July 23, 2005


One in four Muslims sympathises with motives of terrorists (Anthony King, 23/07/2005, Daily Telegraph)

The group portrait of British Muslims painted by YouGov's survey for The Daily Telegraph is at once reassuring and disturbing, in some ways even alarming.

The vast majority of British Muslims condemn the London bombings but a substantial minority are clearly alienated from modern British society and some are prepared to justify terrorist acts.

The divisions within the Muslim community go deep. Muslims are divided over the morality of the London bombings, over the extent of their loyalty to this country and over how Muslims should respond to recent events.

Most Muslims are evidently moderate and law-abiding but by no means all are.

Just pick up a copy of the Guardian and you'll find no end of nice white limeys justifying the bombings too. Or just listen to the Mayor of London. Nor were the numbers much different during the Cold War, when a not inconsiderable portion of the British population was rooting for the USSR and despised the USA..

Posted by Orrin Judd at July 23, 2005 6:23 PM

I don't believe polls.

Until the 'good Muslims' start cleaning their own house, I'll believe that the correct figure is 100%.
Actions speak louder than poll answers.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 23, 2005 6:33 PM

You're the one who professes this to be our father country. How does that bode for us?

Do you believe electing enough Republicans and appointing enough conservative judges can steer us off the same course?

Posted by: Al Cornpone at July 23, 2005 6:35 PM

The Brits should do what we did when confronted with a large pro-Nazi movement in the US at the beginning of WWII. Round up the ring leaders, their Fritz Kuhns if you will, arrest them and deport them immediately. They should at the very least closely scrutinize any new Muslim immigrant for terrorist sympathies or a past that might imply terrorist sympathies, and only admit those who are squeaky-clean.

Your not stuck with immigrant trouble-makers like you are with the native-born ones. Deportation is always an option. You can't deport Robert Fisk but you can deport the guy with the hook.

Posted by: bart at July 23, 2005 7:09 PM

I don't believe polls either. Until the 'good leftists' start cleaning their own house, starting with the universities, I believe they're on the side of the bad Muslims. And I want to see you leaving on the same boat as the guy with the hook, Harry.

Posted by: joe shropshire at July 23, 2005 7:17 PM

And don't you dare question the patriotism of any of those people (Leftists or Muslims), either.

Posted by: Raoul Ortega at July 23, 2005 7:27 PM


There wasn't even a small one. FDR persued a prosecution so dubious even the guys tasked with it were embarrassed.

Posted by: oj at July 23, 2005 8:07 PM


If so then only the guys who blew themselves up are the enemy.

Posted by: oj at July 23, 2005 8:14 PM

24% "sympathy for the the terrorists" is probably not far off the mark for the U.S. general population.

Posted by: ghostcat at July 23, 2005 8:56 PM

The Nazi groups regularly filled up Madison Square Garden. You're just going to have to stop reading Justine Raimondo and her ilk and try reading real historiography instead.

Posted by: bart at July 23, 2005 9:49 PM

The Bund never had enough members to fill MSG.

Posted by: oj at July 23, 2005 10:05 PM

What you say about the 'white limeys' may be true, but so what?

And even the muslim immigrants who are not sympathetic to terrorism (if indeed they really are) are a problem because terrorists are able to blend in with them.

Posted by: carter at July 23, 2005 11:51 PM

Burgess, Philby, McLean & Blunt blent too.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 1:42 AM

"Burgess, Philby, Mclean & blunt blent too"

Yes, and that wasn't really solvable. So since that problem wasn't correctable, certainly we should not correct a problem that can be.

Regarding the polls, I have to agree with Ghostcat that the percentages seem not that much different with views in the US.

Posted by: h-man at July 24, 2005 5:28 AM


It was the exact same problem.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 9:10 AM

It in fact was the exact same problem except in the first iteration, the blending was with a group which could not deported or limited in size. In the example Carter is referring to the blending is with a group which can, if illegal be deported and if legal can be limited by stopping further immigration.

Also the poll is faulty in that the choices presented range from the "British are hateful little twits who should be killed" to "they do not reach my standards of adequacy but should only be disdained in a non-violent manner". There is no category for "I love the sh*t out of the British and will oppose anyone who dislikes them". Presumably the pollsters didn't feel any Muslim could fall into that category.

Posted by: h-man at July 24, 2005 9:54 AM


Why not? You could get rid of gay men, atheists and socialists easy enough.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 10:03 AM

I am assuming that they muted their socialism and queerness and thus blended into the larger population as if they were normal, rational, loyal British citizens. I would approve of filtering out of the immigrant population, queers and socialists in addition to Muslims. Just as I would approve of allowing in Jennifer Lopez as opposed to Ricky Martin.

Burgess, Philby..etc were citizens already of course and that is unfortunate. Would I support deporting them because of their socialism and queerness? Ah..I'll have to think about that.

Posted by: h-man at July 24, 2005 10:44 AM

No, they didn't. There was no need to. There was no Britain even then.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 10:54 AM

"no Britain even then"

Well let me rephrase your statement to one that I would agree with, which is that "even then standards were declining such that "the British" were becoming unable to make "moral" judgements regarding politics (and for what its worth preverted sexual behavior), because of doubts created by moral relativists, levellers, nihilists and libertines.

However two things, 1) the same process occurred then and now in America and 2) the solution is not to allow willy nilly influx of foreigners who can barely feed themselves and come from schizophrenic societies who do not show those attributes which would provide an antidote to what ails us, but instead would cause greater conflict and thus spiral us even lower and faster into hell. Then again I would still let Jennifer Lopez's in.

Posted by: h-man at July 24, 2005 12:07 PM

Actually, the opposite is true. Britain will have moral foundations again when it is predominantly Muslim.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 12:10 PM


What do you have against Ricky Martin? He's harmless.


Moral foundations of Islam? You mean things like slave-owning, killing non-believers, dictatorship, no free enterprise, no capitalism, no scientific research, no technological development, making women walk around in tarpaulins all day unable to drive or get a minimal education and making them eat out of the garbage, no social welfare system for poor people that's worth a damn, etc.

I'll take Sodom and Gomorrah any day over that nightmare.

Posted by: bart at July 24, 2005 1:01 PM

Yes, you would.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 1:05 PM

As would about 99.99% of all civilized men and an even higher percentage of civilized women, leaving only ignorant, theocentric nutbars like yourself to write fact-free paeans about the glories of Islam.

Posted by: bart at July 24, 2005 1:17 PM

God didn't much care for Soddom and Gomorrah last time you lot created it.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 1:20 PM

As to your earlier comment about the German-American Bund, I give you this little tidbit from the US Holocaust Memorial Museum website:

The German American Bund, an organization of ethnic Germans living in the United States, was marked by a pro-Nazi stance.

Aside from its admiration for Adolf Hitler and the achievements of Nazi Germany, the German American Bund program included antisemitism, strong anti-Communist sentiments, and the demand that the United States remain neutral in the approaching European conflict.

Public opinion surveys of 1939 show that Fritz Kuhn, the leader of the German American Bund, was seen by the U.S. public as the leading antisemite in the country.

Actual membership figures for the German American Bund are not known with certainty, but reliable estimates place membership at 25,000 dues-paying members, including some 8,000 uniformed Sturmabteilungen (SA), more commonly known as Storm Troopers.

The German American Bund carried out active propaganda for its causes, published magazines and brochures, organized demonstrations, and maintained a number of youth camps run like Hitler Youth camps.

German American Bund activities often led to clashes--even street battles--with other groups, most notably with Jewish veterans of World War I. A February 1939 rally was held on George Washington's birthday to proclaim the rights of white gentiles, the "true patriots." This Madison Square Garden rally drew a crowd of 20,000 who consistently booed President Franklin D. Roosevelt and chanted the Nazi salutation "Heil Hitler."

The German American Bund closely cooperated with the "Christian Front" organized by the antisemitic priest Father Charles Coughlin. The activities of the German American Bund led both Jewish and non-Jewish congressional representatives to demand that it be investigated by the House Un-American Activities Committee chaired by Martin Dies. The Committee hearings, held in 1939, showed clear evidence of German American Bund ties to the Nazi government.

Shortly thereafter, Kuhn was convicted of embezzling funds from the organization and was sentenced to prison. In the following years, a number of other German American Bund leaders were interned as dangerous aliens, and others were jailed for various offenses. By 1941 the membership of the organization had waned. After the United States entered World War II in December 1941, the U.S. government outlawed the German American Bund.

Posted by: bart at July 24, 2005 1:22 PM


A 'Lord' who prefers people enslaving others to allowing people to engage in consensual sexual conduct of whatever sort isn't worth worshipping.

Posted by: bart at July 24, 2005 1:33 PM

In fact it never had more than about 8,000 dues paying members and the Dies investigation was dropped because they found so little. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, tossed a case brought by FDR's prosecutor of the German-Americans and Justice had to switch prosecutors because he was such a disaster. There was never any significant pro-Nazi movement or sentiment in America.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 1:39 PM


Then don't, but the rest of us do worship the God who made it abundantly clear that he prefers morality to sodomy.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 1:40 PM

You just can't allow facts to get in the way of a good theory, can you, OJ? Sartre and Derrida would be proud of you.

N.B. My assertions are sourced. Yours aren't.

Posted by: bart at July 24, 2005 1:49 PM

sourced? One obviously biased source does not a fact make, though even yours shows it to have been a quite minimal phenomen.

I'll trade you one though:


American Nazis were a joke. Note that Kuhn was sent away for embezzlement, not treason and that Dies hearings went nowhere.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 2:07 PM

It's a nice article but doesn't support any of your assertions.

The US Holocaust Museum Website is biased? Why? Because they don't give equal time to Holocaust-deniers?

Posted by: bart at July 24, 2005 2:24 PM

Your citation supports my assertion--you can cite one guy arrested for embezzlement--I'm just pointing out that it was exaggerated.

The same reason the Native American Museum is biased. That's what they exist for.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 2:29 PM

The American Nazis were in America First.

The Bund was not supported by the Auslandamt and was, in fact, pretty much of a joke.

It would have been less so, except that the 500,000 young German men who immigrated to the United States to look for work in the 1920s almost all returned to Germany after Hitler took power and ended up killing Jews in Russia.

Most of our Hitler admirers were born here and did not speak German, the German-American Bund was an organization, primarily, of German nationals.

So both bart and Orrin are mostly wrong.

It's irrelevant, though.

The bund was never a religion.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 24, 2005 2:54 PM

America First wasn't pro-Nazi, it was anti-war in Europe and it was right.

You're correct though that the Bund was a joke.

Posted by: oj at July 24, 2005 2:59 PM

This is America, land of the free and the nut.

People get bemused by showmen like the Bundists (who were not, for the most part, Americans; or the Silver Shirts.

But we had plenty of real nazis, in America First, the Swedish Lutheran Church in America and similar organizations.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 25, 2005 1:01 AM

Isolationism wasn't Nazism any more than interventionism was Stalinism per se.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 1:04 AM

God didn't much care for Soddom and Gomorrah last time you lot created it.

By that standard, God must surely hate Muslims.

Why else would he torture them so ?

Posted by: Michael Herdegen at July 25, 2005 2:23 AM

For interested readers, this book contains plenty of info on the Bund and the Silver Shirts although -- as you might have guessed -- there's a rather gaping bias in some places where facts ought to be.

Posted by: Matt Murphy at July 25, 2005 3:49 AM


I hope you would agree that Fr. Coughlin and his allies were significant and they were essentially Nazis.

So long as the people doing it professed to be Christian, OJ wouldn't object to them throwing Jews and other non-believers in ovens. As long as the people throwing other people into ovens did not do so for secular reasons, OJ appears to be fine with it.

Perhaps, Harry, our disagreement is a matter of perspective. The Bund was a huge presence in the NY Metro Area, particularly in the Oranges, and some parts of Queens and Brooklyn, and the Yorkville section of Manhattan.

Posted by: bart at July 25, 2005 7:17 AM


Coughlin was pro-Nazi.

The Bund was a joke.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 8:01 AM

Curiously but revealingly, Tom Hayden, of SDS fame, claimed that he was in part inspired by Fr. Coughlin who was his catechism teacher back in the affluent Detroit suburb of Royal Oak, Michigan.

It's a nice little factoid to keep in your satchel when you meet Jewish leftists, especially those who sing the praises of the 60s.

Posted by: bart at July 25, 2005 9:12 AM

Not all Swedish Lutherans (to pick one 'respectable' group among many) were nazis, but many of them were. As a group, the Swedish Lutheran Church in America supported Hitlerism, with one exception, and no, murdering Jews was not the issue.

Of course Coughlin was a 'nazi,' which with a small-n covers a multitude of sins.

The influence of that kind of naziism, which was pretty congruent with conservative American Christianity in the '30s, is thoroughly documented in 'The Old Christian Right.'

And, from a different perspective, in Ross, 'So It Was True.'

As Orrin says, what you tolerate reveals what you are.

Posted by: Harry Eagar at July 25, 2005 4:50 PM


Exactly, nothing wrong with good old-fashioned anti-semitism. It's like anti-immigrationism or your own Islamphobia, Christphobia, Judeophobia, etc.

It's only when you get to Darwinism that eliminationism is added.

Posted by: oj at July 25, 2005 4:56 PM

What's your connection to the Detroit area?

Posted by: Dave W. at July 27, 2005 12:25 AM

Not very deep. One of my father's best friends, growing up, was the former President of Michigan State University, and his son, an economist at UM, is a close friend of mine.

I started being interested in Michigan politics a couple of decades back, due to the weird bloviations of Coleman Young and the hostility of Detroit area congressmen to Israel.

Posted by: bart at July 27, 2005 7:40 AM