Back to the initial page

A review of frequently broadcast opinions after Muslim terrorism hit London

More than fifty people, Britons and foreigners alike, lost their lifes in the metro carriages and the bus that suddenly turned into hell, and many hundreds more got wounded, undoubtedly leaving a number of them with permanent injuries, casting a shadow over the rest of their lifes. Those who survived, will never forget the panic they went through, and millions of people have now reasons to feel uncomfortable wherever they see a nervous young non-white with a rucksack or an oversized coat in their immediate vicinity. Indirectly, the terror also led to the tragic death of Mr De Menezes.

The July terror in London is yet another price the British people have been forced to pay for that grandiose disaster in slow motion that is called the pluriform society. The Dutch are now supposed to undergo the same misery one day. The question 'Can Holland cope with a similar attack?' began ringing all over the old media in my country. Unsuspecting Dutch families, enjoying a festive parade of hundreds of ships in Amsterdam, were taken by surprise by TV reporters asking them: 'Aren't you worrying about the possibility of a terrorist attack?' A new anti-smoking campaign over here is based on the macabre slogan: 'If you are afraid of terror, then be scared to death of smoking'.

Did something good come forth out of the evil, as it many times consolingly does? Did the London bombings bring the current establishment and the British people together, in the shape of a candid dialogue between the two? Did it open up politicians' ears, deaf until the blasts? Did the explosions, the pain and the fear make any politician hold a speech, in which he or she accounted for all the major political misjudgements in the past decades, that brought Britain in this situation? No, regrettably it didn't.

All that the old media showed, was a parade of people with opinions and reasonings, often contradictory, that fog the view on unpleasant realities. In the following, I will go into a number of opinions that I sense were frequently amplified by the BBC and others.

"Britain is now facing the question how these utterly British streets could produce terrorists turning against their own country."

Things like that were said by both British and Dutch TV news makers while showing images of the neighbourhoods where the 7/7 terrorists had grown up. In these images, mostly non-Europeans could be seen, so calling such streets 'utterly British' is nonsensical to say the least. Asians, Arabs and Africans with British passports are not Britons, but Asians, Arabs and Africans with British passports. I can tell, because the British nation is a white nation. Why, what the heck, I'm going to type it once again - the British nation is a white nation. If a prevailing opinion climate inconveniences you simply to describe what your own eyes are seeing, would you call such an opinion climate then typical of a democracy or typical of a crypto-dictatorship?

"The London bombings have nothing to do with Islam. Islam means peace."

That is not true. Christianity and Islam do have inspiring similarities, but peace in the Islamic sense of the word means peace for Muslims only, after they have totally submitted themselves to Allah. The Koran, God's own words in Muslim eyes, contains scores of verses, or surahs, that either justify violence against non-believers or directly incite to it*. The Islamic message was never spread by apostles, suffering from severe prosecution, but by armies of swordsmen. The Islamic attitude towards non-Muslims is incomparably much harsher than the Christian attitude towards non-Christians. The Koran breeds a supremacist mentality, which, for instance, explains for the astonishing cruelty of Muslim terrorists slaughtering tied-up hostages in front of videocameras.

*The ones I know are the surahs 2:190/191 -- 4:56 -- 5:32/37 -- 8:15/17 -- 8:22 -- 8:38/39 -- 8:55 -- 8:59 -- 9:14 -- 9:29/30 -- 9:38/39 -- 9:123 -- 47:4 -- 47:34.
They can be found at, link: Text collections, link: Koran, link: Browse the Koran.
(The New Testament isn't always peaceful too, St Matthew 10:34-37,, but the commandment to love your enemies is unique for the Message.)

"The overwhelming majority of the Muslims seeks to live in peace. It is only a very small isolated minority, interpreting some Koranic verses in a perverted manner, that is responsible for the terrorism or sympathizes with it."

This opinion evokes the picture of millions of people, practising a religion just as nice as Christianity is, and these millions are mentally standing thousands of miles away from a few fanatics. I think this is a serious misrepresentation of the actual situation. I don't think it is a matter of a very small group standing totally apart from a large group.

A number of causes make Muslims all over the world think negatively, to various degrees, about the West. Western troops killing Muslims in Iraq and Afghanistan, Israel getting away with wrongs other countries don't, birdbrained Western tourists, publicly drinking and vomiting in places considered holy by Muslims, to name some. Now, I think that all Muslims are not so happy about this, and that a percentage of them is really indignant over this, that a percentage of the indignant is outspokenly angry about it, that a percentage of the angry feels an urge to do something against it, that a percentage of the energetic gets the idea that writing and politics won't help, and finally that a percentage of the frustrated decides to commit their inexcusable crimes, incited by Koranic verses, by dangerous reasonings they talk one another into in private, by internet videos of US army misdoings and by the endlessly repeated TV images of the Abu Ghraib humiliations. In short, I think there is a continuous seamless transition from the group 'all Muslims' to a part of the group 'terrorists'.

Terrorists are probably also coming forth from the ranks of the poorly talented and scarcely educated, patheticly believing they will amount to something by throwing bombs, and from the ranks of those sick criminals, who are eager to hide their sordid pleasures behind the banner of a cause viewed as just by their fellow countrymen.

By the way, even the word we tend to use to describe the activities of opening a book, looking at the letters and sentences, understanding what they mean, and getting our thoughts influenced by them, in short, even the word 'reading' isn't safe any longer in the Word War that is tormenting us. Reading is now regularly being called 'interpreting pervertedly' or 'lifting things out of their context' by today's influentials, if the reading can lead to ideas they find politically undesirable. It only goes to show that not only people and ideas can be made suspicious, but even the most basic of intellectual activities as well.

On 8th July, London mayor Mr Livingstone held a speech, of which Dutch news programme NOVA broadcast the following part:

"(...) I want finally to thank Londoners for their solidarity. There are some places in the world where such an incident would have unleashed internal strife and physical violence. Londoners stood together and we haven't had any problems of the sort you might see in other parts of the world. And now, I think, that what says everything about what is right about this city, is everything about what led the International Olympic Committee to select us, because as I said, I believe this is the future. If you go back a couple of hundred years, to when the European cities really started to grow, and peasants left their lands to seek their future in the cities, there was a saying: 'City air makes you free'. And the people who have come to London, of all races and creeds and colours, have come for that. This is a city in which you can be yourself as long as you don't harm anyone else. You can live your life as you choose to do rather than somebody else tells you to do. It's a city in which you can achieve your potential and that I think is our strength. And that is what the bombers seek to destroy. They fear that freedom. They fear a world in which the individual makes his own life choices and his own moral value judgements. That's what they seek to snuff out. But they will fail. This year for the first time in human history the majority of people live in cities. London continues to grow. And I say to those who planned this dreadful attack, whether they are still here in hiding or somewhere abroad: watch next week as we bury our dead and mourn them, but see also in those same days, new people coming to this city to make it their home, and to call themselves Londoners, and doing it because of that freedom to be themselves."

The strange thing is that Mr Livingstone pretends to know exactly what the motives of the four terrorists were, without explaining how he can be so sure. Is Britain to assume he has had a personal in-depth talk with the terrorists in city hall, before they went off for the tube and the bus? At the time, he didn't even know the terrorists of 7/7 were born in the UK. (Two of the failing terrorists of 21/7 had come to the UK as asylum seekers and immigrants, obviously to be their terrorist selves, to live their terrorist lifes as they chose to do, to achieve their terrorist potential in London.) So what Mr Livingstone probably was doing here, was trying to suppress an idea before it even can emerge - the observation that the so-called pluriform society is one of the causes that changed Britain, The Netherlands and other countries into a sphere where people now must live in fear for Muslim terrorists. Had it not been for the Western multicultural society, with its massive Muslim immigration and its immigrated imams denouncing that same West for decades, the persons who are now seeking to terrorise us, would not have been living in our countries in the first place. But rather than recognising that the terrorist attacks justify, at last, starting a candid discussion with the British people on all the plus and minus points of the multicultural society, the mayor of London persists in enhancing the illusion that the on-going ethnic mixing is the way to go.

"The terrorists want to destroy our way of life. We must never give in to them."

I firmly agree that a country must never give way for terrorists. But what must be avoided too in our times, is that we don't enter into a thorough self-investigation of the present Western lifestyle, only because that step could then triumphantly be misjudged by terrorists as their success. I believe that a self-investigation of the West, or what I earlier called a Second Enlightenment, is a moral and political necessity in its own right. It has its own justifications, whether there are terrorists around or not. In fact, never to glorify the Western lifestyle permanently has always been a hallmark of the Western lifestyle throughout the centuries. The Renaissance was a product of the Western lifestyle. The Enlightenment was. The question: 'Why are we living the way we are living?' has always fascinated Europe's writers and philosophers, and rightfully so. Intellectual dynamics is a condition for social improvement.

"We must avoid that communities get put against each other. That's exactly what the terrorists are aiming at."

This is one of those sympathetically sounding simple statements that the old media are full of, but which are actually creating or aggravating severe misunderstandings.

a. It wrongly suggests that before 9/11, Madrid and London, Europe's multicultural societies were harmonious societies. They were and are not, for all the reasons I've mentioned in the main text. Europe's old parties are living in disharmony with the original peoples of their countries, probably due to too big a Torahist influence on these parties.

b. Everybody feels a strong aversion to terrorism. So prominent people saying things like the above, are probably trying to misuse that aversion to indirectly advocate the idea that the multicultural society is something good.

"The London bombings had nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Mind you, the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York took place before those wars, not after."

This wrongly suggests that only wars against Islamic countries can grow anti-Western feelings among Muslims. Besides, after the bombings it was revealed that a Foreign Office man had warned the government 'the Iraqi war was fuelling extremist views'. A few days after that revelation, Al-Jazeera showed a video record of one of the 7/7 terrorists explaining his goal was to retaliate. He mistook the ill-informed British voters and taxpayers for anti-Islamic accomplices of a government waging a war against his fellow Muslims.

"The leaders in the Muslim community must take on the evil ideology that is feeding terrorism."

A proposal that is vague and unfeasible, and therefore a non-solution. This 'taking on' and 'confronting' would have to have the shape of conversations between Muslims in leading positions and the angry young men in their midst. Such indoor conversations will never amount to anything substantial. The Muslim leaders know perfectly well why those youths are angry, and they will not know what to reply when the young sum up the latest examples of Western and Israeli conduct that infuriate them, and the young are well aware that the Muslim leaders would only be addressing them for the sake of their relations with Britain's present rulers, and consequently not for the sake of Islam.

"Islam has to be reformed."

This is being said by Mr Rushdie among others. Well, we can of course wait until the world's 1.2 billion Muslims ask Mr Rushdie to rewrite the Koran for them, because the Koran and nothing else is the anchor of Islam, but one shouldn't expect too much from it.

1st August 2005: the BBC broadcasts 'The new Al-Qaeda'
Reporter Peter Taylor went into the terrorist attacks that killed 200 commuters in Madrid, March 2004. In his comment on the images of the mayhem, Mr Taylor literally said: 'The consequences were seismic. In the elections, the government fell. Its successor declared Spanish troops to be withdrawn from Iraq. Terrorism had worked. (...)' Terrorism had worked? I beg your pardon? What Mr Taylor didn't say, was that during the election campaign, before the bombings, opposition leader Mr Zapatero had promised the voters to carry out that withdrawal, in case he'd be elected. So by sending home those troops once he was in office, Mr Zapatero didn't yield to terrorists, but simply did what he had promised Spain. Expressly or not, the BBC wrongly used the events in Spain to reinforce the following tough idea: unfortunately there are countries that hastily back down after a terrorist attack.

21st August 2005: the BBC broadcasts 'A question of leadership'
In this Panorama special reporter John Ware took a critical stance on some actions and statements of prominent Muslims. He exposed a Saudi Arabian imam to say nice things to a Western audience and ugly things to an Arab audience. He interviewed a Muslim who casually said Muslims have a vocabulary to be used in private and a vocabulary to be used in public. Mr Ware also reminded the viewers of Muslims burning Mr Rushdie's book 'The Satanic Verses'. Mr Ware critically interviewed MCB secretary general Sir Iqbal Sacranie about his absence at the Holocaust memorial service in January and, seated behind a computer, a mosque visible in the streets, Mr Ware showed anti-Jewish passages on Islamic websites. He went into the influence of a prominent cleric who divided mankind in believers and disbelievers and who would call his favourite political party simply 'Muslims'.

The first question that arises is why Mr Ware didn't mention that all these Islamic deeds find their origin in Mohammed's writings. The Koran justifies hypocrisy towards non-Muslims. The Koran is packed with verses that speak very negatively about the Jews, much more negatively than about the Christians. The Koran puts the Prophet above all criticism. The Koran makes no separation between a Muslim's personal life and his political life. All the actions of a Muslim must please Allah. (That's why Mr Ware's closing sentences were misleading: 'The battle for Muslim minds in Britain is well underway. It's a battle of ideas between those for whom Islam is personal and those who also wish to pursue Islam as a political ideology, fuelled by the rages and injustices of much of the Islamic world. The outcome of this battle will help shape British society in the 21st century.')

The second question then presenting itself is why the BBC is distortingly criticising Muslims now. The Koran wasn't written on 10th September 2001 or on 6th July 2005, but fourteen centuries ago. So why wasn't all of this thoroughly investigated by the BBC in, say, the 1970s, long before the number of Muslims in Britain rose to its present two million? What to think of an editorial policy that must be leaving millions of British viewers puzzled by questions about the true nature of Islam time and again? One day they get to see a tolerant and respectful Muslim, the next day a Muslim delighted with 'those planes flying magnificently into the Twin Towers'. One day the British get to see a democratic and peaceful Muslim, the next day a Muslim yelling 'Islam will take over the UK!'

5th September 2005: the BBC broadcasts 'Battle for Islam'
This programme was written and presented by Ziauddin Sardar. After talking to Muslims in various parts of the Islamic world, Mr Sardar arrived at the following conclusion in his closing sentences: '(...) The solution for all the critical problems of Islam, I have learnt on this journey, requires Muslims to embrace Islam's own universal values. The people I've met are comfortable with their faith. They reaffirm my faith in the basic decency and values of the vast majority of Muslims. But that doesn't mean that the future is plain sailing. Reform requires courage and a great deal of new thinking. In this tour around the edges of the Muslim world, I have found growing determination and confidence that the battle for the soul of Islam can be won. Through moderation, democracy and pluralism. Islam, Muslims are arguing, is not a simple prescription, but a wealth of possibilities. The challenge now is for the tide of change to transform the heartlands of the Middle East.'

My conclusion: expressly or not, through this programme the BBC:
a) yet again enhanced the logic-defying image of a vast peaceful Muslim majority standing far away from a couple of radicals,
b) boosted the delusion that Islam can be reformed,
c) enhanced the illusion that Muslims can be impressed by any plea for 'pluralism, tolerance, democracy' by supporters of a political system that is synonymous with moral degeneracy, and finally,
d) strengthened the idea that more Middle East countries than Iraq alone need to be, what Mr Sardar would call, transformed. Remember President Bush's 'forward strategy for freedom'? In his speeches before US military, he is consistently holding the prospect of more difficulties and sacrifices to them. And speaking of America, on 26th July 2005 the Newsnight editors gave the floor to J. Woolsey, CIA director 1993-1995:

"Britain always successfully fought against autocratic regimes. Napoleon, the Kaiser, Hitler, Stalin. The war on terror is like the Cold War. It will take decades, but together with the US the UK will win."

....wrongly suggesting that powerful people with totalitarian aspirations exclusively come in the shape of foreign rulers. Prime minister Churchill for one knew better than that ('....tyranny, be it external or internal....').

Terrorism is a matter of life and death.
The people have every right to live in a country that isn't pestered by it.
So to solve that problem, a cool calculated exchange of sound arguments is required.
Are the British witnessing such an exchange, looking at the BBC?
No, they are not.
'Auntie' is giving them time-wasting nonsense, circumlocuting, distortions, evasions and contradictions instead.
That's not a proper way to inform a people, is it?
It rather fortifies than undermines my theory on intentional confusion.
Doesn't it, Mr Grade?
(Michael Grade is the chairman of the BBC and a Jew.)
Is there some system in the cacophony?
Yes, I think there is.
The dominant opinions I've inventoried seem to be fed by some silent musts.

The continuation of the multicultural society must not be allowed to become a nationwide discussion item, even if that implies that Britain has to endure more terrorist massacring.

The door to a future UK participation in another Middle East war must be kept open.

Richard Schoot, 9th September 2005

Britain, The Netherlands, Europe are in very big trouble, in my view. Our countries urgently need new political parties, Christian-patriotic parties, and it is very important to know what Torahism is. Please read my main text at
         If you come to agree with my views, please always remember that the only way out is a peaceful and patient way. Not a single foreigner or Jew can be held responsible for the country's present situation. Avoid confrontations that can easily turn overheated. Don't react to provocations. Please don't view the avoiding as cowardice. It isn't. Be strong, be calm and calm down others if their anger may cause them to do foolish things.

Long live the Jews, down with Torahism.

                                       Back to the initial page