Western Resistance

why not ,after all it is Britain who is keeping Evil Islam alive:
No regime change In Iran.
Britain Opposes Regime Change In Iran.
Says Lord Triesmanan Of Tottenham,
The Spokesperson for
Britain's Foreign and Commonwealth Office.



In an interview with the BBC radio 4, Lord David Maxim
Triesman, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Government
Spokesperson for Foreign and Commonwealth Office
unashamedly admitted that Britain will oppose regime change
in Iran and will continue to promote the tyrannical regime in
Iran by engagement and dialogue.

Lord Triesman who became life Baron in 2004 is a senior
advisor to Margaret Beckett, the current British Foreign
Secretary.

Lord Triesman disclosed that in recent days he had over 8
meetings with Rasoul Mahdavian, the Mullahs ambassador
to Britain to discuss the fate of British sailors held as hostages
for 13 days in Iran. He dismissed any secret deal been cut to
free the British sailors held there.

Lord Triesman of Tottenham
Another Iran hater, another leech
who has blood on his hands.
He is determined to keep the terrorist Mullahs
in power to the detriment of all Iranians
so Britain and the EU can milk Iran unopposed.

Neat site you have. I found it through Fjordman.

I didn't read the BBC article the way you did. Seemed to me the following line from the BBC article indicated this was an intra-Muslim fight:

"The clashes, which lasted five hours, followed TENSIONS AMONG PEOPLE WHO USE THE MOSQUE..." (my caps)

That seems fairly clear. But it's true that in the article that is the only point where it's made clear who was involved, and in a rather muted way at that. I guess it might be argued that the BBC wrote thus intentionally, so that careless readers -- many people -- might misunderstand or not register clearly who was getting violent.

You are usually on the ball, but in this case I have to say you are seeing things that aren't there. The BBC report clearly states that the clashes "followed tensions among people who use the mosque". It also quotes the policeman twice refering to the dispute "within the community".

Your imagination is working overtime on this one, I'm afraid.

I think the point is that both articles avoid using the word "Muslim."

What I found extremely annoying was that no arrests were made - that is, Muslims have a licence to cause public disturbance whenever they like!

Has there ever been a clash that "followed harmony amoung people who use the mosque"? Or any other establishment for that matter? I don't think I'm going too far out on the limb by stating that pretty much all clashes follow a moment of tension. In fact I would say that every clash in the entire history of human kind immediately follow some sort of tension. I would even extend this to the different species of animal kindom; where clashes between budgies, dogs, cats, bees, ants and even bunnies, follow a moment of tension. I could also include the natural sciences such as plate tectonics, where clashes follow some sort of geological tension. So the reason of "followed tensions" is hardly an example of quality newsreporting.

I suppose the BBC may think that the "why" of the story is none of our business. But then, why bother writing the article in the first place. Therefore, I believe you have license to use your imagination in this case.

I witnessed some odd scenes outside the Harrow mosque recently myself. Friday prayers had ended. A man of about 20 had apparently kicked a passing Roma boy of about 12. The Roma family reacted non-British style. One of the women picked up a full recyling bin and chucked it after the attacker, who had run along the pavement and was being placated by a couple of middle-aged men. The bin flew back, remaining plastic and cans flying. Before I knew what had happened, I thought this was one family dispute that was getting out of hand.

The entire street stopped and the traffic slowed. Amongst the onlookers, the builders on the new mosque being built next door, one eery-looking black-masked niqabi witch, and perhaps a 100 others, mostly men. The most revealing moment? The assailant ran across the road, shouting behind him, 'He's only a Christian, he's a kaffir'.

Unimaginable outside a church or synagogue.

What I find disturbing in Both reports is this: what caused the dispute? I get the impression that what's going on is beyond the comprehension of those reporting. It's as if the "reporters" are outside observers who don't have a clue. There seems to be a real "disconnect." I have also noticed the same thing occurring with the reports out of Iraq -- no one who's reporting seems to be on "the inside."

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)