These two threads come together in today’s news. Anjem Choudary, an unrepentant and vocal Islamist, is notorious throughout the UK as a disciple of Omar Bakri. He, his mentor, and the leader of the Luton protest now insist that the vitriol aimed at Britain’s armed forces was right and should continue. According to them, what the Luton demonstrators did was a moral imperative.
First, here’s Mr. Choudary giving an interview to Press TV:
And here’s a report from The Evening Standard:
Carry on Insulting UK Troops, Say Preachers- - - - - - - - -
Three of the UK’s most prominent extremist Islamic preachers today compared British soldiers in Iraq to the terrorists who carried out the 7/7 and 9/11 attacks.
Exiled Omar Bakri, his follower Anjem Choudary and Ishtiaq Alamgir, the man who led the recent protest against troops in Luton, said Muslims should continue to insult British soldiers and attack “evil” democracy and freedom of speech, no matter what the consequences.
They said British forces had “blood on their hands” and warned that Britain could face more terror attacks if it did not accept “the truth of Islam”.
The clerics spoke at a hotel in Walthamstow, with Bakri appearing by video link from Lebanon.
They accused soldiers in Iraq of carrying out torture, rape and murder and also called for the introduction of Sharia law to Britain, saying non-Muslims who did not accept it should leave the country.
Alamgir said: “The soldiers are saying they are doing their job. This is very shallow. The same could be said about the individuals who carried out the 7/7 or 9/11 attacks that they carried out on the orders of Sheikh Osama bin Laden.”
As I read about, watch, and listen to the various British terrorist apologists, I am led to a single inescapable conclusion:
A country that allows such barbarous men to spout their treasonous invective does not merit the status of a sovereign nation, and deserves to be taken over by Islamic supremacists.
By that I don’t necessarily mean that the law should be brought to bear on these men’s utterances — although, depending on whether they incite violence with their words, that may well be an appropriate option.
But why do they receive lavish subsidies from the government?
Why do they appear on state-owned media outlets?
Why don’t honest British patriots hound them with catcalls and insults when they appear in the streets?
Why doesn’t the public boycott any private media outlet that publishes their videos or articles?
Why don’t hotels and businesses refuse to provide them with conference facilities and video links?
Why is that Salman Rushdie requires a police escort and Anjem Choudary doesn’t?
Where is the outrage?
And I mean publicly expressed outrage, the kind of outrage that would make these men pull their coats over their heads and duck for cover whenever they venture out into daylight.
Absent any of that, these scoundrels are correct: the righteous Muslims may as well continue with their insults and sedition.
Welcome to the Islamic Republic of Albion.
Hat tip: Steen.
25 comments:
We don't do anything because it's racist.
Why is that Salman Rushdie requires a police escort and Anjem Choudary doesn’t?
There shall come a time when true patriots will celebrate the fact that these Muslim vermin travel without police protection.
I will also ask that people please take note of how often Anjem Choudary casually tosses off the word "atrocity", as if British or American troops ever slaughtered 3,000 people at a time.
The interviewer obviously lobbed this bipedal piece of excrement softball after slow-pitched softball. Why wasn't Choudary interrogated as to the near constant stream of atrocities that pour forth from Islam and its followers?
Perhaps most ironic of all is how this dilution of meaning for the word "atrocity" will eventually inure people to such an extent that no one will care when some genuine atrocities are committed against this world's Muslim population. Just ask the little boy who cried "wolf" one time too many.
As I posted long ago, moderate Muslims and the fanatics work together.
Now why should Anjem Chaudhary polarise the situation further with this his latest rant. It works this way. If we do anything to restrain him, then he will rightly be able to claim that we are not abiding by the principles that we claim to live by. Our commitment to freedom of expression etc is hollow, while he himself is following Islam without compromise. In the meantime, moderate Muslims, the ones who bleat that Chaudhary does not speak for them, will remind us that there is huge anger within the Muslim community. They will note also, that when push comes to shove, the principles of Islam have proved stronger, as well as self-consistent, then the liberal principles we claim to live by. In essence, Chaudhary and many other Muslims can righfully claim, that in free and open competition of ideas, Islamic principles defeated Western principles, for we resorted to force.
What can we do? Deporting the likes of Chaudhary by removing his citizenship, will simply be falling into the same trap he has set. Besides, the real problem is not Chaudhary but the demographic growth of Muslims in Britain or the West.
Somehow, and by some means, Muslims have to be removed from the West if the West is to survive. If they are removed by force, then we will have destroyed ourselves anyway. The question is, how to proceed, without in anyway resorting to force or compulsion, for that would be an admission of defeat in the free and open competition with Islam.
The only option I see is a political situation that arises, or is made to come about, which forces Muslims to voluntarily leave the West. In fact they leave even though there is no open hostility to Muslims. They leave even as we are kind and respectful to them, and make no demands of them whatever, except gentle reminders that are loyal to the nation that they live in. In this respect Anjem’s rants are helpful, but Western nations have to something more to do.
DP111: For once, I slightly disagree with you. We are not breaking any principles whatsoever by removing these people from our countries, by force if necessary. Since we now have the principle that colonization is wrong and that natives have the right to preserve their culture, we have the right to resist colonization, too, which is what mass immigration really is, and retain our culture. We are thus being perfectly consistent.
Zenster said...I will also ask that people please take note of how often Anjem Choudary casually tosses off the word "atrocity", as if British or American troops ever slaughtered 3,000 people at a time.
This is the same technique that has been used against the IDF. The IDF is eventually forced to respond by an internal investigation - which in some eyes already proves that the IDF is guilty. Even if the allegations are totally unfounded, Islamists can claim that the investigation is biassed and compromised etc. It works.
Fjordman
As you know, it was I that first suggested on your blog, that native rights trump immigrant rights. Unfortunately, as time goes by, recent immigrants acquire "native" status.
The trouble is that Muslim immigration cannot be termed as colonisation, as Muslims were allowed to come into the West. They came here legally and with our permission, and in many cases, open invitation. No invasion and colonisation here.
This is good
Father Zakaria Botros on "The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet" Part IV
The perverse sexual habits of the Prophet
Publicise this link in as many places you ca
DP111: This mass immigration is generally NOT by invitation. We have every right to expel many of them. Demographic warfare from other countries against us is also warfare. What we are dealing with is the largest and fastest migration waves in human history. We are being swamped. We will resist, or we will perish.
BTW: Whites have lived in Australia and the Americas for centuries now. Yet they are still viewed as "intruders" by many.
DP111,
I used to post on SIOE as John the Infidel before Stephen Gash banned me, simply because he was unable to answer any questions I posed to him.
I used to post on JihadWatch as well, until that is I started speaking of the only political party in the UK to actually be addressing the situation of Islam, the BNP, even though I've never voted for them and my threads continually received high marks. I suppose that Robert Spencer et all have no intention of having a poster who may want to vote for a democratic political party......
As to your post of "..If they[Muslims] are removed by force, then we will have destroyed ourselves anyway.....", this is ludicrous thinking not to.
We have a situation in the UK almost on a par to pre WW2 UK. The only difference is then compared to now with Islam, is that in 1940 there was a mere fraction of a fraction of Germans. We have a situation where nearly 5% of our population is Muslim and from all accounts on the growth of Islam in Non Muslim countries, it starts around this percentage.
The UK will be Islamised within 50 years or so by mere Muslim growth. This is why the likes of Choudary are laughing, because they know it to be true. They know that they can wind us up big time, as our very liberties allow him the freedom for him to preach as he does and restrict any action we may want to take. The Humanitarianism of the West is so pathetic, so horizontal that it is allowing the OIC to dictate to the West on Civil liberties and Human Rights, when it wouldn't know what they were if it slapped them in the face.
The situation is as follows; Remove Islam, lock stock and barrel from the UK and Europe/West or else it will become Islamised and forced into a long period of oppression and totalitarianism, the likes the world has never ever seen before. This period may never end for the simple reason that all knowledge and history of anything but Islam may be destroyed, so no one knows any better. That way Islam has complete and total control of the past and of course the future.
We have to become drastic here. The West is fighting for survival and unless we fight fire with fire then Islam's fire will destroy us. Do you not understand? If it means that we have to go against our very own principles with which to make sure that our civilisation survives, then we have no choice on the matter. Do you not see this? If we do nothing, bye-bye West. If we do then there will be war. Either way there will be bloodshed and oppression, but at least if we remove Islam we can keep our civilisation safe, something that far outshines anything an Islamic country could ever hope to achieve.
There is no way they will leave voluntary DP111. Islam has never, ever come as close to Islamisation as it has in the UK. We could make life very hard for them - knocking down all Mosques, Halal shops, not giving Muslims the right to run shops or business, make Islam illegal in the West, ban all Islamic dress etc etc, but that's just going to create unrest and rioting.
The stark reality of Islam in the UK is that there is no 'peaceful' solution with it. We have a choice - Remove Islam now or be Islamised and it couldn't be any more realer than that my friend.
DP111: Somehow, and by some means, Muslims have to be removed from the West if the West is to survive. If they are removed by force, then we will have destroyed ourselves anyway. The question is, how to proceed, without in anyway resorting to force or compulsion, for that would be an admission of defeat in the free and open competition with Islam.
Your assertion is based on a false premise of "free and open competition of ideas" between Islam and Western values, when no such thing is happening. Islam intentionally weaponizes the finest Western traditions of transparency, humanity, integrity, decency and tolerance in order to use them against us.
The so-called "competition" that you refer to could not be more rigged or unfair. Muslims do not permit any competition. It is their way or the highway, as can be seen from Choudary's insolent suggestion that "if they [Britons] don't like it [shari'a], why don't they leave the country?". It is hubris on a monumental scale to suggest that a native population surrender up their constitutionally ruled land to a tiny minority that favors implementation of a Neanderthal and barbaric legal code.
Deporting a bunch of nonassimilating violence-prone misogynistic gangsters in no way violates the principals of a properly free society. To arbitrarily decree that an inhumane, fascist culture be given the same merit or respect as one that embraces human liberty and dignity is morally void.
To say that deporting such vicious, immoral scum means "falling into the same trap he [Choudary] has set", implies that there is some moral lapse involved in refusing to be gulled by Muslim kitman and taqiyya.
At day's end this is the real issue and that is whether we should allow ourselves to experience the least scintilla of shame or dishonor from Muslim calumny. Especially when doing so merely propels Islam's own unilateral and deceitful agenda.
There is no level playing field in which Islamic ideas are winning.
There is one side, the Muslims who are allowed to do or say anything, including blaming Britons after Muslims bombed their subways and promising more of the same. They are allowed to import Saudi trained imams who may not even speak English to preach sedition and hate in mosques which are allowed to sprout like mushrooms. They drain state monies including for polygamous marriage arrangements.
The other side, the non-Muslims are not allowed to breathe a word of criticism of any of the above activity.
State resources are spent cocooning the blatant sharia pushers, an alternative legal system that is contrary to the law of the land. Meanwhile, non-Muslims cannot get state protection from Muslim aggression and crime and in fact risk being charged with the "crime" of offense if they are too strident on their own behalf.
As to how to turn this around at this late date, my suggestion is to start shunning Muslims. Have as little to do with them as possible. Counter their threats and demonstrations with withering disapproval. Flood papers with letters of complaint.
Demonstrate against mosque building in one's neighborhood. Tie them up in paperwork (a known ploy is pretending to have a much larger congregation than they actually have to justify a larger mosque footprint which in Islamic belief is another beachhead belonging to Allah for all time). For every Muslim demand on Briton, demand reciprocity in Muslim states, starting with Saudi Arabia. Find a Christian church, for example in Egypt or Bethlehem to support financially. Proclaim hypocrisy loudly and long at the inevitable Arab interference. Make it clear that any square foot or concession given to them in the West must be reciprocated in a Muslim country.
In short, treat them like unwelcome guests. If you have Muslim friends whom you think are nice people, explain to them that you are so sorry they seem to be a silent minority and the other Muslims are giving them a bad name but it's a question of survival, that you are just as proud of your beliefs as they are of theirs and it is now clear that the two are not compatible.
Shout that from the rooftops, that Muslims are different from every other wave of immigration in that they intend to have their way and there is no compromise that can work between two diametrically opposed belief systems.
Educate, educate, educate, circulate the most damning verses of the Koran. Give Robert Spencer and his ilk the same soapbox that is presently given to fire breathing imams.
There's safety in numbers. This has to happen while Brits still have the numbers to pull it off. The PC constabulary can't arrest hundreds or thousands for the bizarre thought crime of "Islamophobia".
Above all, state your positive pride in your history and culture and say that's what you are standing up for. Muslims who are proud of their ways have 57 exclusively Muslim nations to choose from. Where can Brits go? Why are Muslims allowed to maintain their culture exclusively wherever they dominate but Brits have to become dhimmi in their own home country? etc.
Tell them the multiculturalism for thee but not for me is unacceptable. Until they make efforts to make their own countries microcosms of the world, they can expect nothing more on that front from Britain thank you very much.
Break the PC handcuffs. They will be the death of the West.
I forgot a relatively simple act that as yet is not illegal in Britain. Every house should sprout a Union Jack with its three crosses. Wave it in Muslim faces at every opportunity. Tell them it's the flag under which Britain became the great country that attracted them and you're sure they want one of their own to demonstrate their patriotism and love of their adopted country.
Any Brit visiting Muslim countries is subjected to their flags, all with Islamic religious writing and symbols on them. Just what kind of hearing would you get complaining that it is offensive to have the majority's religion thrust in your face?
Start going to church on Sundays and if you find a fool there like the present Archbishop of Canterbury, complain until he's replaced by an actual Christian who is not a dhimmi.
To summarize, heat up British patriotism while simultaneously giving Muslims the deep freeze, nothing illegal, just Brits expressing their God-given rights including freedom of association.
It is hubris on a monumental scale to suggest that a native population surrender up their constitutionally ruled land to a tiny minority that favors implementation of a Neanderthal and barbaric legal code.
This statement does a disservice to the Neanderthals who acted merely out of bone-headed stupidity and an unthinking instinct towards violence whereas the Muslims act according to their planned, intricate system of evil.
The overt pessimism in this discussion is understanding but I don't think it's entirely justified. The government and media are completely divorced from us - they have no idea what's going on. Consequently we, generally, have no idea what's going on. EU Referendum has pulled a few threads together on the subject. In previous posts Richard has dealt with rumours that the armed forces are buying riot gear, and fears from the police and the home office that there will be a "summer of rage" or words to that effect. The post I linked speculates that people are in a "funny mood". The government is used to having an ability to predict and guide the actions of the Mob, as Charles the Second described them. He and most of his successors acted to try and keep the mob pleased and loyal - acting in the interests of the people was in their own interest because it would mean they kept their heads.
We're in a funny mood. We're unpredictable. I'm going out on a limb to say that this is the year things will change (With all the usual caveats that of course nobody can predict the future and I've often been wrong about the next five minutes) and we'll point to the events in Luton as the marker of that shift. Why Luton? First time the rage of the people against the muslim invader was broadcast on national TV.
As per laine's idea I've just bought myself a new flag that I'm going to hang from a window. I've also picked up a Swedish flag for my wife, to see if I can teach her about patriotism.
understanding = understandable. Oops. :D
Fjordman
Now it is perfectly right to say that Muslims have been allowed to settle in the West without the permission of the people. The fact remains though - Muslims were allowed into the West by our political leaders who were democratically elected by us. As this situation has developed over several decades, and people have taken no positive stand against the political parties that fostered unfettered immigration of Muslims, we can hardly claim innocence. Muslims are here legally, and I don’t think we can claim that Muslims are colonising the West. Yes we have a right to defend our way of life, but how?
John the Infidel
I remember your posts on SIOE. They did not pull any punches. Good stuff.
Now I realise, and have known for a long time, that Muslims will not leave the West. They will fight, hoping for partition of the country, and then to continue the Jihad in the Infidel remainder. It is standard Muslim strategy.
The question is how to get Muslims to leave without causing a civil war. This civil war will not just be between Muslims and Infidels, but will split the country along not just religious lines, but political lines as well. It will, as I’ve said on Fjordman’s blog, JW and other sites, destroy the West.
Zenster posted: Your assertion is based on a false premise of "free and open competition of ideas" between Islam and Western values, when no such thing is happening.
Precisely. What I’m bringing to GoVs notice is that Muslims regard the present rules of the game as perfectly fair. Let me illustrate.
Team A believes in gouging, biting and other nefarious tactics – violence, murder, rapes, beheadings etc (Islamic rules). Team B plays by gentlemanly rules- liberalism, fair play, kindness etc (Liberal democratic rules). That is the present situation. The leaders of Team A challenge Team B –you play by your rules and we will play by our rules, and let us see who wins. This is precisely the challenge that Omar Bakri, as well as Hamza openly made to the West some years back (I believe it is in MEMRI somewhere). And it is this game that we have been playing. If Team B now decide to adopt the rules of Team A, then Team A can rightly claim that we have abandoned our principles, and as such, have lost.
Deporting Bakri, Chaudhary and their likes, does not solve the problem of the threat of the demographic growth of the Muslim population. Once they are 40%, they will have total control of parliament. As I’ve said before, the likes of Bakri, Hamza and Chaudhary, are our allies, as they give the game away. It is the silent moderate Muslims who are the real threat.
Graham Dawson
Richard North has stated that the armed forces are being trained in crowd control, as well as stocking up on weapons for riot control. I do not know what to make of this. It could be that the government has contingency plans for riots if people start to go hungry. Who said that any nation is just 4 meals away from a revolution?
Coming back to the situation that we have now.
It is most unlikely that Muslims will go quietly. Let us suppose then that no general civil war occurs. The conflict then becomes one like in Bosnia – a clear division along religious lines. This is the best scenario. It is fairly certain, given no outside interference, Muslims will be thrown out. However, we will be open to the charge that given the Team rules that we agreed to, we have lost by our rules. The other thing is, that the generation that decided to opt for armed conflict, will have to bear the stigma of turning out millions of “decent and peaceful moderate” Muslims. I can live with that, knowing the consequences of a moderate Muslim takeover, but I do not think there is going to be any general acquiescence to that idea. In fact, I believe, we will continue to play the game according to the present rules, till a real civil war erupts. And that will destroy the West.
As Fjordman, Baron, and others know, I have predicted since just after 9/11, the real possibility of drifting towards a civil war in Europe – maybe even a global civil war if the war encompasses India, Thailand, Australia, and the Americas. What I want to do here is to see if there is a strategy that avoids a ruinous civil war, avoids us admitting defeat in the war of ideas (according to rules that we implicitly agreed to), and yet neutralising the threat of Islam.
We need to separate ourselves from Muslims, that is obvious. The real question is how to arrive at that position, and then, how to implement it without the concomitant negatives. There has to be a way.
I’m off on a holiday tomorrow. However we need to think clearly, and come up with politically acceptable strategies that politicians such Geert Wilders, and others, can pick up in the fullness of time.
They accused soldiers in Iraq of carrying out torture, rape and murder and also called for the introduction of Sharia law to Britain, saying non-Muslims who did not accept it should leave the country.
Now that is very good start point.
Screw the rules. Let's engage the God-mode function and kick some serious muslim butt.
DP111,
You may not read this before you go on holiday but nonetheless you have shown respect in replying of which I too will honour.
There is no peaceful solution to removing Islam from the West. It is an impossibility and the sooner politicians and the general public realise this the better. You are very correct. What Islam wants is partition in the UK to live by its own laws as a seperate country within another. They want to do to the UK what they did to India. And we can all see how wonderful Pakistan and Bangladesh are? However once it has partition this will be the base with whcih to launch Jihad on the rest of the UK. Airports and ports will continue to import in hundreds of thousands of Asian, African and Middle Eastern Muslims who will flood out of the 'new state' and meld into the rest of the UK along the same lines as the original Muslims did in the 70's. Then it begins all over again, however the creation of more partitions in the UK will be faster as the flood of Muslims into the UK will not be controlled by the Immigration department.
The sooner our people realise that Islam is here in the UK and West to totally dominate it and control it under Islam, the sooner we can withdraw all troops from Muslim countries and start them off in the North of England, sweeping through every town and removing the majority of Muslims who shouldn't be here. Once that's done then we start looking at British born Muslims, their history, their wants and their loyalty to the UK.
You are also correct in that this will turn into a War against Islam and the left(those not loyal to Britain) and I say that war is long overdue.
Our society is in the dire mess that it's in because of the left. They have no loyalty to the UK, unlike their forefathers, who although left wing were the old school, pre war, pre Marxist invasion, socialists. They were nationalists.
It is the very left wing Marxists who have allowed uncontrolled immigration, political correctness to become the new ideology of the UK and for multiculturalism to take over from Britishness. The left are the enemy of the people and Islam is their tool with which to remove the UK of nationalism and pride for their history and culture. However, they do not realise that like the Communists in Iran who helped the Islamists to attain victory over the Shah, they too will turn on the British communists once their victory is complete.
I think that it is plain to see that what is causing the problems in our society is the left's total disregard for the beliefs of the majority as they continue to implement pro minority laws to protect them and persecute the majority. It is the left who allow immigrants with no loyalty whatsoever to the UK, to attain positions of power, which they then manipulate to create their own Gramscian hegemony and destruction of the UK in favour of implementing their culture from their previous failed lands.
I say bring this war on. Let this happen. The left are no longer Nationalist and are no different to the Islamic terrorists who want to control the UK and destroy everything that it is. There is no simple solution to this and there is most certainly not a peaceful one either. As every day passes all we are doing is allowing Islam to grow and plan more atrocities and ways with which to further manipulate our society for their own benefit and of course more frustration for the majority of loyal Brits.
To finish, your reply to Zenster splits the Islam camps into two. I agree - the Islamists and the moderate Muslims(active and non active Jihadists). Let us realise that Islam's aim is exactly the same and both camps are working together to get to the end game. The Islamists(Choudary, bakhri, Abu Izadeen, Abu Hamza) are making public outrage with their protests at the Army in Luton, stoning of homosexuals and their marches through the UK promoting Islam4UK.com. Then there are those Muslims who disagree with them such as the Quillam Foundation and their various members, who continue to denounce them in the papers and on TV(Nicky Campbell's Big Question).
However, what people do not see what's happening is quite extra ordinary. The active Muslims of Choudary et all create public anger by the way they are, yet what the public then does is look to the 'ordinary' Muslims of the Quillam Foundation as peaceful, who don't want violence. They(QF) gain the support of the people and stealth Jihad continues. Make no doubt about it ALL Muslims want an Islamic state or else they would not worship Islam. This is the biggest lie we are told of Islam and people continue to believe them. All Muslims are working towards the Islamisation of the UK and the West and while the security forces are watching the terrorists and Islamists they are forgetting that 'womb' Jihad is moving along nicely as the Islamic population grows ten times faster than the non Muslim one.
This is just bloody madness DP111. Islam is not here to integrate. If anyone reads the Qur'an, Hadith and Sira they will see what its true intentions are. This is what people don't know, firstly because they're ignorant in not wanting to know and secondly because the MSM won't say anything negative about Islam.
50 years max, maybe far less is when the UK will become totally Islamised and it will be unrecognisable with a huge population, disease, warfare and untold attrocities, not forgetting a complete and utter destruction of anything that was British culture, heritage and history. This is what people don't realise. We are talking about total destrution of the UK for good with the implementation of Arabs as the main peoples and the indigenous people destroyed. Why? Simple, our pathetic weak minded liberal views that believe all cultures and morals are relative and still deny, when they watch their society be destroyed that they could be wrong.
Unless we have a war where we seriously remove about ten million unwanted inhabitants then we can kiss the UK goodbye. That also goes for the rest of the West as well.
RtL
Two more hours before we head off to the airport, but we will be back in 6 days.
I agree with more or less everything in your post. Ofcourse Muslims are looking for a partition of the UK, and Balkanisation of Europe. As I noted in my previous post, "They will fight, hoping for partition of the country, and then to continue the Jihad in the Infidel remainder. It is standard Muslim strategy".
GoV is one of few sites where one can propose strategies to combat, and then effectively eliminate the threat of Islam. It is not enough to simply wish that we have to remove Islam from the West, as Laurence Auster has done for some time now. One has to come up with a workable strategy that is politically acceptable across the spectrum. To an extent, it must have some backing from Muslims as well. This may sound bizarre, but if one can have this, then all the better for its success.
Long ago on GoV, I wrote that the Jihadis and the moderate Muslims work together, each in their way to further the Islamisation of an Infidel country. They work in tandem. I'm glad to see that this is now being recognised in the blogsphere atleast. I see nothing to distinguish between the two, except if it suits our purpose to exploit that non-existent divide.
In order to get a hearing in the MSM, we have to couch our points with humility, as well compassion for all - Muslims included. This is the first step, if our case is to be heard widely. My letters have been published in The Times, DT, Daily Express, though they were just as hard as posts by JohntheInfidel.
Let me give an illustrative example
Sir,
It is deep with sadness that I write this. It grieves me to see the dissolution of the UK, as it tries to adjust itself to the demands of multiculturalism. It is tearing itself apart, and the end result is going to be misery for all.
It is time we admitted we have made a colossal mistake in allowing Islam to take root in the UK. Through no fault of their own, as Muslims are required to wage Jihad, we are looking at a civil war in the UK along the lines of Bosnia. Humanity and compassion for all, Muslims included, require that separation from Islam/Muslims be undertaken as a matter of urgency.
It is sad to state, but nothing can save the West from separate civil wars breaking out all over, like an ugly rash. There are no easy options left now except a parting of communities. This is the most humane solution we have at the moment, and even this option is time limited. In the end we face a gruesome civil war in the future (Kosovo, Bosnia, Thailand etc), which after countless dead, will lead to “ethnic” cleansing as the final outcome.
I write this with great sadness, as I had really hoped, that we in the UK, could show the world how very different cultures could live in harmony and peace. Alas, it does not seem likely.
I remain, yours in peace etc
--------------------------------
One can re-phrase this in whatever way one likes, but the overall tone should be one of deep sadness that multiculturalism is not just not working, but is leading to a civil war.
--------------------------------
Robin Shadowes wrote: Screw the rules. Let's engage the God-mode function and kick some serious muslim butt.
If only.
--------------------------------
Will look up GoV in 6 days time.
Bye.
DP111,
I forgot to say in my last reply to you - "Have a nice holiday". I suppose it should now be "Hope you had a nice holiday" by the time you read this.
Alas, there is no politically acceptable strategy to remove Islam. The very discussion of removing an ideology from the UK in political circles is a big NO NO. The only party that will actively start removing Islam would be the BNP. There is no other party that will address this situation. I was a Tory voter for a long time and I've realised that the Conservatives are no longer conservative but blue Labour. They will be no different. This is why next election I will vote BNP. I have no choice and in all reality, neither do the British people. This is the stark reality. We don't need backing from Muslims, after all what do we say to them "Hi, we're kicking you and your ideology out of the UK and we want your backing?"
DP111, we don't want Islam. We shouldn't allow Islam to exist in the West. There should be no Mosques in the West, no Halal shops, no Muslim preachers. The bottom line is that Islam is not fit to exist in the West and it's really that simple. It's 1,400 years behind us and by us allowing them here all we are doing is moving backwards. The 'good' parts in Islam are merely stolen from Christianity and the bible. We know that the Qur'an is a book of War on Non Muslim lands so we need to kick it out of the West once and for all. There should be no quarter for Islam's existence in the West.
I respect your posts that you have sent to the Times/DT etc etc, but these papers do tend to ban IP addresses if someone posts something they dislike. Anything remotely negative to Islam will not be published and I will certainly not beat around the bush and apologise for a Nazi ideology that wants to Islamise the West, only alive because of the West.
The only solution to removing Islam from the West is as follows:
1. Vote for the BNP
2. Once point 1 is done then you start removing all illegal immigrants from the UK by bringing the army into play.
3. Once you've removed the illegals(African, Asian and Middle Eastern) then you start making things tough on Islam as follows:
a) Knock down all Mosques.
b) Remove all Halal meat shops making its practice illegal.
c) Stop all Sharia Finance in the UK.
d) Remove all Muslim business/businessmen in the UK. This would mean deporting the owner of Manchester City and of course Al Fayed of Harrods amongst many more.
e) Remove all Muslims from positions of power. Lord Ahmed, Baroness Warsi, Keith Vaz and every other Muslim politician because as Muslims their loyalty is to Islam and not the UK/British culture and British people.
f) Ban all Islamic dress.
g) There will be riots from Muslims which will be met with deadly force by the Armed Forces.
h) Use the SAS to infiltrate terrorist organisations in the UK and remove them from existence.
i) No more benefits, welfare for Muslims and they must also pay for all medical and education.
j) Knock down all Muslim faith schools and Muslims educated in British schools.
k) All Muslims on TV and radio will also lose their positions as well as they only got them because of their minority status.
l) Because Muslim birthrate is so high, all British born Muslims would be allowed only one child. If they chose to have more they would be removed from the UK to their ancestral land. More importantly, they would be directed more towards intermixing with other Non Muslims. They would not be allowed to practice Islam as it would be banned in the UK as it is a cult and Anti Western.
m) Muslims in the UK would be taught the real truth of their faith and that it has nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity/Judaism but in fact a polytheistic cult of the Moon God worshipped in Babylonian times. They would rightfully be taught that Islam is an oppressive, totalitarian, misogynistic, homophobic, cult and that Muhammad was no man of God, but a madman, a warlord and a mass murderer, not forgetting a paedophile and raper of women.
The above situation will of course create unrest in the UK as we are effectively removing the Cult of Islam from the UK. There will be unrest and lots of it, but then we have an army for that very reason and a Police Force to back them up. Eventually more and more Muslims will start leaving the UK as it won't be beneficial to them. They will in fact start to feel like the many Christians/Non Muslims persecuted by Muslims in Islamic Lands. They will soon get the message that they're not welcome. More and more attacks will happen between British people and Muslims and the police will simply wave the crimes and not look for the attackers.
In fact DP111, what we would be seeing would be a situation in the UK on a par to how Muslims would treat dhimmis under an Islamic state. All we're doing is the same they'd do to us. We would be removing Islam from the Muslims and integrating them into the UK. Those who wish to continue to practice Islam must do so in Islamic Lands and would therefore have their passport removed upon entry into their ancestral home/chosen Islamic land.
This is what I believe is the only solution to peacefully removing Islam from the UK. There is also the less drastic situation of evicting those Muslims born in the UK to their ancestral lands. It's just a case of educating them that Islam is not what they believe it to be and the sooner they realise this the better. This would of course create anger in the Islamic World, but then so what? What are they going to do about it? We simply shut ourselves off from them, don't send them aid and certainly don't help them in natural disasters. Above all else we show 100% support to Israel and if needs be come down on Islamic countries that persecute it.
The time is now to stop pussy footing around Islam. If it weren't for the West, Islam would have died out a long time ago.
Last but not least, the best thing the West could do would be to bomb Saudi Arabia, imprison the Sheikhs, take the Oil for the West and send the Arabs back into the desert to live with their camels and tents.
There is no other peaceful solution to the Muslim situation in the UK. The only alternative is the mass removal of all Muslims regardless of birth. End of.
I never thought I'd say that but I find myself preferring Mr. Choudary over a lot of so-called "moderate" Muslims and even people like, say, Douglas Murray. With the "moderate" Muslim you never know on which side he really is. He could be practicing taquiya. He could truly be a moderate in the sense that he sees his faith as a purely spiritual and personal matter. But he would not be a reliable ally, and even then, what good is a moderate for?
Moderates arrange themselves with the greater situation. They are not the people fighting it. I'm continually amazed about how politicians who pretend awareness to the Islamic threat present "moderates" as some kind of knight on a white horse.
Similar things count for people like Douglas Murray. Sure, he sees Islam as a threat due to its mysoginistic nature and its clear attacks against equality, but nothing he has said to my knowledge acknowledges that facts that the weaknesses that allow these transgressions are inevitable byproducts of the liberal, multicultural society he so much values.
As such, I very much prefer a man like Anjem Choudari, because I prefer a honest enemy over a bunch of dishonest, unreliable friends. With Choudari, you always know where the buck stops, because each of his positions will be traceable to the Qu'ran, the Sunna and the Hadiths. But the "moderate" muslim? The feeble-minded neocon?
Rather an honest enemy than a mealy-mouthed friend.
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.