The Guardian has carried a shocking report on EDL backer Alan Lake’s fantasies about the violent deaths of people he does not like and their children.
On 23 May 2010, Alan Lake posted on his 4 Freedoms website an article outlining his belief that “in 20 or 30 years the UK will start to fragment into Islamic enclaves”. He went on: “It’s time we decide… who we will force in the Islamic enclaves (and who we will execute if they sneak out.) By forcing these liberal twits into those enclaves, we will be sending them to their death at worst, and at best they and their families will be subjected to all the depredations, persecution and abuse that non-Muslims worldwide currently ‘enjoy’ in countries like Pakistan… It will be great to see them executed or tortured to death.”
This is incredibly sick, as one must expect from EDL circles.
So what about a man who doesn’t fantasise about the deaths of his opponents and their families alone, but the nuclear annihilation of a whole country? This way:
If Iran reaches a deal with the Americans, what will be its bottom line? That Iran will have a nuclear program, and even if it does not manufacture nuclear weapons in the next 5-10 years, it will do so later. One of the fruits of such a deal would be a significant Iranian role in the region. Iran will remain a regional military power, which will threaten, or rather, will control and have hegemony over the region. If a war breaks out, where will the Iranians retaliate? If Iran is able to retaliate, it will burn the oil wells, block the Straits of Hormouz, attack the bases in the Gulf, and Allah willing, it will attack Israel as well. If the Iranian missiles strike Israel – by Allah, I will go to Trafalgar Square, and dance with delight if the Iranian missiles strike Israel.
The same man has reportedly called the terrorist murder of eight Jewish students in an Israeli religious school “justified” and said that Palestinian celebrations of the attack showed the”courage of the Palestinian nation”.
What does The Guardian make of him? What standards does it apply?
It’s Abdel Bari Atwan, so the paper gives him yet another slot on “Comment is Free”. He uses it to justify religious war:
Islamic experts assure me there is no prohibition of warfare during Ramadan. On the contrary, many of Islam’s great conquests occurred during this holy month, including the first clash between Muslims and infidels, which occurred in 624 when Muhammad led his troops to victory in the battle of Badr. War for the furtherance of Islam and against non-believers is considered ethically acceptable by scholars, even during the month of fasting and prayer.
As for Muslims and non-Muslims fighting alongside one another, this is very wrong:
Even if Nato’s intervention in Libya were entirely without self-interest (and not about oil and lucrative commercial opportunities) Islamic clerics concur that it is absolutely prohibited for Muslims to seek the help of non-believers against fellow Muslims.
If you support the right kind of horrific racist violence, right up to nuclear annihilation, The Guardian will give you a platform. That’s the paper’s standard.
