PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS

PAUL AUSTIN MURPHY ON POLITICS


The subjects covered in this blog include Slavoj Žižek, IQ tests, Chomsky, Tony Blair, Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Islam, Islamism, Marx, Foucault, National/International Socialism, economics, the Frankfurt School, philosophy, anti-racism, etc... I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here


This blog used to be called EDL Extra. I was a supporter (neither a member nor a leader) of the EDL until 2012. This blog has retained the old web address.

****************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

Tuesday, 7 September 2010

Birmingham's Dr Naseem: Muslims Didn't Do 9/11... or 7/7




According to Dr. Naseem, of Birmingham's Central Mosque, it wasn’t Muslim terrorists who carried out 9/11. (I may as well tell you here and now that Naseem didn’t think that Muslims were responsible for the London bombings of 2005 either.) Firstly, Naseem claims that it was the American state that carried out the terrorist attacks. Naseem does not say that this is a fact. However, the whole purpose of this little piece is to say that it was the Americans themselves, or the Europeans, or the Israelis, and not Muslims, who were responsible for 9/11.

Why did the American state commit this atrocity on its own people? Naseem says that it was because it wanted to create ‘the perception of an external threat’. And what better way to do this than ‘through a terrorist outrage’ committed by Muslims? He cites various sources as proof, or evidence, that this was so.

Firstly Naseem states that this ‘external threat’ was primarily needed for ‘political union’. However, the first two passages he quotes are from Europe. One is from the European Commission of 1996 and the other is from Romano Prodi.

After citing these two passages, which are supposed to display the desire for ‘political union’ (within Europe, not America), Naseem then cites a passage which says, or hints at, that 9/11 was all about the gas and oil in the former Soviet Union. That is a sudden and somewhat unrelated shift of potential suspects if ever there was one.

Naseem then changes his mind yet again. This time he offers a kind of theological and historical reason for America’s act of self-terrorism. Naseem now hints at the possibility that America wants to create an ‘extended Israel’. All this is very vague; but his use of the words ‘cross Atlantic…. desire for control’ suggests that Naseem also thinks that Europe is in on this attempt to create a ‘greater Israel’. Thus Europe was also involved in 9/11.

Of course Dr. Naseem couldn’t be too explicit about all these things because he didn’t want the media to get a hold of his mad conspiracy theories (there is more than one in his article). That doesn’t matter. His fellow Muslims, at Birmingham Central Mosque and elsewhere, knew exactly what he was really talking about. But to have stated these accusations explicitly would have been an act of political suicide. It would have gone down very badly in terms of negative publicity, something which Dr. Naseem had already had his fair share of. That’s why this piece was so vague. He was being very careful not to be too explicit and too, well, Islamic. In other words, he is using the Lesser Taqiyya rather than the Greater Taqiyya. That is, Naseem hints and implies that his conspiracy theories are factual, rather than states that they are. There are no outright lies. These are sweet words of dissimulation.

If the Americans did it, or the Europeans, or the Israelis, this means that Muslims did not do it. Again, he uses hint and innuendo rather than statement to put his conspiracy theories across. He doesn’t out rightly say that the Muslims who flew the aeroplanes did not fly the planes on their own, instead he asks his Muslim readers to think about the feasibility of ‘a few unknowns who after 14 hours of flight training became so skilful that they could accomplish an aerial feat of such precision’. Naseem implied answer to this is simple. These Muslims couldn’t have done it, considering this dearth of expertise.

If these Muslims didn’t do it (or didn’t do it on their own), then why does Naseem then go on to hint (again) at the fact that these very same Muslims, the ones who didn’t do it, couldn’t have been controlled by al-Qaeda or Bin Laden anyway – even if they did do it. This is Naseem’s position now:

Those Muslim men didn’t do it. But if they did, they couldn’t have been controlled by al-Qaeda and bin Laden.

This is a little like another popular Muslim riposte:

Muslims didn’t commit 9/11. But if they did, then America had it coming and deserved it.

It is also like an older Muslim favourite, this time about the Jews:

Hitler didn’t kill six million Jews. But if he did, then the Jews deserved it.

Naseem tells us why bin Laden couldn’t have planned and then controlled the 9/11 attacks.

Bin Laden lives, or lived then, most of the time in a cave in Afghanistan. At least that’s what most of us believed then. It is what Naseem believed as well. However, the difference is that most people (or most non-Muslims) think that bin Laden could control at least some global acts of terrorism from his cave. Naseem, on the contrary, thinks that this would be impossible. He says that the main problem for bin Laden would have been his lack of electricity. Without electricity bin Laden would not have been ‘able to control a world wide organisation’. (What about generators and other such things?)

So to recap. Dr. Naseem believes that Muslims did not carry out the 9/11 attacks. America, or Europe, or Israel, did. He then argues that even if these Muslims did do it (on their own), they couldn’t have been working for bin Laden because he has no electricity.

From this lack-of-electricity scenario, it is but a small step to state, or hint (again), that one must be ‘extremely naïve’ to believe ‘that Al-Qaeda is a threat to the world’. Apart from bin Laden’s lack of electricity, Naseem also believed that Al-Qaeda couldn’t have been the threat infidels claimed them to be because this group has ‘never approached’ Naseem himself or any other Muslim he knows. Not only that, Naseem and other Muslims had ‘never heard of ’ Al-Qaeda before 9/11.

*) Dr Naseem also leads the Islamic Party of Britain. Salma Yaqoob is his spokesperson, or she is spokesperson for Birmingham Central Mosque.

1 comment:

  1. Doctor Naseem?? He is only a doctor of filthy lying BS!!

    ReplyDelete