In fact, from India's perspective Cameron's statement understated the case. The ISI has been firmly linked to a number of Islamic terrorist attacks in India, including the remarkably well-drilled and executed "kill the foreigners" attack on Mumbai in November 2008. The cancellation of the public visit to London by the head of the ISI was an essential step towards improving relations with India, which was the purpose of Cameron's visit, and may well have been negotiated in advance.
However, the Bitchy Boys are precluded by their eroto-ideological fascination with Britain's Pakistani population from attacking Cameron on the unshielded flank of Britain's own appalling record in the fight against Islamofascism. An article in National Review by the influential American commentator Daniel Pipes flatly states: "Britain's New Export: Islamist Carnage". My only quibble is with the word "new" - not for nothing did the French coin the term "Londonistan". As Pipes points out:
The Heritage Foundation calls British Islamism “a direct security threat” to the United States, and The New Republic dubs it “the biggest threat to U.S. security.” A CIA study in 2009 concluded that British-born nationals of Pakistani descent (who can freely enter the United States under a visa-waiver program) constitute America’s most likely source of terrorism.Pipes draws on the recent publication by Douglas Murray's Centre for Social Cohesion of a 535-page report, Islamist Terrorism: The British Connections, which contains detailed biographical information on British perpetrators of Islamist terrorist acts. Pipes comments:
Britain’s Security Service estimates that over 2,000 individuals residing today in Britain pose a terrorist threat, thereby implying not only that the “covenant of security” that once partially protected the U.K. from attack by its own Muslims is long defunct, but also that the United Kingdom may face the worst internal terrorist menace of any Western country other than Israel.All of which puts Cameron's condemnation while in Turkey of Israeli actions in Gaza and his subsequent supposed "gaffe" in India in a rather clearer context, does it not? This is not primarily a foreign policy issue, but a festering sore that many years of official appeasement and even encouragement, fully approved by the Bitchy Boys and the Labour "left", has permitted to become a major domestic threat.
Posts
From what I have been able to discover about the Mumbai massacre (though not from Daoud Headley's family with whom I am well acquainted), Headley told the American security services that a big attack was planned for September. What they told the Indians, of course, I have no idea, but a big Indian security alert was laid on, and then nothing happened until November. So the Indian security alert went well off the boil.
ReplyDeleteNaturally, the LET up in the Punjab was not going to give anyone an actual date of the proposed attack, let alone D. Headley. Or they may not even have made up their minds. However, you would have thought that the Indians would have laid on a few harbour watchers and asked the local chaps to give them a shout should an athletic group of young men pitch up unexpectedly.
Supposedly there was a report that someone phoned the police about this very happenstance just after the terrorist contingent's arrival at harbourside in their easily noted motorized inflatables. The Indian police, sadly, are not known for their 'rapid response'frame of mind and somehow this warning went unheeded.
Naturally, all the subsequent effort in the Indian press went toward blaming the diabolical Pakistani ISI. But the fact is that they were warned once and probably even twice. And did not take even reasonable precautions. They must have known that the harbour was the easiest approach.
And then of course there's 'Londonistan'!