Muslims warm to Tories' Israel line

The Pope has now issued an apology to Muslims after indirect suggestions that Islam was a violent religion were greeted with violent demonstrations across the Islamic world (eg here).  We are in danger of entering a climate of fear where legitimate debate about Islam is suffocated.  The still-unresolved Inigo Wilson/ Orange affair - instigated by the Muslim Public Affairs Committee UK (MPACUK) - is part of this climate of fear.

The MPACUK do seem to be happy at recent initiatives by the current Tory leadership, however.  The willingness of David Cameron and William Hague to criticise Israeli action against the Hezbollah terrorists was hugely controversial amongst the Jewish community but has produced welcoming noises on the MPACUK website.  Under the title 'Red Sun Setting, Blue Tide Rising' the MPACUK writes:

"While Tony Blair angered Muslim opinion by expediting weapons to Israel and the Liberal Democrats sat on their hands, William Hague, the shadow Foreign Minister criticised Israel’s disproportionate force during the summer invasion of Lebanon and now David Cameron’s masterful distancing himself from the Neo-Con rhetoric. He has rejected a “clash of civilisations” and accepts the role of the United Nations. While he makes political capital from a divided Labour leadership and myopic foreign policy, the Muslim community has started to take notice.These public statements in themselves do not mean that the Tories are the “good guys”, but it does mean they are no longer the “bad guys”. The Tories will be the next Government whether at the next general election or the one after. The more progressive and politically astute Muslims must be part of that transition. The Tories are reaching out to us and we must reach out to them."

Editor's comment: If the Tories really are intent on supping with the likes of the MPACUK I hope it's with a very, very long spoon.

Comments

[christina speight]

The Israelis were fighting against an enemy that had unleashed rockets ( 3000+ !! ) at Israelis. IT was the aggressor. Since Hizbollah is armed by Iran via Syria and Iran has vowed to wipe Israel off the map, Israel was also fighting OUR battle - Bush - Blair betrayed that country and have betrayed us too.

Hague should be disowned for his dreadful remark and taken from the clique of Cameron's advisers.

[Umbongo]

It's not an apology (what's he got to apologise for anyway?). It's a message of regret that Muslims have taken such disproportionate offence at the Pope's remarks.

[Wallenstein]

Quite right. It's a disgrace that it is now the Labour Party that has become associated with loyalty to our US and Israeli friends and allied while the Tories - under Cameron - are choosing to suck up to Islamofascists.

After all the staunch support that Maggie gave to the defenders of Western values and democracy the present "Tory" state of play is little short of scandalous.

[malcolm]

Whilst I think Cameron and Hague were and are right vis a vis Israel/Lebanon it is in a way a shame that an organisation such as the MPACUK should support it. I have no wish at all for the Conservative party to 'reach out' to such a group.

[tapestry]

Cameron is not too bothered about the rights and wrongs of making 'disproportionate' comments, or as another example, of humiliating our eurosceptic MEP's. It's all about brand positioning.

Taking Israel, the truth might well be that when an enemy fires missiles into your country using a civilian population as a shield, you have little choice but to attack your enemy where he is. This attack might be highly effective in persuading Lebanon to alter its management of Hizbullah. Likewise in Gaza, the descent into chaos is bringing about internal change inside Gaza and might lead to the Palestinians seeking a settlement.

But truths and realities are not important. Cameron is seeking to be elected to power. The media game he is playing is as deadly as any military calculation. Brand Cameron is set on victory at all costs.

Truth and traditional allegiances are all expendable in his ruthless pursuit of power.

[A H Matlock]

This is very disconcerting. I would rather do without the support of these people.

On the matter of the Pope's commentary, today's reaction in the Middle East in the form of the firebombing of at least two Churches (neither of them Roman Catholic) gives the lie to the notion that Islam is a 'religion of peace' does it not? I don't think it is possible to reason with people like these and I am pleased that at least one man is willing to speak difficult truths.

[James Maskell]

I think Cameron should have nothing to do with MPACUK after their disgraceful actions with relation to Inigo Wilson. As for the Pope, hes become another victim of the Muslim blame job. As I posted on ThanetLife earlier today "Radical Muslims set off bombs in our underground and we just have to take it. We make a comment about the threat of radical Islam and we are called racists and there are riots!"

MPACUK believe in freedom of speech as long as you say what they want to hear. Cameron must keep well away from them and nor should any Tory. They are cowards without principles and we must shun them and show we will not deal with those with questionable morals or ethics.

[Geoff]

James Maskell is absolutely right, and we should be very concerned by this development.

What next? A Taleban speaker at our Association Annual Dinner? Why as a staunch Tory do I find myself closer to Bliar's position on the Middle East than that of my own Party leader?

I would be more comfortable if the BBC were headlining an MPACUK (verbal, not suicide bomb!) attack on us rather than us receiving their double-edged support. Why are we courting extremists?

[Jack Stone]

The threat of terrorism in Ireland as largely disappeared because there was a dialogue between all the parties involved and people were largely persuaded that the only way forward was a political solution.
That may not have been achieved yet but at least people are talking rather than killing one another .
Th fighting in Afganistan will not stop until we talk to those fighting against us. We are not going to defeat them. If the Russians couldn`t then I can`t see us doing it.
Surely it is better to talk rather than go on fighting, and we could in all probability be doing that for ten maybe twenty years and see more and more people on both sides lose there livs.

[James Maskell]

Oh man...Jack, you think we should be talking to the Taliban?

[malcolm]

As far as I'm aware James Maskell and Geoff,Cameron doesn't have anything to do with the MPACUK.Do you know different? If not why do you insinuate that he does?

[James Maskell]

I dont think my comments indicated anything of the sort malcolm. Im simply saying Cameron should stay away from MPACUK. My worry is that Cameron is going to try and build bridges with Muslims and that hes going eventually come into contact with organisations of the sort like MPAC which try to sound like moderates but allow campaigns like the one against Inigo Wilson to happen on their forum pages. The owners of the site allowed that campaign to start there. They are closet radicals.

[Ted]

James

In opposition or government the party leadership will need to talk to muslim groups amongst others but I join you in hoping he builds bridges to those mainstream muslim groups marginalised by this government which, as in Northern Ireland, seems to think bringing the radicals "onside" offers resolution.

Moderate muslims seem afraid of retribution if they speak out against the extremists and we need to enable their voices to be heard more.

[matthew]

*yawn*.

What does MPACUK have to do with the Tories?

This site is well known for being slavishly pro-Israel, and this story is nothing more than an attempt to slur the party by trying to link them to MPAC.

Fact is there are no links whatsoever between the Tories and MPAC, and MPAC are a pretty nasty bunch of people trying to misrepresent the stance of Hague for their own ends.

There is no 'building bridges' with MPAC being done, it is purely an MPAC misrepresentatio and then this site attempting to slur Hague's very reasonable statement that perhaps the attack on Lebanon achieved nothing and set the country back 20 years entrenching terror there and even making Christians sympathetic with the Hezbollah view point.

I think the Editor's comment is absolutely disgraceful:

"Editor's comment: If the Tories really are intent on supping with the likes of the MPACUK I hope it's with a very, very long spoon."

The Tories are doing no supping whatsoever: the MPACUK radical enemies of freedom chose to make their statement construing Hague's statement in their own way - a statement that the Conservative party has nothing to do with whatsoever.

Will we have a story tomorrow when the Tories come out in support of marriage + the family and some radical Muslim group agrees with them. What will Conservativehome say then 'This is a slippery slope towards Islamofascism, the Party must scrap its support of marriage, and encourage parents to get divorced, because otherwise we will be singing from the same page as these radical Muslims'.

Very naughty.

Of course, if someone wants to try and persuade me that attacking Lebanon weakened the sympathy for Hezbollah and Islamic extremism in the region, I'm all ears.

[Mote]

If the party's policy towards, say, Israel were more in line with your personal views about the Middle East, would you ever even for a moment think of publishing an article with the following headline?

Jews warm to Tories' Israel line

I'd like to hope not. It ought to give you pause for some Christian reflection on the fact that you do so readily write thus of Muslims.

[voreas06]

I don't think Cameron is trying to court Muslim opinion. In my opinion and I assume in Cameron's Israel's response appeared to be disproportionate. I do think however that Kim Howell was right in saying perhaps new definitions of War crimes have to be created so that groups such as Hezbollah who station Missiles in largely Civilian areas are then convicted for doing so.

I basically think Cameron in International Relations is acting like an adult i.e not all Muslim's are bad and not all Israeli's are good and vice versa. If MPAC take that to be a pro muslim line then that's up to them, however I think it is more a fair minded and realistic line than being biased in any particular direction. Indeed, I am fairly certain if Cameron was asked should the pope apologise for his remarks he would say no the pope has nothing to apologise for as he was just quoting someone.

[James Maskell]

Ah...the old "why arent you treating the jews like you treat the Muslims" line...perhaps you would like to make the distinction between Jews who have not been suicide bombing Britain and the US, and Muslims...who have?

Its not Jews who feel ostracised from society due to their radical brethren. The problem isnt with Jews.

Oh wait a sec...you are accusing Jews of already being friendly with the Tories and thus why the said headline wouldnt happen...well, yeah? Jews arent the ones with the problems with the British political landscape...

[Henry Whitmarsh]

The pope was giving a public lecture, he had the right to say whatever the hell he wanted. I can't believe the Vatican could be humbled like this, what chance do other people have?

[Geoff]

James Maskell and I are, I think, in agreement on this one malcolm. Neither of our comments implied a connection.

We are both concerned that we should keep a good arms length from those who have an openly aggressive and campaigning stance (eg with respect to Inigo) which in my opinion runs contrary to our Party's core principles of freedom of speech, expression and social responsibilty.

There is more chance of building a successful prison out of meringue than expecting a member of the MPACUK committee voting for us at an election. So why are we not more concerned when hearing their warm words?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

I was also a little uncomfortable with the criticism Hague dished out to Israel, but at the end of the day whilst many of us (myself included) would have liked to have seen more resolute support of Israel the criticism itself was little more than tame.

I would hope that readers of this site will treat these comments from the MPACUK with the same tablespoon of salt they would treat any other pronouncement from that organisation...

[Mote]

James M - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you simply misunderstood my (very simple) point, and are not trying a cheap smear job. But once more: my point concerns neither Jews nor Muslims, but in this particular instance, Christians, and the language they use.

[James Maskell]

I dont smear people...perhaps Im simply stupid and you need to point out to me what you are actually trying to say...clearly the point isnt coming across.

Why are the Christians to blame for the way this headline was written...Britain was a Christian country the last time I looked. To be honest I cant see why you need to bring the whole Christian-Judeo-Muslim debate into the headline...its a headline for heavens sake...what would you put as an alternative?

The fact is Muslims have always been suspicious of the Conservatives and felt they were always pro-Israel. Thus the headline makes it clear thast the recent moves by Cameron in adapting the stance to Israel is making an impact on the Muslim thought, in particular with the MPACUK.

Or am I missing something here?

[Cardinal Pirelli]

On reading the editorial for a secomd time I actually found its tone rather disturbing and sme posts later on crystallised why; it tries to suggest that a policy is wrong because 'muslims warm to' it.

Just because someone agrees with you it doesn't mean that your position needs to be changed in light of this.

On a day where I was annoyed by attempts to get the Pope to apologise unnecessarily for something he said this multiplies the problem. It is, in a similar way, an attempt to stifle ideas and free speech.

Editorials on here often do this with regard to foreign policy. Thankfully Cameron and Hague have much more sense and considerably more influential as regards policy.

(I did post on the other thread which seems to link to the main page under this heading. Should it link to this post instead?!?)

[James Maskell]

Cardinal Pirelli, the Editor comment was in reference to the MPACUK's campaign against Inigo Wilson over the Lefty Lexicon. He did specifically mention the MPACUK and not just say we should keep away from Muslims as a whole.

Note the article was written about the MPACUK's reaction to Cameron and not moderate Muslim reaction.

[Roger Pearse]

Moslems are attempting to create a world in which Islam can only be referred to in the most positive terms, or not at all. Appeasement of this aggressive attempt to control what all of us say and think is dangerous to us all. Surely?

[Cardinal Pirelli]

James -

In which case the heading should surely be -

"MPACUK warm to Tories' Israel line"

By using the term muslims instead you are either saying that all muslims think the same or that MPACUK are representative of all muslims, neither of which is true!

[John Hustings]

Well said James Maskell. I agree with everything you've said.

Getting the support of the MPACUK is a pretty sad indictment of the direction in which the Tories have been travelling under Cameron.

[matthew]

John Hustings have you not read any of the previous comments? If MPACUK supported lower taxes would you say that's a sad indictment of parties supporting lower taxes?

The fact that MPACUK might put out a story does not change the merits of a policy.

[James Maskell]

The headline is perfectly accurate. MPACUK is made up exclusively of Muslims. Therefore Muslims are warming to the Tory Israel line. If the headline said "All Muslims warm to Tories' Israel line" then you'd be right, but the headline does not say that, does it? The article makes it perfectly clear which Muslims the headline is about. Muslims as a phrase can mean part of the whole religious followers not the whole lot.

[James Maskell]

matthew, it does matter when the MPACUK is talking about relations between religions as it is now. Lower taxes isnt its reason for existing. It was created and exists for the issue of religious relations. Taxes is a different ballgame altogether.

[Geoff]

Once again, James Maskell is right. If an organisation called "Bleed The Rich Dry" came out in support of Tory tax policies then we should also start to be very worried.

Let's leave the straw man alone and forget such comparisons. The issue is that an organisation which openly wants sharia law across the world and non-believers to be dhimmis is agreeing with what we say.

That worries me. It almost worries me as much as having just apparently become Membership Secretary of the James Maskell Appreciation Society :) He is, however, talking very good sense...and we should distance ourselves from this extremist organisation.

[outsider]

the pope has not apologised this

"The Holy Father is very sorry that some passages of his speech may have sounded offensive to the sensibilities of Muslim believers,"

is not an apoolgoy it's an expressio nof regret that muslims are upset- a very diffent point "we're very upset that x doens' mean to win an election" isn't an expression of regret for the election nor is this

[James Maskell]

Looking at the list of "news" items that MPACUK uses on its site, I think the MPACUK has a very long way to go before it can even think that the Tories should be allowed to come near it.

As for the Appreciation Society, Im certainly suprized by it. That said, Im in an evil Trinity with Chad Noble and James Hellyer, out to destroy the Conservative Party. Take it as you will, Geoff!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Jack Stone - You seem to think that we should 'talk to the Taliban'. Do you not think that in doing that you would be tacitly condoning their treatment of women and the lack of education of women that they insist on???

It seems to me that some people WANT an excuse to get angry, and will choose to interpret something to suit their own ends no matter how much integrity or how holy the speaker is! Of course if the situation is reversed that is another matter entirely!

[Wallenstein]

Jack Stone - You seem to think that we should 'talk to the Taliban'

It's a disgrace. While Cameron cosies up to the evil MPACUK his fellow-travellers are now open in their denunciation of our loyal allies.

These people are clearly Conservatives-in-Name-Only.

But what is more sinister is that one senses a sly and unpleasant anti-Israel agenda very much at work in the background here.

It's like a kind of primaeval slime bubbling to the surface. I suppose it's inherited from the openly-expressed attitudes of many of the pre-war Tory appeasers.

Personally, I find it nauseating.

[James Maskell]

Funnilly enough the question I posed to Jack Stone a while back in the thread to no response. I hope he will respond eventually since three of us readers are interested in his views...

[Opinicus]

I dont see anything wrong in Hague's remarks. He was very measured in his comments. Israel's response to having two soldiers kidnapped was disproportionate.
Israel's actions over many years on the illegally occupied West Bank have inflammed Muslim opinion internationally. Israel only survives as a nation because of collosal foreign aid, principally from the US but also from Britain. Consequently muslims think Britain must share in their blame. These are facts of international politics. There may be explanations or excuses or different ways of looking at it but it is still true from a Muslim point of view.

Over the last few years, because in England we have given up on our own culture in the name of multiculturalism, we have allowed these views to affect our own politics and security. We can address the security aspect separately but it is entirely proper for a British (shadow) Foreign Secretary to say in the gentlest terms that there might in fact be limits to our formally slavish and unquestioning support for Israel. We can most easily convince British muslims that they should be British first and muslim second, if we have a more balanced foreign policy. The foremost duty of a British Foreign Secretary is to promote and protect British interests internationally not to pick sides in a foreign fight.

[Atiq Malik]

Oh man...Jack, you think we should be talking to the Taliban?

Do we have a choice? One day we have to?

For your information Talibans are no threat to Britian our troops are fighting for Bush Neocons most of them are dual nationals (US/Israel).

[Atiq Malik]

If we have to win Next Elections and form a Govt we have to reach to Muslim Voters. I think DC and Willam Hague remarks reflects the views of the majority of the British people.

If Israel is attacked once it withdraws from the Occupied Land and Palestinians have their Independent State, then its has every right to defend itself. Israel will have support from majority of the British Muslims. Otherwise God forbid. There will be no peace.

[James Maskell]

Atiq, how do you suggest we reach Muslim voters?

[matthew]

some of the comments here defy belief.

"While Cameron cosies up to the evil MPACUK"

Say what?

Cameron has doing no such cosying.

It is all coming from MPACUK, who will seize on anything they like and twist it to serve their own agenda.

[Jack Stone]

Oh please don`t lets come over all holy than thou about talking to the Taliban. We talked to the IRA and they bombed and killed people on the streets of London and some of our other big cities so why shouldn`t we talk to the Taliban.
I think people forget that we and the Americans were actually arming the Taliban just a few years ago.
If you can stop peole killing one another than its worth talking to the devil himself.
The only way the carnage that is going on in Afganistan is going to stop is by all the parties talking. If you think you going to stop it by bombing and shooting the Taliban into submission you are living in cloud cuckoo land.

[malcolm]

Absolutely Mathew.Wallensteins comments just show how willing he is to twist the facts to suit his anti Cameron agenda.The sad thing on this thread is that there are others who should know better who fall for this rubbish.

[tapestry]

The fact that the Russians failed to win their Afghan wars may be indicative, Jack. But if we equipped our troops correctly, there is so much more technology available now for fighting these kind of wars than the Russians had. cave-busting bombs, drones, predator, guns that fire a million rounds a minute using electronic target identification (unmanned), laser-guided weapons, GPS targeted artillery accurate to 2 metres over 50 miles, and so on. If we would spend the money, give the troops the kit, they could hold the Taliban back.

If the fighting in Afghanistan goes well, we could then pressure Pakistan to clear up the other side of the border.

The only way we can lose this war is in Gordon Brown's Treasury. It's the Blair/Brown split that sends our troops to war, but refuses to spend enough money to equip them first. Here is another reason why Godon Brown would not be a responsible enough person to lead our country.

[tory2]

i don't think incidentally the headline on the article is equivilant to Jews warm to tory x"-that's because bieng jewish is an ethnicity ( so it would be more like "pakistanis warm to tory line on x") tghe equivielnt of muslim would be beleiving or orthodox ect and if say the united synagoues said something I could well imagine "orthodox jews warm to X"-and it would be perfectly reasonable

[James Hellyer]

So why shouldn`t we talk to the Taliban

What compromises could you make in negotiation with the Taliban, Jack? Allow them to execute some homosexuals, or force only a few women to wear burkhas? Or is theirs a value system sufficiently alien that we can neither accomodate it, or say they analagous to even the IRA?

I think people forget that we and the Americans were actually arming the Taliban just a few years ago.

No, it's just that the activities of the world powers during the Cold War aren't exactly relevant to what should be done now. Or should British and US foreign policy be aimed at destabilising Russia's sphere of influence?

The only way the carnage that is going on in Afganistan is going to stop is by all the parties talking.

No, it's by using military force to create the security and stability that will allow a liberal society to develop by removing the reason for aiding the Taliban. If there's safe access to utilities, health care, education, etcetera, then there's less reason for people to turn to extremism.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Yes James @ 10.26 you have it on the nail! Jack Stone - you seem to have a very strange mind-set, or a conveniently superficial view of events. Regarding NI and what goes on there, I suppose the fact that there is a 'settlement' is the reality as far as your judgement goes, not what is actually happening - still, apparently and fairly regularly. The important thing is the 'image' is it. You know perfectly well that 'talking to the Devil' has never worked all through history, so why should it work now?

Tapestry - by the time I got to the end of your post, I realised that your last paragraph said exactly what I was going to say, only I would go even further. We have had threads recently on government waste, and the actual amount of government waste HAS been quantified, and yet at a time when there is sophisticated machinery, good protective armoury etc: the Chancellor is quite happy to send loyal soldiers to fight a battle, both under-equiped and under-protected.

This government seems to be saying - we mustn't upset Muslim sensibilities too much, but we have to go along with the US, but we mustn't spend too much money on this exercise, well 'they' are soldiers after all! I somehow can't see Mr. Brown EVER going anywhere without adequate protection!

[Richard]

Jack Stone - I don't suppose it occurs to you that the IRA may have been persuaded to negotiate because the British army had them on the ropes?

[John Hustings]

Getting the support of the MPACUK could be just the thing that Cameron needs to prove the Tories have changed.

This could be our clause 4!

[James Maskell]

If the MPACUK and Cameron get cosy, I will quit the Party on the spot. I swear to God, Ill walk from this Party and not return.

As for the Taliban, thats a whole different ballgame...hell thats a different sport to the IRA. The IRA is a domestic issue for one, the Taliban is an international issue. Also, the IRA wanted Northern Ireland to break away from the UK and join with Eire. Afghanistan is overrun by terrorists who wish to kill our soldiers and to take over Afghanistan and impose fundamental Islamic rules which Britain should not stand idly by and watch happen. You cannot compare the IRA and the Taliban.

Cameron being friends with the MPACUK would definitely be a Clause 4 issue, but it would also lead to an enormous backlash by the Party, not to mention the media leaping upon that story. It would be a very dangerous move for Cameron and I would think it extremely unwise to do this.

[Wallenstein]

I know how you feel, James, but my advice is to stand and fight your corner.

Until now our loyal allies in the USA and Israel have always trusted the Tories. Under Margaret Thatcher they knew that we stood shoulder to shoulder against fascism and dictatorship.

We need good patriots like you to keep the party on track and resist any slippage.

[James Maskell]

I fight my corner on most things but the MPACUK is one of those issues which I wont stay for. Staying in the Party will simply justify the policy of working with radical Muslims under the premise that they are essentially good and that its simply the media reaction to terrorism.

We must have nothing to do with such radical organisations, whatever religion they choose to follow.

[Jack Stone]

One important fact. The Taliban want to kill our soldiers as they did the Russians because we are in there country.
Unless you talk the klling will go on and on. If you really think the IRA came to the negoiating table because our army had the on the ropes you really are living in a dream world.
If you talk to people it doesn`t mean to say that you agree with them or that you wil be able to reach agreement with them but we have got ouselves into an unwinnable war and the only way out will be through negotiation.

War and violence is the easy route for countrys to solve there disputes. Talking and negiating with people is harder but I am afraid in a lot of wars and this is one of them you have to end up doing that sooner or later.
Surely we should do it now before even more good men die.

[James Hellyer]

One important fact. The Taliban want to kill our soldiers as they did the Russians because we are in there country

So it's not because they want to reimpose their brutal theocracy, and that the NATO forces and Afghan government are the obstacles preventing them achieving this?

All the withdrawlal of NATO forces would achieve is the collpse of the Afghan government, and the likely reinstitution of the Taliban's regime and subsequent destabilisation of neighbouring Pakistan. And that's one thing we cannot afford to have - Pakistan becoming a theocracy.

If you really think the IRA came to the negoiating table because our army had the on the ropes you really are living in a dream world.

It's more to do with part of the IRA leadership wanting ministerial salaries and power, and thus distancing themselves from terror, while the rest disliked the attention their terrorist ties brought to their criminal activities.

If you talk to people it doesn`t mean to say that you agree with them or that you wil be able to reach agreement with them but we have got ouselves into an unwinnable war and the only way out will be through negotiation.

What accomodation would you reach with the Taliban? What accomodation could you reach?

[Wallenstein]

Islamofascism threatens all the decent and democratic values the vast majority of us hold dear.

Pre-1939 siren voices urged us to "talk" to dictators and mass murderers. Fortunately for the free world Winston Churchill was waiting in the wings.

Meanwhile in Norway another politician was rather more keen on "negotiation".

His name was Quisling.

[James Maskell]

Im kind of grateful that Jack Stone is not our Prime Minister...just imagine it. Its "peace in our time" all over again. Talking with people who wish to kill us because we want them to have democracy...Jack, youve got to be joking. I just dont see the logic of it. They are killing our soldiers because we are trying to give them democracy.

Do you think the Taliban will put down their weapons and do diplomacy...lets not forget the way the Taliban run the country before the war...

[matthew]

could you all shut up about MPACUK. It seems that saying this twice already has not sunk in!!!!

The Tory party are not talking to, engaged in dialogue with, discussing, speaking to, negotiating, liasing, sounding off to, or doing anything else with MPACUK.

And please let that should be the end of that.

Unless you want me to start the "Nazis for Cameron" pressure group so you can use that as a stick with which to beat Hague/Cameron.

[James Maskell]

Whatever gets you off matthew... The fact is that this whole thread was designed for discussion on Muslim and in particular MPACUK reaction to the Tory Israel line. I cant believe Im having to reiterate the point of this thread...

[Patsy Sergeant]

I agree with both James and James. I can comprehend how Jack Stone could 'talk to the Taliban', but ignore what they stand for, since although he has replied to the various male posters on this thread, he has presumably felt that my comments were not worth replying to - females can't be serious (what was that McEnroe?).

[Michael McGowan]

I'm intrigued to know what Jack Stone would offer to the Taleban in his proposed talks. Public stonings of adulterers? Amputation of the hands of shoplifters? All women to wear the Burqua? Knowing the unscrupulous and spineless cynicism of the Tory left, nothing would surprise me. After all, think of the Tories' track record of appeasing war criminals and mass murderers since the Thirties for reasons of pure expediency:

1. The Hoare-Laval Pact ratifying Mussolini's rape of Ethiopia.

2. Munich.

3. Using the British Army to forcibly deport tens of thousands of Cossacks and Chetniks to be massacred by Stalin and Tito.

4. Paving the way for Zimbabwe to be governed by a despot who has murdered and tortured tens of thousands (mainly black) - within months of taking office - and is now starving his country into submission.

5. A policy of cringing appeasement when dealing with Britain's one authentically fascist racist political organisation, Sinn Finn.

6. Paving the way for the Srebrenica Massacre and other examples of assorted ethnic cleansing in the Balkans.

When One Nation Tories claim the moral high ground on foreign policy issues, I have an overweening desire to vomit.

[malcolm]

I think Michael,you are slandering One nation Tories if you include dear old Jack as one of us! After trying and failing to persuade Jack to enter debate and justify his posts on numerous occasions I have decided to take a self denying ordinance to Jacks' posts and never respond again.If everyone did that Jack would get bored and go away.
As regards your 6 points didn't 3 & 5 really occur under Labour and wasn't 3 rather the responsibility of Mrs Thatcher? I guess the point you're making is that nobody gets it right all the time.

[malcolm]

Meant point 4 was the responsibily of Mrs Thatcher.

[Michael McGowan]

Malcolm, I agree that Labour were heavily complicit in 3 and 5 but it was certainly not Labour alone. There is an excellent piece on Oliver Kamm's blog where he criticises the role of both parties in the NI "peace process" and Kamm is of course a Labour supporter. On point 4, Mrs T was undoubtedly in charge but weren't Carrington and Gilmour the architects? When Mugabe came to Westminster a few years later fresh from the rape of Matabeleland, he got a rapturous reception from Westminster Tories with only Sir Nicholas Winterton voicing dissent.

[James Maskell]

lol. Poor Jack Stone isnt even welcome in the One Nation Tories!

[Patsy Sergeant]

Right-o Malcolm that is what I shall do!

[Matt Davis]

The day that the Conservative Party gets into bed with MPACUK is ther day that my membership card gets shredded.

[tired and emotional]

Talking to the Taliban should only be done through spirit medium. No negotiation with radical Islam and the defenders and protectors of Al Quaeda is possible or fruitful. It's us or them.

Talking to the IRA (who had a political agenda not an existential one) was one thing - giving them every concession they asked for and getting nothing in return is quite another. Shameful cowardice.