The reason is shown below. The UK's PC new Prime Minister, who loves PC diversity and hates the war in Iraq.
Brown puckers his lips to serial kiss the arses of the al Qaeda serial killers serving as Doctors and Police Officers in the UK.
Posted on 07/06/2007 12:37:24 AM PDT by neverdem
THE arrest of seven doctors in the attempted British terror bombings has shocked many people. Sadly, it shouldn't.
All seven are Muslims working at government-financed hospitals, their salaries paid by the British taxpayer. Dr. Muhammad Hanif practiced at Halton Hospital in Runcorn, Cheshire; Dr. Muhammad Asha, at the North Staffordshire NHS Trust's University Hospital.
So can doctors be terrorists? Can people who are financially well-off be terrorists? Absolutely. It is ideology, after all, that turns people into terrorists - not suffering.
Indeed, the No. 2 leader of al Qaeda is Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri - who was previously a stalwart of the Muslim Brotherhood in his native Egypt. Zawahiri made the connections that led to his role in al Qaeda when he went to Afghanistan in 1980 to provide medical care for jihadists fighting the Soviets. Later, he was a key architect of the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, which killed hundreds of innocents, and of the 9/11 attacks.
Other...
--snip--
Consider, too, the kind of people who become doctors - relatively intelligent, well-organized, hard-working. These are valuable skills both in leading terrorist groups and in carrying out operations.
Yes, we in the West expect the study of medicine to produce humanists - men and women who view all life as sacred, dedicated to broad service for humanity.
But it is also an intellectual endeavor - exposing one to other intellectual currents in the surrounding world. And in much of the Muslim world, the strongest currents have been the various extremisms that promote terrorism.
And the doctrines of radical Arab nationalism and Islamism (like the one that motivated those totalitarians working in concentration camps six decades ago) view their enemies as sub-human. Toward them, those trained in healing are quite willing to become doctors of death.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
Who forgets Mengele or Che Guevara? Why did Pol Pot go after the docs?
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
Trying to detect actual enemy elements within our own societies is going to be impossible because we don't want to be labelled "witch hunters" or "Fascists". And Al Qaeda is banking on that.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859319/posts?page=610#610
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1859319/posts?page=611#611
No, it's their religion in this case. MSM (and our government) refuses to admit this.
How is a religion with Sharia distinguished from ideology? The First Amendment is lacking, IMHO.
Although I tend to agree, the problem with blaming their religion, is that the liberals will change "It is their religion . . . " to "It is religion . . . "
What America Can Expect In A War Against Terrorists
Medicine At Gunpoint: The Sicko Crowd's Deadly Rx For America Part II
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
Thanks for the links.
You’ver welcome neverdem.
Thanks Neverdem.
Not only was I not shocked by the participation of doctors in the terrorist plot, I have no doubt there are many already here in the United States just waiting for the call.
It's not a large step from those mental gyrations which "justify" the procedure to mental gyrations justifying almost anything.
A caution, however: just as only a small percentage of physicians performed those procedures, only a small percentage would be involved in terrorism. I'd hate to tar an entire, noble profession.
PhD’s in the philosophy of DESTRUCTION.
Political Correctness allowed these al Qaeda Doctors to do what they did.
Political Correctness has allowed UK cops with possible al Qaeda backgrounds and connections to become members of law enforcement and prevents them from being fired:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1862160/posts
Up to 8 UK Cops Suspected of Al-Qaeda Links, Not Fired Because of Political Correctness
jihadwatch.org ^ | July 6, 2007 | staff
Posted on 07/07/2007 4:56:39 AM PDT by kellynla
Of course, they should never have been hired in the first place, but the UK (like the US) was anxious to have a “diverse” force, and of course no one would have dared to try to determine whether or not the prospective cops had any sympathies with the global jihad. And the fact that instead of being fired, as well as jailed and deported, they are kept on the force, is just another example of the suicidal lunacy that prevails in the West in our age.
“Al Qaeda fanatics working in police (but they don’t dare sack them),” by Stephen Wright in the Daily Mail (thanks to Hot Air):
Up to eight police officers and civilian staff are suspected of links to extremist groups including Al Qaeda. Some are even believed to have attended terror training camps in Pakistan or Afghanistan.”
The link below discusses PCism around the world and gets into how PCism controls the UK and may destroy it.
http://www.angryharry.com/boretreatofreason2.htm
In 1997, Britain began, in effect, to be ruled by political correctness for the first time. The Labour government was the first UK government not to stand up to political correctness, but to try and enact its dictates when they are not too electorally unpopular or seriously mugged by reality, and even sometimes when they are. The previous Conservative government was almost deliberately politi-cally incorrect, and during the previous Labour government political correctness had too little grip on the body politic to hold much sway.
In Britain, at the start of the twenty-first century, political correctness encompasses almost the entire range of policies from women’s pay to race relations, health care to education, crime to child discipline, and almost every institution, society, company and authority.
Political correctness has gained power over public services, from schools and hospitals to local authorities and central government. Political correctness became institutionalised at the BBC, but also started exerting control over ITV and broadsheet newspapers. Politically correct alternative comedians quickly swept to power, becoming the new establishment, while PC triumphed in the literary field. PC triumphed not just in trade unions and charities, but in professional and trade associations, from medical Royal Colleges to business associations. Finally, even multinationals and the police started suc-cumbing to PC.
The long march of PC through every nook and cranny of national life, leaving nothing untouched, was helped by the fact there is little competing ideology: although PC has been ridiculed, there has been virtually no counter-PC movement. A society enjoying unprecedented affluence and no external threats can afford to become intellectually decadent.
PC’s methodology of controlling speech and isolating opponents has been extraordinarily effective in a society that has practiced free speech for so long—and had to fight for it so little—that it has become complacent about it.
Since its establishment as the national ideology, political correctness sets the ground rules for debate, and is the benchmark against which public opinion is measured. When two strangers meet and talk politics, the need for acceptance means that more often than not they will usually stick to the politically correct text, even if they don’t agree with it.
So heavy is the punishment for transgression that few mainstream politicians or public figures would dare to be un-PC unless there is huge elect-oral advantage. Those simply seeking popular approval, such as actors or pop stars, automatically adopt and espouse politically correct beliefs, reinforcing them in the public mind in the process.
Anything that breaches political correctness is auto-matically controversial, and so any institution that wants to court public acceptance and avoid controversy must be PC. Since most institutions in Britain want to be publicly accepted, most have now become thoroughly permeated by political correctness.
The broadcast media, and the BBC in particular, stick to the politically correct text on most issues because it safely protects them from criticism. The BBC can endlessly promote mass immigration against the wishes of its licence fee payers with impunity, but as soon as one Panorama programme pointed to some downsides of mass immigration, it was attacked by the government and left-wing press as being ‘Powellite’. The film industry, both in the UK and US, almost uniformly sticks to the safe territory of promoting political correctness.
PC has silenced many awkward debates, as well as those that oppose them. As the row over Charles Murray’s book The Bell Curve showed, the study of racial differences has become almost totally taboo. Groups such as the Southern Poverty Law Centre have proved very effective at silencing those they deem guilty of ‘hate’.
Amnesty International has been turned by political correctness from a worthy fighter for political prisoners around the world into a knee-jerk anti-Western-govern-ment campaigning organisation that has all but lost sight of its founding principles. Index on Censorship is on the brink of turning from an organisation that campaigns for freedom of speech to one that campaigns against it.
Political correctness has also created a climate that has fuelled a vast growth in charities and pressure groups that support and promote the politically correct world view on almost all issues. From Greenpeace to Amnesty Inter-national, from Refugee Action to the National Council for One Parent Families, a huge non-governmental sector has grown up, all pushing in the PC direction.
They are often taxpayer-funded, or charities subsidised by tax relief, and can campaign for funds from the public without oppo-sition. They are given endless invaluable free publicity from the BBC and most newspapers as objective, independent groups—the BBC repeats everything that Liberty says with such unquestioning respect that they treat it often as a justification for a story in itself, with no counterbalancing points of view, even though Liberty is tied closely to the Labour party and cannot be described as politically neutral. As frequently complained about in the tabloid media, the National Lottery has been reduced to a fund to promote political correctness.
Non-government groups that may have a politically incorrect aspect to their work usually silence it. The Council for the Protection of Rural England campaigns about house building in the countryside, but it would never dare tackle one of the main, and most easily tackled, causes in the growth in housing demand, mass immigration.
In contrast, there are virtually no pressure groups that promote politically incorrect views, and most of those that do, such as Christian family groups, tend to have a low profile and are treated with suspicion by the media, especially the BBC. One example is Migrationwatch UK, founded by the former ambassador Sir Andrew Green, a lone group campaigning for less immigration (a view supported by 80 per cent of the public), against literally dozens of groups promoting mass immigration. In contrast to these other groups,
Migrationwatch gets no taxpayers’ money and is almost totally blackballed by the BBC, and to some extent by the broadsheet media. Political correctness also means that high profile figures are far less likely to support Migrationwatch in public than they are any politically correct organisation, because they will automatically become open to attack.
Political correctness also succeeds, like the British empire, through divide and rule.
While those on the politically correct side of a debate can happily hang together, whatever their differences, the politically incorrect often end up appeasing political correctness by denouncing fellow travellers, in an act of ‘triangulation’ aimed at making them appear less extreme than the others. Political correctness is so powerful, and the guilt by association that it promotes so effective, that even the politically incorrect fear being seen together. This makes it far more difficult for politically incorrect individuals and groups to work together for common causes.
Changes in society have fuelled the growth of political correctness. The growing emphasis on emotion and feelings over reason and logic in recent decades, combined with the decline in the study of science, has given PC a more powerful grip on the mind of the nation. The triumph of a more superficial celebrity culture over an intellectual literary culture has reduced resistance to PC, as shallow celebrities are more likely to succumb to the fashionable pressure of being PC than an intellectual icon. The TV culture champions the personal experience over abstract reasoning, intrinsically giving backing to politically correct ways of thinking.
PC encourages policies that further increase its potency. It encourages Third World immigration to the West, importing challenges to traditional Western values, and dividing society into ethnic groups where identity and grievance politics can thrive. It encourages the growth of the public sector, increasing the domain where it has the most powerful grip.
Political correctness also binds its values into the fabric of a country by laws and international treaties that make it very difficult to challenge. Various human rights laws, charters, conventions and treaties, from the UN to Europe to the Human Rights Act, create an entire international and domestic legal framework that upholds PC values and beliefs, making it very difficult for future governments to challenge them.
When Michael Howard, the Conservative leader, said in 2005 that if elected Prime Minister he would take Britain out of the UN convention on refugees, he was told by the European Commission that he had no legal right to, and Britain would immediately be taken to the European Court of Justice.
Ultimately, political correctness is the luxury of a powerful society. As the fear of Islamic terrorism has shown, PC’s enemy is a society’s sense of vulnerability. When people feel insecure, they more strongly resist what they see as the idiocies of PC because they believe the stakes are too high.
The combination of all these factors meant that PC, one of history’s most wide-ranging ideological revolutions, enjoyed the most extraordinarily rapid advance. Ellis wrote:
Dissenters can expect to be not only criticised, as dissenters always are, but denounced as both moral outcasts and unsophisticated simpletons. Yet this is done on the basis of a viewpoint that coalesced far too quickly for it to have been properly thought through, one that seemed to advance not by its intellectual force but instead by a kind of tidal action that suddenly surged everyone.
It is time to retrace our steps, to do what should have been done initially; we must take a hard look at what this position really amounts to and whether it is sound enough to deserve the commanding position it now has.
Trying to detect actual enemy elements within our own societies is going to be impossible because we don’t want to be labelled “witch hunters” or “Fascists”.
This may be true in certain segment of society, but (IMO) the average American has no trouble at all naming who the ememy is. If there is any frustration it comes from not seeing the progress we are making in this war.
(one mans opinion, freely given and worth almost that much)
The heck of it is, the Venona Papers showed that McCarthy was right. The gov’t *was* full of Soviet agents and helpers. But McCarthy’s PR was really, really bad, and he was working against the proto-Leftist MSM.
The reason is shown below. The UK's PC new Prime Minister, who loves PC diversity and hates the war in Iraq.
Brown puckers his lips to serial kiss the arses of the al Qaeda serial killers serving as Doctors and Police Officers in the UK.
Bush has screwed up a lot of things, particularly the border, but he deserves great credit for recognizing this enemy of Islamofascism. I wish his vision were as profound in the other areas.
I agree with you...abortion is as horrifying as any terrorist plot. The irony is, I suspect the doctors involved in the UK plot, as well as all those who are already here in the United States, would NEVER perform an abortion! Never! Their murder is confined to innocent civilians who are already born!
It's not the profession I am "tarring", it's the ideology,the death cult, the "religion of peace"!
We talk about border security, and rightly so, yet we are inviting terrorists into this Country with open arms, allowing breeding camps for hate to be built in our cities, having our children "pretend" to be muslims in our schools, allowing CAIR to bully our media to not report anything disparaging about their beliefs or actions...
I'm sorry for the rant...I just can't comprehend the weakness and blindness of our leaders and so many fellow Americans.
Political correctness has paralyzed us and I don't see it reversing in time.
We are sheep waiting to be slaughtered...
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.