From The Gathering Storm Blog

With the winds of war on their doorstep, the mounting squalls of the coming war are met with complacency in Europe.

First we have the recent Munich Conference. It’s indicative that they would pick the very symbol of appeasement to hold a conference on terrorism. Christopher Ruddy attended the Munich Conference on Security Policy, held in Munich, Germany. What he learned was how feeble European security policy really was.

Today, Europe appears to have a mindset of accommodation and complacency. Appeasement might be too strong of a word, since there is no Hitler-like figure marching through European capitals to acquiesce to.

The failure of NATO to back the mission in Afghanistan drew a strong rebuke from U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who called Islamic terror a “cancer” that will “metastasize” if it isn’t aggressively attacked.

“I am concerned that many people on this continent may not comprehend the magnitude of the direct threat to European security,” he told the European leaders. Gates noted that numerous terror plots aimed at European targets had been thwarted, partly thanks to U.S. efforts to combat terror cells abroad.

Gates also suggested the stakes are extremely high.

“Imagine if Islamic terrorists had managed to strike your capitals on the same scale as they struck in New York,” he said. “Imagine if they had laid their hands on weapons and materials with even greater destructive capability . . . We forget at our peril that the ambition of Islamic extremists is limited only by opportunity.”

European reactions are eerily reminiscent of a naive appeaser with an umbrella who flew to Munich in 1938 — a journey that led to 60 million deaths in World War II.

So where is terrorism on the list of top priorities for the pundits in Europe? Not very high if you believe Jackart. He questions if terrorism really matters.

Yes. Especially if you’re sitting next to Hasib Hussein on the No. 30 bus, but in the grand scheme of things; no. Terrorism does not pose an existential threat to this country, or our way of life. There simply aren’t enough suicidal maniacs, even if the bombers always got through.

I wonder if he would change his tune if he actually sitting next to Hussein on bus No. 30. That’s how liberals think. The old saw still applies. A conservative is a liberas who was mugged.

Terrorism simply isn’t a risk we need get worked up about. The Government’s response, however does pose an existential threat to the way of life in the UK.

Hey! It’s OK to risk our lives for terrorism but don’t do a thing to protect me from it.

Meanwhile Britain continues to gut its society as multiculturalism makes Britain a soft touch.

Britain has become a soft touch for terrorists, leading defence experts warn today.

The world-renowned Royal United Services Institute has delivered an unprecedented attack on the Government’s security policy.

It warns that a failure to “lay down the line” to immigrant populations is undermining the fight against domestic extremism.

It condemns the country’s “fragmented” national identity and obsession with multiculturalism.

And it goes on.

First, the UK government has decided that terrorism by Muslims in the name of Islam is actually unrelated to Islam, or is even anti-Islamic. This notion took root in 2006 when the Foreign Office, afraid that the term “war on terror” would inflame British Muslims, sought language that upholds “shared values as a means to counter terrorists.”

By early 2007, the European Union issued a classified handbook that banned jihad, Islamic, and fundamentalist in reference to terrorism, offering instead some “non-offensive” phrases.

Last summer, Prime Minister Gordon Brown prohibited his ministers from using the word Muslim in connection with terrorism.

In January, Home Secretary Jacqui Smith went further, actually describing terrorism as “anti-Islamic.”

And last week the Home Office completed the obfuscation by issuing a counter-terrorism phrasebook that instructs civil servants to refer only to violent extremism and criminal murderers, not Islamist extremism and jihadi-fundamentalists.

Second, and again culminating several years of evolution, the British government now recognizes polygamous marriages. It changed the rules in the “Tax Credits (Polygamous Marriages) Regulations 2003“: previously, only one wife could inherit assets tax-free from a deceased husband; this legislation permits multiple wives to inherit tax-free, so long as the marriage had been contracted where polygamy is legal, as in Nigeria, Pakistan, or India.

In a related matter, the Department for Work and Pensions began issuing extra payments to harems for such benefits as jobseeker allowances, housing subventions, and council tax relief. Last week came news that, after a year-long review, four government departments (Work and Pensions, Treasury, Revenue and Customs, Home Office) concluded that formal recognition of polygamy is “the best possible” option for Her Majesty’s Government.

And finally, “a Dutch justice minister announced that “if two-thirds of the Dutch population should want to introduce the Shari‘a tomorrow, then the possibility should exist.”

Quo Vadis, Britain?

Be Sociable, Share!