Britain 'is now biggest security threat to US' (says neocon mag.)

[TexasLawyer]

Britain 'is now biggest security threat to US'
By Francis Harris in Washington
(Filed: 29/08/2006)

Britain now presents a greater security threat to the United States than Iran or Iraq, an American magazine said yesterday. In an article on Islamists headlined "Kashmir on the Thames", the New Republic painted Britain's Muslim communities as a breeding ground for violent extremism.

Citing recent opinion poll evidence suggesting that one in four British Muslims believed that last year's London Tube bombings were justified, the magazine said: "In the wake of this month's high-profile arrests, it can now be argued that the biggest threat to US security emanates not from Iran or Iraq or Afghanistan, but rather from Great Britain, our closest ally."

The magazine, with a circulation of 60,000-a-week, has its roots on the Democratic Left although in recent years it has backed much of President George W Bush's foreign policy. The claim is the latest in a series of hostile reassessment of Britain by Americans in the wake of the alleged plot to bring down transatlantic airliners.

Many have been appalled both by the existence of enthusiastic jihadis in British cities and by the call from some of their leaders for a change in the country's foreign policy.

<snip>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=RDG05VDHPBMI3QFIQMFSFF4AVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2006/08/29/wsecurity29.xml

[Tandalayo_Scheisskopf]

1. They got them some...

Gooooood huffin' glue over there at TNR these days. They chase it with some Carbona.

[Tesha]

12. "The New Republic" has simply become (bull)shit. (NT)

[Barrett808]

18. Isn't TNR considered "neo-liberal"? n/t

[ShortnFiery]

25. I canceled my subscription during the run-up to the Invasion of

Iraq. The writers must have started drinking large doses of "Let's Build an Empire" kool-aid. It was a stark change resulting in pompous declarations and warmongering lingo. I'll not ever subscribe to THAT RAG (TNR) again. :puke:

I fear that FAR TOO MANY wealthy Democrats have INVESTED *big bucks* in the Corporations that represent our USA's Military/Industrial War(mongering) Machine. Therefore, for their personal profit interests, war is GOOD! :grr: :(

[wellst0nev0ter]

2. Welp, Time To Bomb Londonstan

I'm sure the good folks at The New Republican are willing to give up some volunteers :eyes:

[gorbal]

3. You know what's scary

I could actually imagine that happening. The Londoners that died would be considered "collateral damage", and Americans would accept it as a necessary evil. Perhaps not necessarily liking what is happening but in no mood to speak up in our current enviroment.

[DoYouEverWonder]

14. Like that kid on the subway train

that they shot down in cold blood. Turned out he wasn't doing anything and had no connection to terrorism other then the fact he had brown skin.

[Taxloss]

7. Germany tried that. Something VERY unpleasant happened to

several German cities as a result.

[Nihil]

15. On the other hand ...

... at that time, our PM wasn't a Quisling ...

I suspect the "British Resistance" would have a little to say about
the event though.

[sofa king]

4. Just wait until those guys get to the "F" section of the CIA Factbook

Roman Catholic 83%-88%, Protestant 2%, Jewish 1%, Muslim 5%-10%, unaffiliated 4%

What European country could have more Muslims than Bible-thumping Protestants?

France!

https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/fr.html

[tocqueville]

5. with a big difference that those idiots probably don't understand

that is to say that this little religion exercise is meaningless because 90% of the people belonging to those historical denominations are namely secular. The French model (is) has been radically different than the British/US model : communities based on faith or ethnic background (or both) are disapproved and even fought. France wants Frenchmen first (whatever colour or religion they may have originally) not groups that identify themselves as "foreigners" living in France. It's true that it hasn't always worked (what we call the Republican model) but one thing is sure : last year rioting was caused by a lack of integration, a demand of becoming "son or daughter of the Republic" not to alienate oneself like the Pakistani in Londonistan that despise British values. The British model is a failure despite better economical integration. Something that the US should have in mind.

[sofa king]

6. That's a fascinating observation.

Let me see if I understand you: though France has a much larger population of Muslims, most of them are better socially integrated into French society. In Britain, Muslims are more economically integrated, but retain their social separateness.

Among other things, it occurs to me that it would be easier for the Brits to pin some spurious terrorist charges on their Muslim community because of that social isolation. It's easier to imagine a fellow countryman as a potential enemy if you don't really know anything about him. Perhaps the model is failing because someone else entirely is taking advantage of it....

And yes, I completely agree with you that those doofuses won't understand that difference. What I'm sure they will recognize but not understand are two loaded terms in the redneck lexicon: Muslim, and France. Put them together and it's guaranteed to touch them off!

[Taxloss]

8. This is complete rubbish.

For a start, despite the ignorant claims of Melanie Phillips and others, London's Muslims are actually among the most integrated and culturally engaged in the country - "Londonistan" is a myth, and it's the depressed towns of the North and Midlands that produce terrorists, not the capital where a rising economic tide has lifted most boats.

Secondly, although we have some serious problems with extremist Muslims, it really is not that widespread, and it appears that the group most keen to deal with the problem is moderate Muslims. Plus, Muslims make up a very small percentage of the overall population, despite the sweaty imaginings of some neocons.

In summary: we come in peace.

[BooScout]

9. The biggest threat to the US is the US itself....

And America needs to wake up and realize that it can't continue to blame everyone else in the world for it being so fucked up.

[leesa]

16. You said it! WE are the problem as long as we continue to invade, bomb

rape loot pillage in other countries.

[Eurobabe]

20. Ay-yuh, precisely.

We are our own worst enemy with this gang of thieves in charge.

[LynnTheDem]

10. Lead 911 hijacker graduated from an American university.

Better bomb America!

[Tesha]

11. Stupidity, ignorance, and an amazing credulity are much bigger threats.

What are the odds that the target demographic of Americans
will stupidly, ignorantly, credulously swallow this hook,
line, and tea bag?

Tesha

[Demeter]

13. You'll Get No Takers On THAT Bet!

100% is not a sporting proposition.

[mainegreen]

17. European muslims are less integrated than american muslims.

They suffer lower wages, worse discrimination and have a hard time integrating. How do you become 'English' when being English (or British) has distinct racial and historical meaning? It's much easier to be American: just hop on over, get a job and drink coke. Voila, you're American.
This isn't just a problem in GB, this is a universal problem throughout Europe, and one that Europe has yet to acknowledge, let alone deal with. Extremism is actually spreading faster through some muslim communities in Europe than in most traditionally muslim cultures. But as holders of various European citizenships, they have easier access to our and other countries. The article is right in the basic point that extremism is very much on the rise in the British muslim community and that it is far easier for a person holding British citizenship to 'slip' through our (very weak) security than say an individual holding Pakistani citizenship. On the flip side, Britain is not a greater security threat. It's wrong to label countries as the threat when the threat comes from individuals and small groups.

[samsingh]

19. paranoia? huh?

[stepnw1f]

21. Neo-cons are crazy

They create terrorism, utilze terrorism, fund terrorism then tell us all to fight terrorism. Sick, sick, sick...

[warrens]

22. Maybe they'll burn down the White House again

That would be nice.

[MikeyJones]

23. Yes, a threat to "them"

They should be worried about the elements of the Republikkkan party that detest neoconservatives because methinks there's going to be an internal conflict soon.

[Vidar]

24. They hate Britain "for its freedoms" ( to dump their tyrant).