Opposing Â Islamic Misogyny is breaking the law:
Tory PM Philip HolloboneÂ was reported to police in March after he said wearing the burqa was “the religious equivalent of going around with a paper bag over your head with two holes for the eyes”.
Tory PM warned of legal action for discrimination: “Lawyers for Liberty” have written to Philip Hollobone insisting that his stance is unlawful and that they “will be happy to represent any of your constituents that you refuse to meet because they are veiled”. (Who the f*kc are the “lawyers for liberty?”)
With intelligence like this it is unlikely that any British PM will ever become Â savvy of the jihad threat.
Then, of course, there are publications like The AGE and the Â The New York Times, which are not just anti-Israel, but pro-jihad
Still wondering why creatures like Tony BLiar, Gordon Brown, Jack Straw and…. David Cameron along with increasing numbers of Moslem peers in parliament are Â “acting stupidly?”
The prime minister who has overreached in his fanciful definition of the “real Islam,” and fallen in line with jihadist propaganda by calling Gaza a “prison camp,” continues his losing streak in comments on Islamic jihad and foreign policy.
Evidence ofÂ Pakistan’s double game far predates the WikiLeaks affair, which makes Cameron’s response dismally understated in light of the severity of Pakistan’s long-standing pattern of conduct.
And even what Cameron does say is verbally bubble-wrapped with the usual assurances that “our interests are your [Pakistan’s] interests,” and of course, his prior insistence that this has nothing to do with Islam. “Cameron: We won’t tolerate ‘export of terror’ by Pakistan,” fromÂ CNN, via JW
What shall we make of David Cameron? What can we learn from his little speech in Ankara? What does it tell us about his mental makeup, his grasp of history, his powers of understanding, his ability to make sense of things, his hierarchy of values, his appreciation and knowledge of the country of which he is now, almost accidentally, the Prime Minister, his experience of men and events, his everything?
Let’s start with how the speech itself starts:
Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for that very warm welcome. I can tell from your enthusiasm and the enthusiasm of the entrepreneurs that I met outside this incredible building that there is an enormous spirit of enterprise and entrepreneurialism and industry and business and trade here in Turkey, and that is one of the reasons that I want our two countries to build this incredibly strong relationship that I will be speaking about this morning.I have come to Ankara to establish a new partnership between Britain and Turkey. I think this is a vital strategic relationship for our country. As Prime Minister, I first visited our two largest European Union partners, then Afghanistan, then North America and now, I come to Turkey. People ask me, ‘Why Turkey?’ and, ‘Why so soon?’ Well, I can tell you why: because Turkey is vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our politics and our diplomacy.
Let me explain. First, our economy.
So: The Economy.
That’s really the main point of Cameron’s speech. It is that Great Britain wants economic ties, wants to make money, from the Turkish market. That’s it. And he comes not as the representative of a country that is equal to, much less conceivably superior to, that of the country and regime he is visiting, but as a supplicant, kowtowing rhetorically to Erdogan.