is in place? If you're the "moderate" Imam Yusuf al-Qaradawi, you'll be invited to speak at the "Our Children Our Future" conference sponsored and funded by the Metropolitan Police and the Department for Work and Pensions. But, if you express concern about ol' Mullah Moderate, an Islamic lobby group will file an official complaint about you.

Indeed, after Sir John Stevens, Met commissioner and event co-sponsor, said he didn't want his officers on the same stage as the imam, the Muslim Association of Britain filed an official complaint about his comments. By the time you read this, Sir John might have already called for himself to be investigated by a Royal Commission and found guilty of systemic Islamophobia.

As for "Our Children Our Future", when it comes to children, the imam certainly has the future all mapped out: as he has said, "Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation." Thank heaven for little girls, they blow up in the most delightful way.

If an Anglican Bishop were to commend a career as a suicide bomber to his Sunday school charges, you'd certainly hope to be free to question his judgment on the matter. Not that Anglican bishops ever say such things, of course. They're lost in anguished debate on whether they should just have celibate gay deans in long-term relationships or go for full-blown robustly active gay bishops, and all the thanks they get for their painful efforts to keep up with the times is wholesale public mockery of Christianity up and down the land - i.e. my old friend Alistair Beaton's satirical Iraq-war song, We're Sending You a Cluster Bomb From Jesus.

Meanwhile, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in the Western world, but Blunkett wants us to pretend that it's a wee delicate bloom which has to be sheltered from anything unpleasant. The other week, the governor of one of those Nigerian states that now lives under sharia called for the burning of all Christian churches within his jurisdiction. Every Friday, on state TV and radio throughout the Arab world and in mosques somewhat closer to home, the A-list imams call for the killing of Jews and infidels. Well, good luck to them. But, if they can dish it out so enthusiastically, couldn't they learn to take it just an eensy-teensy-weensy bit?

One of the reasons Arab nations are in the state they're in is because of the inability to discuss Islam honestly. I was in Amman for the Jordanian election last year and one of the things you notice is that, although the city does a reasonable impression of a modern dynamic capital and its press is, by the standards of the region, free-ish, its stunted political culture is subordinate to its religious culture. That's why, for example, Article 340 of the Jordanian Penal Code - which effectively licenses "honour killings" - always gets renewed when it comes up in parliament.

That's another reason the British Government should not be in the business of helping coercive lobby groups further stifle debate. Islam raises political questions that Judaism or Buddhism don't - the suggestion, for example, that Muslim women should be exempt from the requirement to be photographed on national identity cards. Without Blunkett's law, there'll be the odd crusty type from the shires huffing on BBC phone-ins that if Muslim women think it's insulting to be made to remove their hejab for ID cards, they should bloody well have thought about that before moving to Britain.

With Blunkett's law, we'll discuss such questions, if at all, between tightly imposed government constraints explicitly favouring one party to the dispute. I know which one of those options any self-respecting liberal democracy ought to prefer.

In The River War (1899), Winston Churchill's account of the Sudanese campaign, there's a memorable passage which I reproduce here while I'm still able to:

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Is that grossly offensive to Muslims? Almost certainly. Is it also a rather shrewd and pertinent analysis by one of Britain's most eminent leaders? I think so. If Blunkett bans the sentiments in that first sentence, the sentiments of the last will prove even more pertinent.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Government; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: marksteyn; marksteynlist; uk

1 posted on 07/12/2004 4:10:21 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Howlin; riley1992; Miss Marple; deport; Dane; sinkspur; steve; kattracks; JohnHuang2; ...

2 posted on 07/12/2004 4:11:29 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

I wonder how long before a fatwa is issued on our beloved Mark Steyn.


3 posted on 07/12/2004 4:19:12 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

bump.


4 posted on 07/12/2004 4:20:00 PM PDT by headsonpikes (Spirit of '76 bttt!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
When the space aliens ask me what writer best describes our planet, I plan to direct them to Steyn.
5 posted on 07/12/2004 4:26:06 PM PDT by Interesting Times (ABCNNBCBS -- yesterday's news.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

As usual, Steyn is right on target. Disturbing article, though. The British had better wake up.


6 posted on 07/12/2004 4:32:28 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl ("In the Kingdom of the Deluded, the Most Outrageous Liar is King".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

BTTT


7 posted on 07/12/2004 4:33:23 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Another fine Steyn article. He nails it.


8 posted on 07/12/2004 4:39:41 PM PDT by B Knotts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Unexerpted, and un-Q'ed. Bravo.


9 posted on 07/12/2004 4:40:46 PM PDT by NovemberCharlie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TheSpottedOwl

actually, the Brits need to be pushed further..then they'll wake up..However, the country that will probably FIRST move hard against Muslims within its borders will be France..it's the least democratic of the western nations.


10 posted on 07/12/2004 4:52:00 PM PDT by ken5050 (We've looked for WMD in Iraq for LESS time than Hillary looked for the Rose Law firm billing records)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ken5050

France may be the least democratic Western nation, but they'll be the first to surrender. Okay, I know what you're saying...I just couldn't resist saying that ;-)


11 posted on 07/12/2004 4:57:27 PM PDT by TheSpottedOwl ("In the Kingdom of the Deluded, the Most Outrageous Liar is King".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"We're sending you a cluster bomb from Jesus!" LOL

A month ago when Berlin had a huge gay celebration presided over by the city's gay mayor, I thought, "This will stop big time when Islam takes over."

12 posted on 07/12/2004 5:07:00 PM PDT by Malesherbes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
One of the reasons Arab nations are in the state they're in is because of the inability to discuss Islam honestly.

Soon this will be the case in the West.

Already, anyone who says anything negative about Mohammedanism is branded a hatemongering bigot.

13 posted on 07/12/2004 5:11:58 PM PDT by Guillermo (It's the 99% of Mohammedans that make the other 1% look bad)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

This sentence shimmers like a highly polished gem:

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

But who is he quoting here?:

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Does anyone know?


14 posted on 07/12/2004 5:45:15 PM PDT by ConservativeConvert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Non-excerpted BTTT.


15 posted on 07/12/2004 5:48:36 PM PDT by spodefly (This post meets the minimum daily requirements for cynicism and irony.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Nice work Mark Steyn. I have my treasured paper back. The River War,by a 24 year old Winston Churchill. Yes, after the terrible massacre of 10,000 Egyptian troops and six British officers 13 years before, revenge was taken. The slaughter of 20,000 fanatical horsemen at Omdurman was well recorded. Even Churchill demured at the absolute carnage of the Dervish Islamic Army. Lord Kitchener got a little miffed too- at Churchill.

The disease of politically correct cowardice is well noted by Mr Steyn. A correspondent asked a policeman, why do you not lay charges under the law regarding hate. The Bobbie told him "F... Off, or I will arrest you".

There is something rotten abroad in my native country and in Canada also. People are being prosecuted for unwise remarks against Islam or other minority cultures under the hate laws. Then the fanatics who use Islam as a cover, sneer in peoples faces, protected by the cowards. Let me name one group. The Ontario Human Rights Commission. Be on guard.

16 posted on 07/12/2004 5:50:06 PM PDT by Peter Libra
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo
Already, anyone who says anything negative about Mohammedanism is branded a hatemongering bigot.

That's right, kick Catholicism, any branch of Christianity and that's PC fine with the media. Pro-Palestinian(Muslim)/anti Israeli(Jews) spiels are also okay. The Hindus and Buddhists aren't even on the U.S. media radar screen unless Hindus just happen to be repelling another Muslim attack in Kashmir.

But nobody dares say a judgmental word against Islam! We all know that if a terrorist attack occurs it is 99% sure to have been done by Muslim terrorists and innocent civilians are the usual victims. In the U.S., we put up with security checks at every airport, etc. because they're watching for Muslim terrorists, there isn't another variety to speak of. When you sit down in an airplane you automatically look around for Middle Eastern/Paki young men, because that's the only potential danger.

But we can't say anything publicly that it's all those damn crazy Muslims' fault! They're protected when Islamic terrorists should be discussed and condemned on every street corner, and open discussions of what massive failure in their religion causes those bombing lunatics to plague us!

It's our countries Muslims are piling into, we aren't trying to gain citizenship in their filthy Islamic ratholes. We owe them nothing, and they owe use the respect of our ways while they live in our countries. Or else they can return to one of their Allah's showcase homelands, which would be the best thing for the West.

17 posted on 07/12/2004 6:03:47 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Guillermo
It never ceases to amaze me how the liberals support Islam without question. It is by far the least tolerant of any religion. They torture women, despise and kill homosexuals, kill infidels that attempt to practice another religion etc etc.

Aren't the Libs supposed to be champions of tolerance? How is it that Islam gets a pass every time when they tolerate practically nothing? I have a hard time comprehending this.

MKM

18 posted on 07/12/2004 6:05:17 PM PDT by mykdsmom (Widow Chaser + Ambulance Chaser = NIGHTMARE Team for the US)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeConvert
"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

That was Winston Churchill, Lord love him.

19 posted on 07/12/2004 6:06:09 PM PDT by xJones
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeConvert
Read with care. He is quoting Winston Churchill, and ways so in his text. It is observations on conditions in the Sudan in 1899. Things have not changed much there in the last century.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "To the Supreme Court: I Quit"

20 posted on 07/12/2004 6:10:36 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (www.ArmorforCongress.com Visit. Join. Help. Please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."


21 posted on 07/12/2004 6:17:38 PM PDT by pushforbush ("How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone

Since Steyn is a Jew, I suppose no fatwa is needed, given he is already covered by the daily calls for extermination of the Jews coming from the muslim world.


22 posted on 07/12/2004 6:19:52 PM PDT by thucydides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Churchill: "Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog..."

Seems I'm not the first one to have made the comparison between the Islamic mind and the mind of a rabid dog. (Hydrophobia = Rabies, in the modern parlance) Sir Winston made the realization 100 years before me. Go figure.

23 posted on 07/12/2004 6:34:49 PM PDT by FierceDraka ("Party Before Country" - The New Motto of the Democratic Party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Whenever I read some story about some stupid liberal law like the one steyn is referencing I become more and more convinced that under every leftist is a self loathing idiot on a suicide mission.


24 posted on 07/12/2004 6:40:53 PM PDT by Prysson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: thucydides
Since Steyn is a Jew, I suppose no fatwa is needed, given he is already covered by the daily calls for extermination of the Jews coming from the muslim world.

We are all Jews now.

25 posted on 07/12/2004 6:47:48 PM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham ("This house is sho' gone crazy!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: mykdsmom
It never ceases to amaze me how the liberals support Islam without question. It is by far the least tolerant of any religion.

This is a serious question and an important one. I'd suggest you listen closely to what leftists say about terrorism and its causes...

The Left views Islamism as primarily a Leftist, anti-colonial movement merely cloaked in religious rhetoric. They see the Islamists as potential allies - in the same vein as Che or Ho Chi Minh.

How they come to this conclusion is astounding. While previous "anti-colonial" movements invariable at least gave lip service to the political views of the Western Left, Islam and Islamism do no such thing.

Listen to Osama and co and they want to drag the world back to the 10th century and give its people the choice of the Koran or the sword. Leftists hear this and find the real cause of Islamist terror to be income inequality, poverty, or Christianity, and then conjecture their real goals to be egalitarianism, religious pluralism, environmentalism, or "social justice". Which just goes to show that in the Leftist mind reality loses to comforting fiction every time...

And let us be clear - Islamists hates Western Leftism even more then American conservatism. In their dream future, we Christians and conservatives will face dhimmitude - slavery - while homosexuals, atheists, avante guard "artists", and the rest will face stoning, beheading, and even worse.
26 posted on 07/12/2004 6:52:45 PM PDT by swilhelm73 (We always have been, we are, and I hope that we always shall be detested in France. -Duke Wellington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: mykdsmom

The liberals hope to use Islam as a cudgel against Christians while at the same time using its influence as the excuse in which they take despotic power over us in America.

They hope to be able to control and spin the Muslim onslaught as a dynamic force with which they keep the electorate in line.


27 posted on 07/12/2004 6:56:39 PM PDT by mdmathis6 (The Democrats must be defeated in 2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Steyn somehow found the only way possible to improve on his own magnificent writing: by quoting Winston Churchill.

What a pleasure to read!

28 posted on 07/12/2004 7:23:37 PM PDT by irv
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
We are all Jews now.

You said it, brother.

29 posted on 07/12/2004 7:58:24 PM PDT by Snake65 (Osama Bin Decomposing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The issue is immigration, not Blunkett's law. Law or no law, mass Muslim immigration will destroy Britain, and scratchings on pieces of paper won't make the least bit of difference.
30 posted on 07/12/2004 8:08:09 PM PDT by jordan8
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Thanks for ANOTHER unexcerpted ping, Pokey!

Without Blunkett's law, there'll be the odd crusty type from the shires huffing on BBC phone-ins that if Muslim women think it's insulting to be made to remove their hejab for ID cards, they should bloody well have thought about that before moving to Britain.


OK, enough with this silliness, but it's the first thing that popped into my head....

From my profile page:
From Mark Steyn:

The other day, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad told Lisbon’s Publica magazine that a group of London Islamists are ‘ready to launch a big operation’ on British soil.

‘We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents,’ he said, clarifying the ground rules. ‘Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value.’

The cleric added he expected to see the banner of Islam flying in Downing Street. ‘I believe one day that is going to happen. Because this is my country, I like living here,’ he said. ‘If they believe in democracy, who are they afraid of? Let Omar Bakri benefit from democracy!’

Any questions?


31 posted on 07/13/2004 12:14:22 AM PDT by Watery Tart ("I'd rather have my husband alive than that money." Teresa Kerry-Heinz)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

bttt


32 posted on 07/13/2004 3:11:15 AM PDT by lainde (Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I am shocked his articles aren't banned yet in Canada and the UK.

Anyone want to guess on that date?

33 posted on 07/13/2004 3:15:56 AM PDT by GeronL (wketchup.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

So wise for one so young.

34 posted on 07/13/2004 3:17:10 AM PDT by metesky ("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: metesky

Amazing that at the time, he was considered a liberal!!


35 posted on 07/13/2004 5:09:37 AM PDT by AngloSaxon (successful)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
As for "Our Children Our Future", when it comes to children, the imam certainly has the future all mapped out: as he has said, "Israelis might have nuclear bombs but we have the children bomb and these human bombs must continue until liberation."

A clearer statement of Islamofascist intentions I have not seen. Thanks Pokey.
36 posted on 07/13/2004 5:20:19 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngloSaxon
Amazing that at the time, he was considered a liberal!!

Actually at the time Churchill was a Tory. He switched to the Liberal Party after entering Parliament a few years later, then switched back in (I think) the early 1920s. When asked what conclusions people should draw from the fact that he had switched paties twice Churchill said:

Anyone can rat. To rat and then re-rat takes talent.

37 posted on 07/13/2004 5:25:04 AM PDT by Pilsner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property - either as a child, a wife, or a concubine - must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

"Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. But the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytising faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science - the science against which it had vainly struggled - the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."


Words even truer today.
38 posted on 07/13/2004 5:25:14 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeConvert

Winston Churchill...... he stated so just above the quote.


39 posted on 07/13/2004 5:26:31 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: thucydides

Uh.... Mark Steyn is not Jewish.


40 posted on 07/13/2004 5:29:24 AM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: thucydides

Steyn may or may not be of Jewish heritage, but he now attends a baptist church...or at least that is what I read somewhere.


41 posted on 07/13/2004 5:29:42 AM PDT by Drawsing (Like a darting swallow, an undeserved curse never comes to rest....Proverbs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It was Valentine's Day 1989, you'll recall, when the Ayatollah Khomeini issued his extraterritorial summary judgment on a British subject

All about the love, those Muslims.

42 posted on 07/13/2004 6:07:37 AM PDT by Undertow ("I have found some kind of temporary sanity...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reformedliberal

Ping - Love that Churchill quote!


43 posted on 07/13/2004 8:39:00 AM PDT by third try
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ConservativeConvert

He's quoting Winston Churchill in both instances.


44 posted on 07/13/2004 10:19:47 AM PDT by pgkdan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: scholar; Bullish; linear; yoda swings

Ping


45 posted on 07/13/2004 11:26:51 AM PDT by knighthawk (We will always remember We will always be proud We will always be prepared so we may always be free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson