PM says “There is no justification in Islam . . . . “

Woolwich attack: Suspects known to security services

Well, as to that venture into Muslim theology, I suppose this on-message (the universal liberal message) PM is as entitled to have his own opinion as any other non-Muslim.

But nobody actually has much reason to care about his opinion on the question, since it is what Muslim believers think that matters.

If the idea is to convince other Muslims they have no religious duty to join in the terrorism but instead a religious duty to abstain was he really the guy to convincingly deliver that message?

During the Troubles it was the pope and the bishops who tried to chill the Catholics.

And the same is true – he is the wrong messenger – if the point was to discourage Britons from thinking Islam, as a religion, is their enemy.

But if the point was to deny, to the Britons, that Muslims are at least their potential enemies much as Protestants and Catholics were that to each other during the Troubles then his message is a lie and his message is no more reliable than Chamberlain’s of “peace in our time” after Munich.

On the other hand, not every Nisei in America was a threat.

On the other other hand, as a group it seems they did pose a threat more serious than Americans whose ancestry traced back to European nations with which the US was also then at war, or than immigrants from any of those countries.

Note that when people deplore the internment of the Nisei they rarely, if ever, dispute that notion.

Instead we hear a great deal about it being unconstitutional, unjust, bigoted, discriminatory, racist, and so on.

And none of that, really, addresses the question whether it was a prudent wartime measure neither necessary nor especially useful in the case of any other ethnic group.