Friday, July 06, 2007

Doctor in the House (of War.)

LONDON, July 3 — All eight people arrested in the aftermath of two bungled car bombings here last week are from the medical profession, a British police official said Tuesday, rattling a national heath service that has long relied on foreign doctors to fill its understaffed hospitals.

The seven men are physicians, according to the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, while the lone woman, the wife of one, is a laboratory technician. The police are now working to unravel links and prior contacts within this far-flung expatriate medical circle.


7 Doctors Tied to British Plots
New York Times, United States - 4 Jul 2007

You go to your doctor, and he says: "Open you mouth, feet in the stirrups, bend over, this won't hurt a bit....."

He's a blond from somewhere, he never does say where and you're too polite to press, maybe from, you would guess, Jugoslavia, maybe Turkia, it's hard to say, and when he's done with you and calling on another you leave saying, "Thank you, Dr. Uthman."

Six months later you go to the hospital with the wife and kids all sick to find you and a roomful of others all have a raging case of incurable t.b. and you all have the same doctor. And then others enter, strangers to you, people who have come in contact with people you've come in contact with.

Bad infidel.

But the doctor seems so nice.... He's the doctor. He's part of the war on terror. I salute your bravery and ask if there's a doctor in the house, a doctor I can trust not to kill me in the name of Allah.

Last evening during the course of our meeting we discussed briefly the murder after 9/11 of a Sikh on a bicycle, the killer thinking he'd done some great thing to a Muslim, being too ignorant or stupid or bigoted to know that Sikhs are at risk from jihad-determined Muslims just like the rest of us.

Robert Spence writes at Jihad Watch this day: "For pete's sake. If I were a Hindu doctor in Britain or Australia, I'd be writing to the Times about this. The problem is not Indian doctors, it's Muslim doctors, and everyone knows it. Evidently the politically correct imperative gives one a license to slur innocent groups -- anything to protect the Protected Victims Du Jour, the Muslims."

Here's a few lines of what Spence quotes from Times Online

"Police today raided two hospitals in Western Australia in connection with the failed terrorist plot in Britain.

Detectives have seized computer files and questioned five doctors of Indian background. Four doctors have been released."


If you don't feel that you understand this problem well enough to make a clear decision about Islam or Muslim doctors, or if you have much knowledge about Islam and care to share yours with us, feel free to sit in and let us know or not know or what have you. Meanwhile, skip the two Valiums and call me in the morning.


truepeers said...

Some might call this post undue fear mongering, but they'll never be able to explain what level of fear or warning is presently reasonable.

Focusing on doctors doesn't really get to the heart of the problem, since there are all kinds of professionals on whom our lives or legal, financial, cultual etc. security depend: what about Muslim food handlers, cops, teachers, librarians, bankers, prostitutes, drivers, drug dealers, pharmacists, bicycle wheel rim makers, etc. etc.

At some point, as the present Jihad grows, Muslims are going to have to move beyond their current anger that they are being held to account by prejudiced Westerners for things they personally have not done nor would ever do, and argue more convincingly why or how the West can tolerate Muslim communities within, and how large these can be if we are to remain Western and free (e.g. no Sharia, no reasonable fear of Koran-inspired crime). Given all the various forms of social support co-religionists inevitably give each other, given the ongoing worldwide marginalization of "moderate" Islam in face of globalization, there will come a time when the distinction between terrorist and the larger community really starts to be questioned widely. It is an ugly truth that in war, innocents do get hurt. That's why we call it war, and not policing of human rights. There is no way around it, especially when one side fights like today's undercover terrorist Jihadists do.

Muslims should have no choice but to convince others, in a spirit of openness, and through sound argument, that 1) a moderate, modern, Islam can become dominant in our country, one in which, for example, antisemitism and its anti-Zionist variants, along with Saudi funding of same, are comprehensively removed from Canadian mosques, media, and Islamic centres, or that 2) mainstream Canadian Islam can be entirely isolated from support for Jihad anywhere in the world, and for Sharia in the West, all the while maximally helping expose the would-be terrorists within. So far we see, ahem, less than sufficient evidence of this, and a lot of cries that those of us asking for it not engage in such ridiculously fear-mongering Islamophobia, just because some Muslims take the Koranic imperative to fight the infidels all too literally.

I don't want to take part in a civil war or street violence; I really hope we can find some leaders who will bravely and honestly face up to the problem and lead us towards a whole new reality consonant with freedom for those already here. I was thinking of tacking "and without undue fear mongering" onto that last sentence. But I really don't know what level of fear mongering is undue anymore, since we have a responsibility to protect our free society, even from itself and its liberal immigration policies. There was a letter in today's Globe and Mail, responding to a call for tighter vetting of Muslim professional immigrants. The Muslim letter writer says the current system is working fine. If it weren't, there would be a lot more terrorist incidents like the doctors' plot. That didn't make me feel very assured: if that's the only - somewhat foot in mouth - way which many Muslims will acknowledge the problem in Islam, it's not clear why we should tolerate Islam's practise in the West, in anything like its presently ascendant forms. Our failure to avoid what percentage of attacks, what percentage of bad immigrants, is tolerable? We will either never know the answer to this question because most all Canadian Muslims will admit that Islam, in its present forms, is a problem and will commit to a major reformation that makes the Muslim presence ,in all its facets, overwhelmingly compatible with Western modernity, or the answer will come when peace and order breaks down all over the place, or when we all find ourselves at Friday prayers, neither of which I want to encourage however much some may need a wake up call which can only come when they are staring into the abyss after a taste of such.

dag said...

I hope, and expected as I worte my post above, that readers would grasp eaisly the two-pronged approach: that there is a threat from Islam, even from the most unlikely-seeming sources, e.g. medical professionals. I hope I made plain, if not obvious, that if we cannot trust our lives and the lives of others to doctors just because they are Muslim, then we cannot better trust a Mulsim cab driver not to hi-jack us, a Muslim cook not to poison us at a cafe, a Muslim schoolteacher not to murder our children, as is possibly the case in Belsan. The point is that if we can't trust the best why should we have any confidence in those lees trust wothy by trade?

Having made that point again, let me put it also thus: That I don't for a moment suspect that Muslim medical people are plotting to murder anyone. Based on that I wouldn't take my child to a Muslim doctor. My rational choice and reasonable outlook is one thing, the life of a child is something not the same as. But there's more to what I hope I conveyed above:

that if the average Westerner looks at the average, and by that I mean every Muslim medical professional, at every Mulsim at all, and sees at least a potential homicidal maniac in him, then,-- then-- looking at all Mulsims as potential child-killers and mass murderers, then the Muslims with a stake in the world of the living, i.e the rational and decent ones who undoubtedly do exist, if only in secret, will find themselves indeed forced to come out swinging in defense not of their right to practice their poligion but in defense of their ability to make a living in the world of work. The average Muslim doctor is a small- business man, the owner of himself as corporation. If he is faced with a loss of livelihood ans career and the esteem of the community after a lifetime of striving to become a doctor and to build a practice, even in the NHS, he has too much to lose by allowing Islam to wreck his personal life.

If the Muslim community in any given city finds itself anathema, what of it? Will the Muslims go insaner and commit terrorist attacks they wouldn't have without undue provocation? Or will the Muslims with the most to lose, (the socially and economically successful,) make damned sure damned quick that those few among them making the lives and livelihoods of the professionals miserable, (the social and emotional misfits,) will the professionals quietly hire a group of men to kill off the few who cause the trouble? If the successful will not deal internally with the jihadis, then the successful, e.g. the doctors, the lawyers, the and so on, if they will not kill or cause to be killed the irrational and dangerous among them, then the best of the lot are not rational enough to deal with their own survival rationally, and they are the very danger we face anyway.

If Muslims are rational, then they will act in their best self-interest to protect themselves from harm. By their acts we will know them.

If the Muslim community doesn't quietly and quickly kidnap and behead the few lunatic Romantic jihadis among them, then the Muslim community is not at all to be trusted, not with protecting their own interests, and then certainly not with ours or with the interests of society in general.

Push the Muslim community into making a rational choice or push them out of our lives and domains. Hit them in the bankbook. That's where we'll see one result of the other. Boycott the Muslim doctors out of prudence and also out of interest in the benefit of the Muslims who are rational and deserving of life in our lands as equal and contributor citizens.

We'll know.

truepeers said...

Well, sometimes you have to hit me over the head. You're right that the moderates have to take charge of the situation, but in a modern big city how likely are they to be in a position to know much of what is going on? Nor do I think Iraqi style extralegal revenge killing is to be encouraged. The first guy you behead may be a real bastard who deserves it, but then his cousin and your cousin get into it and so on down the line. The only realistic thing the moderate can do is come out openly and proudly and unreservedly in support of the Western system of liberty, the police, etc., make it fashionable to give all aid in insuring Jihad and Sharia never see the light of day here, and stand up at the risk of life and limb to those who threaten back. (For various reasons, there can be no such thing as peacefully encouraging the West to convert to Sharia. The rule of law is an all or nothing for everyone proposition. And if we went Sharia, for one thing, bIllions would have to starve first, given the incompatibility of SHaria and modern free markets.)

If the "moderates" can't do that, they shouldn't be here. But of course they are here often because they are running away from such craziness in the old homeland and just want to be left alone. Well, if you want to be a Muslim, giving at least nominal support to the sacrament of Jihad, you've got to make a choice when war lines are being drawn by someone, however evil, even if you don't want any part of it yourself. I don't want any part of it either. But I don't see how we have any choice any more. A Muslim now has to do a lot more than, say, a Chinese, to earn my trust. That's just the reality of the situation. And more and more of us are inured to the idiocy or cynical manipulations of those who cry "racism" or "Islamophobia" in response.

Dr C. Riyal Kilah said...

Following recent adverse reactions in Glasgow, Muslim doctors should perhaps avoid Scotland and consider relocating to Wales.

Wales is a land of opportunity and reservoirs. It is the ideal place for a young Muslim doctor with an interest in microbial pathogens to gain his first practical experience.

However, as well as opportunities there are risks, such as the dangers of seduction by the lustful Welsh sheep, goats and cows. Muslim pedoetricians should also be warned about the sex-mad Welsh toddlers who will lead them astray and then complain to their Islamophobic parents that the doctor has been experimenting with unusual physiotherapeutic techniques.

But most importantly everyone, especially the trainee doctors, must be made aware of the filthy Kuffar slags known as nurses.

My Muslim colleagues - Dr Leeth al-Dohs, Dr Homi Saeed and Dr Aggun I. Singh-Deth - received an invitation from the dirty-dancing clitorally-intact nurse bints to attend a disco where these gyrating slags pulsate their uncovered meat to the lustful rhythms of their accursed infidel music.

(Please excuse me a moment while I massage my trouser-minaret. - Ahhhh... that's better!!!!)

I was unable to attend because I was involved in certain experiments regarding new uses for nitroglycerin, Dr Leeth al-Dohs was working on Kuffar infant mortality, Dr Homi Saeed was spending most of his time in the microbiology lab following the untimely deaths of his two technicians, and Dr Aggun I. Singh-Deth was busy in the hospital dispensary relabelling the harmaceutical products.

Luckily, Dr Homi Saeed's younger brother, Sewi, said he would go to the disco, and had a special jacket made for the occasion, full of king-sized Lebanese party-poppers. He said he expects have a good bang with the nurses before the night is over.

- Dr C. Riyal Kilah
Secretary, Muslim Medical Malpractitioners' Association