Monday, May 14, 2012

We Will Not Be Silent

Nick McAvelly of The Frozen North sends the following essay about the growing jihad against soft targets in the West, the ineffectiveness of official efforts to combat it, and the inability of the “moderate” Muslim community to prevent it.

We Will Not Be Silent
by Nick McAvelly

The murders committed by Mohamed Merah in Toulouse have been forgotten by the mainstream media. The shootings were covered at the time, as was Merah’s subsequent suicide by cop. Acts of Islamic terrorism do appear in the press if a mujahideen is successful and someone dies. If it bleeds, it leads.

But there’s more to the Toulouse shootings than a young man from a run-down banlieue who ‘self-radicalised’ then went on a killing spree. The Toulouse shootings are one more instance of Islamic terrorist attacks being carried out around the world against so-called ‘soft targets’.

Once it became known that the murders had been carried out by a mujahid, the French authorities acted, and detained several men connected to the banned Islamic group Forsane Alizza. One of those men was Willie Brigitte, who is well known in both France and Australia.[1,2]

Willie Brigitte had travelled to Australia in May 2003, having previously attended a training camp in Pakistan run by Lashkar-e-Taiba, a terrorist organisation listed in Australia’s Criminal Code Regulations. Once Brigitte arrived in Australia, he established contact with Faheem Khalid Lodhi, another individual whose name is known in Australia.[3,4]

In October 2003, Lodhi’s home and workplace were raided by the Australian police and ASIO (the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation) and evidence was obtained which incriminated Lodhi in a terrorist plot: Four military training manuals on explosives and weapons, a document written in Urdu containing recipes for poisons and explosives, and several poems glorifying martyrdom.[4,5] One disc found in Lodhi’s possession was described as ‘a virtual library encouraging the reader to undertake violent jihad’.[4]

Lodhi also had in his possession photographs of Holsworthy Army Base, Victoria Barracks, HMAS Penguin at Mosman (home to Balmoral Naval Hospital)[6] and a map of the national electricity grid. Other documents indicated that Lodhi had attempted to source chemicals required to prepare explosives.[7] Lodhi was arrested and in June 2006 was found guilty of three separate terrorist offences.[4,7]

The contact between Lodhi and Willie Brigitte had been arranged by an individual known as ‘Sajid’, who had met Lodhi met at a mosque in Pakistan in 2002 and again in 2003.[4] Willie Brigitte met ‘Sajid’ at the Lashkar-e-Taiba training camp.[5] Australian authorities were satisfied by the evidence they uncovered that ‘Sajid’ had arranged for Lodhi and Brigitte to meet in Sydney so they could explore the possibility of committing acts of terrorism in Australia.[4]

Willie Brigitte was arrested and extradited to France, where he was found guilty of ‘criminal association linked to a terrorist enterprise’. Brigitte received a sentence of nine years, but since the time he had spent in pre-trial detention was taken into account when calculating the length of his sentence, he was released in 2009.[1,2]

Three years down the line, and Willie Brigitte has been detained again, along with other members of Forsane Alizza, a group described by Bernard Squarcini, the head of the DCRI counterespionage agency in France, as ‘a veritable danger’.[1,2,8]

Like many people nowadays, Mohamed Merah used social networking sites. He signed off from his internet life as ‘Mohamed Merah — Forsane Alizza’.[9]

Before he committed the acts of jihad that brought him infamy in Europe and Israel, Mohamed Merah travelled to several Islamic countries in the Middle East. Merah is reported to have trained with the Taliban and to have fought against NATO troops.[9,10,11,12]

Abdelkader Merah, Mohamed’s brother, is reported to have helped smuggle jihadis into Iraq in 2007[10] and to have been involved with the terrorist group Jund-al-Kilafah.[13] Abdelkader Merah has been formally charged with ‘complicity in murder’ by the French authorities, in connection with Mohamed’s crimes.[14]

Nicolas Sarkozy said following these acts of Islamic terrorism that it is the state’s duty to guarantee the security of the French people. As he put it, ‘We have no choice. It’s absolutely indispensable.’[15,16] Sarkozy has also said that ‘The values of France have been attacked.’ And as French President, Sarkozy said: ‘We must be implacable in defending our values.’[9]

This is not the first time that Western values have been violated by French Muslims in the most brutal manner.

In January 2006, a young man named Ilan Halimi arranged a date with a woman he’d met in the shop where he worked. She was a member of ‘The Barbarians’, a gang who lay in wait for Halimi that night and kidnapped him. Over the next three weeks, Halimi was held in a basement and tortured to death. Verses from the Koran were read as ransom demands were made on the internet. Beaten, stabbed and burned over four-fifths of his body, Halimi was eventually found handcuffed and abandoned in a field. He died on the way to hospital.

When Ilan Halimi was murdered, the Simon Wiesenthal Center sent a message to Nicolas Sarkozy, who was at that time the interior minister, saying, ‘These acts are a test for Europe. Jihadi violence, hatred and anti-Semitism must be prevented from taking root in French soil.’ Sarkozy replied that anti-Semitic violence is ‘not inevitable’ in France, and he considered combating it to be ‘a moral imperative.’[17]

The measures taken by the French authorities are appropriate and necessary. The men connected to the banned group Forsane Alizza who were arrested[15,16] were found to be in possession of ‘an impressive lot’ of firearms, including Kalashnikov rifles.[1,8] Thirteen of them ended up facing charges of criminal association linked to a terrorist network and of obtaining and transporting firearms.[18,19,20]

According to French interior minister Claude Gueant, there are other groups in France whose members have the ‘desire’ and ‘enthusiasm’ to avenge the death of Mohamed Merah. Gueant has advised the French public to be ‘vigilant and attentive.’[21]

The French authorities have not arrested every Muslim living in France, because clearly not everyone living in France who would call themselves a Muslim poses an immediate threat to the lives of French citizens, the security of the country, or the values of French society. However, the logical observation must be made that all of the recent suspects who were deemed by the French authorities to pose a threat to France are, as a matter of fact, Muslims.

Willie Brigitte only started down the path to Islamic terrorism after he converted to Islam in 1998. He attended a mosque in Paris, and has reportedly said that the hadith relating to jihad played a large part in what was taught in that mosque.[22]

Mohamed Merah reportedly told the French officers tasked with taking him down that he had decided to take up arms against the West and ultimately to commit acts of terrorism against French citizens after he read the Koran in prison.[23, 24, 25]

The fact that Mohamed Merah read the Koran in jail was presented by the French authorities as evidence that Merah was not part of a group of Islamic terrorists, but that doesn’t follow. Mohamed Merah was in prison from 2007 until 2009.[10] Merah’s reading the Koran three years ago says nothing whatsoever about what he got up to afterwards.

The only conclusion that can be reached from Mohamed Merah’s testimony prior to his suicide by cop is that the inspiration for his terrorism came from the pages of the foundational text of Islam, the Koran.

Of course, human beings don’t need to look between the covers of the Koran to find reasons to kill one another. If anyone doubts that, a visit to the Imperial War Museum in London will open their eyes.

The legacy of World War II is still with us, and that legacy needs to be understood properly. Unfortunately, as the journalist Caroline Glick has argued in her book Shackled Warrior, much of Europe’s current moral sickness stems from a flawed perception of World War II.[26]

Militarism and nationalism are today condemned, without argument. The well of discourse is poisoned by labelling any dissenting voices as ‘right-wing’. Pacifism, appeasement and globalism are preached endlessly.

But the lesson to be taken from World War II is not that we must pursue a policy of pacifism and appeasement, no matter how much that might cost us. Nor is it that we must hand over control of our nation states to transnational entities run by anonymous oligarchies.

The cause of the war was not nationalism per se. After all, there were nation states who stood against the Nazis. It was Germany’s embrace of evil, and the inability of the leaders of other countries to identify that evil and to stand against it.

As Winston Churchill said repeatedly in his record of World War II, the refusal of British politicians to face unpleasant facts and to deal with the evil forces arising in Hitler’s empire led to a world of horror and misery that was almost beyond conception.[27]

In his authoritative history of World War II, Martin Gilbert writes of a Nazi soldier who, while transporting Jewish families from one area in Poland to another, threw a three year old child into the snow to die. When the mother tried to save her child, the soldier threatened to shoot her with a revolver. The mother said she would rather die than leave her child alone. The soldier then offered to kill everyone else in her wagon instead, and leave her alive. The mother arrived in Warsaw without her child, whereupon the woman lost her sanity. As Gilbert says, this incident, and many others like it, does not indicate that German militarism had prevailed over Poland, but that evil had triumphed over Germany.[28]

Seventy-two years later, Mohamed Merah carried out an Islamic terrorist attack on a Jewish school in Toulouse. One of his victims was an eight year old girl who he chased across the schoolyard before executing her with a .45 pistol.[29]

Mohamed Merah was described by Nicolas Sarkozy thus: ‘There are beings who have no respect for life. When you grab a little girl to put a bullet in her head, without leaving her any chance, you are a monster.’[29]

The acclaimed historian Niall Ferguson said that he could not bear to picture Mohamed Merah committing that act of infanticide, and labelled what Merah did an ‘act of savagery’.[9]

Islamic terrorists like Mohamed Merah are the tip of the spear; one need only look at Islamic communities around the world to see how non-Islamic values are not respected by Muslims living under shariah law, are not even tolerated, but are instead attacked at every opportunity using the most barbarous techniques.

The violent persecution of Christians, and the denial of their civil and religious liberties throughout the world, was discussed at some length during a debate last May in Westminster Hall, the oldest building on the Parliamentary estate in the United Kingdom.

David Simpson MP spoke about the horrendous crimes committed by Muslims against non-Muslims on the African continent; Tony Baldry MP spoke about ‘a system of religious repression’ in parts of northern Nigeria which is implemented by Muslims and based on shariah; Jim Shannon MP said that ‘deadly religious violence’ is commonplace in Nigeria, and cited several barbaric crimes perpetrated by Muslims against non-Muslims.

In an attack upon the village of Byie on 17th March 2010, twelve Christians, including a pregnant woman, were murdered. The perpetrators were Muslims who had entered the village armed with guns and machetes. Just days before the debate at Westminster Hall took place, some five hundred Christians had been murdered by Muslims in the villages of Rastat, Dogo Nahawa and Zat. The Islamic warriors set fire to the homes of their “soft targets” and lay in wait at the villages’ exit points. Some used animal traps and nets to catch their victims. The Muslims murdered entire families while shouting out the takbir. Many children were macheted in their necks and their heads, at least one child was scalped, and many were burned to death. Staff working for Christian Solidarity Worldwide counted the bodies of four babies and twenty-eight children younger than five years old in just one of the villages.[30]

There have been many attacks carried out by Muslims in Nigeria since then. The Islamic group Boko Haram routinely targets churches as they perpetrate acts of Islamic terrorism against non-Muslims.[31]

It is not known to what extent Muslims living in European countries support such practices, or genuinely believe in the ideology that drives them. In the run-up to the elections, the news station France24 managed to find three ‘integrated’ Muslims who were critical of their co-religionists who try to impose Islamic values upon the society they’ve all chosen to come and live in.[32]

Let’s grant for the sake of argument that there are Muslims currently living in European countries who don’t want to attack Western values, don’t want to murder anyone, and don’t support other Muslims who do. The problem we are faced with is that these so-called ‘moderate’ Muslims are impotent. Since 9/11, they have proven to be powerless to stop acts of Islamic terrorism, or to defeat the underlying ideology which drives them.

The ideology of the Nazis may have found its most coherent fulfilment in the organised attempt to commit genocide upon the Jewish people, as Sir Max Hastings recently asserted.[33] But the Nazis inflicted suffering upon their own people too. From the beginning of Hitler’s reign, a dissenting voice in Germany could expect to do hard time in Dachau. And we now know the fate of the members of The White Rose.

Islam takes criticism about as well as the Nazis did. The penalties under shariah can certainly be similar.[34] So it’s not difficult to understand why so few ‘moderate’ Muslims are willing to stand up for the values of their host countries.

Fear of a violent Islamic backlash has effectively silenced the mainstream media, just as it has silenced most Western politicians. If powerful people and institutions dare not speak out against Islam, it’s no wonder that the same prospect of violent retribution serves to keep individual members of the Ummah in line.

If any European state fails to protect its citizens against evil, or worse, if it actively prevents its own citizens from either naming that evil or discussing the provenance of that evil, then that state is not fit for that purpose.

In Greater Manchester, nine Muslim have recently been jailed for a total of seventy-seven years on multiple counts of sexual assault, rape and trafficking young women for sexual exploitation.[35] In a separate police investigation in Oxford, Operation Bullfinch has resulted in multiple arrests of Muslim men on charges of child rape, trafficking and threats to kill.[36,37]

These crimes have been taking place in Britain for many years, and both the mainstream media and our elected politicians have been afraid to speak openly about it, because doing so would contravene the fundamental beliefs of cultural relativism.[38,39]

If a state actively prevents the development of the practical and moral capacities residing within human beings, if it interferes with the progress of the human spirit by denying its own citizens the ability to seek what is good and to reject what is evil, then it is reprehensible and injurious.

The longer such a political system endures, the more harmful it is to the people it is supposed to serve. Individuals may become so corrupt that they abandon the will to act in order to preserve that which is good in their own cultures.[40]

Fortunately, there are people in the West who have spent sufficient time researching the doctrines and the history of Islam to have an accurate understanding of what is happening in our world today. Individuals such as Geert Wilders and Ayaan Hirsi Ali having been telling the truth about Islam for years. What they write and say is believed by many people who do not dare to express themselves as those writers do.

There has always been evil in the world. The civilised world stood against it when it manifested itself in Europe through Adolf Hitler and the Nazis. But the evil that fuelled Nazism was not, and never will be, defeated by human beings.

We must address the moral challenge that confronts our generation. If Islamic terrorism is still ongoing more than a decade after 9/11, and there’s no prospect of ‘moderate’ Muslims living in European countries preventing acts of Islamic terrorism from being attempted, or defeating the Islamic doctrines which demand that those acts of terrorism be committed, then we have to protect our own communities.

If we choose to remain silent, then that won’t just enable those in power who hope to change our countries into amoral, submissive societies. It will have consequences for each of us as individuals. But the poison of cultural relativism can be resisted and overcome. The truth can be understood and spoken aloud.

The words of Winston Churchill, our greatest Briton,[41] serve as a reminder to us all that we must stand up to the darkness of our age.[42] If we can take that message to heart, then our own Judeo-Christian civilisation can still move forward, and we may yet catch sight of those broad, sunlit uplands.


1. The Australian, Terror plotter Willie Brigitte held after raids in France, from AP, April 01, 2012 8:53AM (accessed 02/04/2012 14:22)
2. The Australian, French terrorist extradited from Australia detained in weekend raids, Ean Higgins, April 02, 2012 12:00AM (accessed 02/04/2012 14:11)
3. The Telegraph, Detained Islamists in France “planning a kidnap”, 1:18PM BST 31 Mar 2012 (accessed 02/04/2012 14:56)
4. secureNSW, Case study (Regina v. Lodhi (2006) NSWSC 691), last updated 07 July 2011 (accessed 02/04/2012 14:08)
5., Documents link suspect to Brigitte, Ellen Connolly, June 11, 2004 (accessed 02/04/2012 14:06)
6. (accessed 14/04/2012 17:12)
7. Sydney Morning Herald, Lodhi guilty of terror plot, Natasha Wallace, June 19, 2006 2:12PM (accessed 02/04/2012 14:07)
8., Lucas Heights terrorist Willie Brigitte arrested in dawn raids, from AP, April 01, 2012 8:43AM (accessed 14/04/2012 23:18)
9. The Daily Beast, How a Terror Attack Saved French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Niall Ferguson, April 2, 2012 1:00AM EDT (accessed 02/04/2012 15:01)
10., Road to Mohamed Merah’s radicalization goes through Afghanistan, John Irish, Reuters, updated 3/21/2012 14:07PM ET (accessed 15/04/2012 00:01)
11. The Daily Beast, Mohamed Merah, Who Killed 7 in France, Embodied al Qaeda’s Lone Jihadist Campaign, Bruce Riedel, April 2, 2012 5:45PM EDT (accessed 15/04/2012 00:18)
12., French Police: Mohamed Merah ‘visited Pakistan, Afghanistan’, Jennifer Lipman, March 21 2012 10:49AM (accessed 15/04/2012 00:21)
13. Daily Mail, Toulouse gunman Mohammed Merah had links to Islamic extremists in Britain, Peter Allen, 25 March 2012 03:10 (accessed 15/04/2012 00:35)
14. Mail Online, French Al Qaeda fanatic’s brother is charged over terror attack which left seven dead, Peter Allen, 25 March 2012 16:10 (accessed 03/04/2012 12:07)
15., 19 arrested in French police raids, Sarkozy says, CNN Wire Staff, 2012-03-30 T08:01:20 (accessed 02/04/2012 15:35)
16. BBC News Europe, France arrests 19 suspected Islamists in raids, 30 March 2012 10:29 (accessed 15/04/2012 20:52)
17. (accessed 16/04/2012 20:01)
18. Fox News, French Official: Islamists planned to kidnap judge, April 03, 2012 (accessed 15/04/2012 22:02)
19. abc News, French Official: Islamists planned to kidnap judge, Elaine Ganley, April 3, 2012 (accessed 15/04/2012 22:05)
20., FrenchOfficial: Islamists planned to kidnap judge, AP, 12:42, 04.03/12 (accessed 03/04/2012 17:30)
21., France: Islamists seeking to avenge Merah’s death, Thomas Adamson, April 6 2012 9:42AM (accessed 16/04/2012 17:53)
22. (accessed 22/04/2012 00:43)
23. Times of Malta, Police explode a suspect package in Toulouse square, Saturday, March 24, 2012 (accessed 03/04/2012 12:03)
24. (accessed 22/04/2012 01:09)
25. Yahoo 7 News, France insists no evidence ties gunman to terrorist groups, March 24 2012 9:26am (accessed 22/04/2012 01:11)
26. Caroline Glick, Shackled Warrior, Gefen, Kindle loc. 2574.
27. Winston Churchill, The Gathering Storm, Mariner Books, p. 80.
28. Martin Gilbert, The Second World War, Phoenix, p. 152.
29. Daily Telegraph, Toulouse shooting: heartbreaking details of attack that shocked France and Israel, Fiona Govan, 8:16pm 20 Mar 2012, accessed 14:32 03/05/2012
30. (accessed 08/05/2012)
31. (accessed 08/05/2012)
32. France24, I’m Arab, a Muslim, and I vote Marine Le Pen, Malika Kerkoud, 27/04/2012 — 20:28 (accessed 30/04/2012, 02:04)
33. Max Hastings, All Hell Let Loose: The World At War 1939-1945, Harper Press, p. xvi.
34. Nonie Darwish, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, Thomas Nelson, Kindle loc. 126 & loc. 247.
35. (accessed 09/05/2012)
36. Daily Telegraph, Rochdale grooming trial: gang convicted for sex trafficking, Nigel Bunyan, 8th May 2012 (accessed 13/05/2012)
37. Oxford Mail, Six kept in custody facing 34 charges, Ben Wilkinson, 26th March 2012 (accessed 13/05/2012)
38. Oxford Mail, Bullfinch: man re-arrested, 10th May 2012 (accessed 13/05/2012)
39. Daily Telegraph, Asian sex gang: young girls betrayed by our fear of racism, Allison Pearson, 9th May 2012 (accessed 13/05/2012)
40. Daily Star, Woman tells of sex ordeal at hands of Asian gang, Bill Frances, 13th May 2012 (accessed 13/05/2012)
41. (accessed 13/05/2012)
42. (accessed 13/05/2012)


Anonymous said...

France could reduce some of the animus by following a Marine LePen line of complete detachment from US Middle East policy.

Nato should have been disbanded as well wehn the Iron Curtain fell.

babs said...

I couldn't agree with you more. As an American citizen I am sick and tired of paying for European security.
Wouldn't it be great if Europe asked that all American military leave their soil like the Saudi's did?
They could then negotiate and PAY for their own anti ballistic missle defense. They could PAY for their own standing Army and Navy and stop sucking off the U.S. while simultaneously hating us.
I am all for it!

vince said...

Perhaps it was naive of us to think that after several thousand years of tribal,kingdom,nation and global warfare disease and general strife that Europe has experienced, that we would not experience it again.

Perhaps this naivety is what caused the appeasement of Hitler ultimately resulting in ww2, and perhaps the appeasement of Islamic radicals that will lead to the next conflict.

If we look at European history, or indeed the history of any nation or continent peace time is only but a spec in the timeline, if at all on the timeline.

Perhaps its just human nature. Conflict for resources or ideology is inevitable. Perhaps as societies we have failed to realise that just because we have largely eliminated tribal war, conflicts from within does not mean that those externally could not cause us harm.

As seen in ww2 and ww1 external threats seem much more simple, conventional warfare mixed with a simple win or lose scenario. But when you import the threat and it lies within, I feel the end result will be far less final even if a winner was to emerge.

Just ramblings from myself. no purpose just ramblings

Tiedar said...

IMO calling the moderate Muslims impotent is to hard you can call them unable to control their extremists inside their culture.
I think it's part of the human being that everyone is evil it's only a question of how you let "shine" through yourself.

laine said...

I agree that the United States should have stopped paying for and staffing Europe's defense decades ago. It would have saved Americans a lot of money and Europe could not have afforded to go down the twisted Socialist Road again (the Nazis were a socialist party) as far as it's gone. Like all forms of dependency there's no gratitude, just snooty insults for the provider while the takers become degraded drones who declare their false moral superiority for distributing cradle to grave Welfare goodies they could not afford without the benefactor they revile. If the United States now abruptly stops paying for and staffing Europe's defense bill, like a big fat courtesan sucking on Welfare bonbons, she lies open again for any determined ruthless force to take her. And like the mindless liberal she is, this time she's been inviting in her own rapists/terrorists and the colonies/no go areas that hide and enable them, calling those "moderate Muslims". Of all people, Europeans should know that this is ridiculous word play. The majority of Germans were even more moderate than Muslims in that they didn't bow and scrape to the same supremacist ideology five times a day like fanatic robots. They were not as ideologic, witness their present pacifist passivity. So exactly the same foolish attitude that the numerically small sabre-rattlers won't amount to anything prevails while the outcome of the previous gang of thugs is within living memory! Meanwhile, several European economies circle the toilet mostly due to the Welfare bonbon bill. Europeans show no signs of waking up from their self-indulgent swoon and taking their medicine. Meanwhile their American sugar daddy has fallen on hard times by overextending himself in countless ways. This cannot end well for anyone but the thugs.

Anonymous said...

The very concept of going to war seems to have been abandoned by those in power in the West. There was a time when it meant setting out to defeat your enemy, and that meant doing anything and everything to bring him to his knees.

Now our leaders are obsessed with denying that, as evinced by their sending troops out to Afghanistan & Iraq for longer than the second world war lasted, to achieve who knows what?

On the other hand our age old enemy knows perfectly well what it is to make someone submit. Their entire understanding of reality is based on that concept.

Tough times ahead, no doubt about it.

Anonymous said...

vince: "I feel the end result will be far less final even if a winner was to emerge."

Generally good comment, but Islam is far MORE final in its end results of conquering non-Muslims because Islam is willing to torture and murder as many people as it takes to win - even its own people!


Vince said...

Egghead it's kind of what I meant in a way. If we look at external warfare like in ww2. Once a winner has been declared the fighting stops and the rebuilding begins. Usually victory comes from surrender. But if civil war breaks out between different civilian groups, at what point does victory come?

Neither side can surrender as such because their lives and lives of the people in that territory are at risk. And the fact that both warring populations will still exist and if it's on a sectarian and ideological basis I don't see an end to any conflict once it starts.

I was thinking about it in the german context although I think the uk is more likely to end in conflict first. You have preexisting divisions and geographical separations between the individual states ie Bavaria saxony etc. You also have a largely homogenous Muslim population in the form of Turks. I think the ever increasingly vocal Turkish regime would not sit on their hands.

When counter jihad authors discuss civil conflict we also have to be aware that quite often it does not stay within and could very well erupt into a larger global conflict, sudetenland, Poland, assassination of Archduke ferdinand even the recent fighting in Libya and Syria seems to draw other world powers into the mix. I don't even know if what I'm saying makes a logical conclusion but either way some valid points that need consideration.

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Vince. Europe has stopped Islam before BUT Muslims were kept out of Europe at all costs - let alone importing and supporting many millions of them with their many mosques and attendant terror operations.

There are only two answers to save the West:

1) Re-separate Westerners and Muslims.

2) Ban Islam in the West - perhaps worldwide.

I fear that neither solution will be implemented prior to Muslims outnumbering Westerners in the West - at which point Westerners will be in real trouble!

One world government groupies have opened this Pandora's box of truly violent and unhappy people called Muslims and inflicted Muslims on the rest of the West!

It remains to be seen whether the end result will be totalitarian atheism or Sharia Law imposed on the masses - maybe both at once!

Civil war seems improbable to me because of the oil issue - which seems to be the main reason that Muslims were allowed entry to the West in the first place. To wit, Muslims have the oil whereas the West does not (or where it does, the West is still dependent on Muslim-controlled oil resources).


Vince said...

Egghead: I see conflict arising in the future unless something is done. If we look at the uk as an example you have the edl who have a prescence in most uk towns and cities and you have the leftists and Muslim extremists aswell as a portion of ordinary Muslims. These groups have clashed many times on the streets but the situation has largely been contained.

If however the situation comes about were these groups are really out for each others blood the police will not be able to contain it. As seen in the London riots the police were hardly able to stop children looting and burning the country down.

Again as someone who had a Muslim grandfather who assimilated and integrated into society, I have a problem with your first suggestion. The second suggestion is for me valid, if it stops there. If we simply banned Islam it would not bother me, but do we then lead upon the slippery road in which anything remotely different is banned also?

For me the kind of message is that if you are hard working ordinary Muslim you should be free to enjoy the freedoms of the west which includes freedom of religion. But when you start talking about jihad or shariah then you need to be shown the door. And we need to stop the mass importation of illiterate savages. If we were importing intellectuals, doctors, and engineers I don't think we would be having the same problems.

The fact is we are letting in the very worst of what the third world has to offer. Even on the eastern European spectrum those that have come in are the most desperate in society some of whom are criminals.

End of the day until western Europe grows a backbone it's going to get walked on. If i think back to my grandfather (non muslim one). He fought hitler, had a strong moral compass and was not afraid to speak his mind yet was fair and peaceful. What do we have today? Kids who are happy to burn down their own country, rob old ladies and stick their middle fingers up not only to decency but the sacrifices others have made so that they can wear their pants around their butts and smoke joints.

Anonymous said...

Hi Vince: Civil wars ONLY succeed when one or more outside forces assist the rebels to win their war. When the Muslims form the majority, the Westerners will be the minority rebels in their own countries.

In the case of Muslims, we can see that Muslims have FOUR outside forces that are willing and able to help Muslims to overcome any revolution: 1) Muslim countries that will withhold oil to the benefit of Muslims and ship foreign Muslim soldiers to any battlefield, 2) Western countries that will submit their militaries to international rule and Muslim intentions, 3) the OIC-controlled United Nations that will send International Peacekeeper troops and American troops to assist Muslim causes, and 4) Western press that will supply unlimited propaganda to condemn the 'racism' of indigenous white Europeans who are fighting Muslims and to extol the 'virtues' of peaceful Islam. The Third Balkan War is the prototype of coming Western conflicts.

Western military forces under international (i.e., Muslim) direction - rather than national police - will be used to contain all Western rebellion against 'democratic' Muslim rule. Europe is actively staffing and training a trans-national para-military force to be used within countries whose militaries might refuse to fire on their own people.

European Gendarmerie Force Official Website

Statewatch: Monitoring the state and civil liberties in Europe

In the United States, Obama has already asked the United Nations to send International Peacekeepers to 'monitor' our Presidential elections - as if the citizens of the United States need or desire the United Nations to play that role.


Anonymous said...

The problem with allowing Muslims to practice Islam without jihad and Sharia Law is that Islam is NOT a religion. Rather, Islam is a brutal totalitarian system of government with jihad and Sharia Law at its fundamental core. Without jihad and Sharia Law, there is NO Islam.

Years ago, people like your Muslim grandfather immigrated to escape the negative effects of Islam. Now, Muslims immigrate to enforce Sharia Law on the wider Western world via civilizational jihad.

With all due respect to the needs of sensible people to escape from Islam, why is it incumbent on the West to make that happen - most particularly when it is impossible for Westerners to distinguish which Muslims and their children will decide to become devout and start torturing and murdering Westerners?

The West's only obligation is to protect the West from Islam - NOT to sort out which of billions of Muslims are 'good' and 'bad' Muslims. Furthermore, 'good' Muslims have an inconvenient habit of FUNDING the violent jihad of 'bad' Muslims via 'charitable' zakat.

For me, the message is that NO Muslims should be allowed to live and work in the West until Muslims civilize their own countries - WITHOUT Western foreign aid.

Let the oil-rich Muslim countries support the advancement of poorer Muslim countries in the ummah - instead of Western countries importing millions of unhappy and unskilled Muslims who are intent on using jihad to subordinate the West to the same Sharia Law that makes Muslim countries abject failures.


Anonymous said...

I think that the underlying problem, as Sarkozy said, is that Western values are being attacked by people like Mohamed Merah, and that the values of that Mohamed (which contradict ours) come from the so-called 'religion' invented by his namesake, the false prophet Mohammed.

But that needs to be acknowledged; the self administered poison of cultural relativism needs to be abandoned, and real, meaningful discussions about our values, and those of the cultures being deliberately introduced into the West, must take place at a high political level.

Alternatively, grassroots movements like the EDL can move at a local level & take on the beliefs of the ummah in a direct & practical way: no more mosques, no kowtowing to Islamic beliefs by building foot washing trays in public bathrooms, etc.

Where is it all leading though?

Anonymous said...


No one should believe the myth that the United States motives for rebuilding Europe after the war while maintaining occupation were
entirely or even essentially benign or that the history of the US is less violent than that of Europe, or Yank culture superior.

laine said...

"If we were importing intellectuals, doctors, and engineers I don't think we would be having the same problems." Firstly, "Muslim intellectual" is a near oxymoron. Maybe because of his Muslim grandfather, Vince's conjecture is wishful thinking that has already been disproven many times over. The leaders of Al Quaeda were educated for professions but chose to pursue jihad instead. Even a western education does not undo the Islam worm in one's brain as evidenced by the three Muslim doctors attempting to blow up Glasgow airport or Major (Dr.) Hassan at Fort Hood. In Toronto the would be bombers and beheaders of the Prime Minister had all attended Canadian high schools. The 9/11 crew also included western educated jihadis including an engineer. Egghead is right. It is not the West's responsibility and certainly not within our ability to separate harmful from innocuous Muslims. Whether illiterate or university educated, they can radicalize and "blow" at any time. The West's duty is to save itself and civilization, not Muslims from Islam. Let them do that themselves IN Muslim countries. Die for your own cause. Don't expect someone else to do it for you. It's not as though Muslims lack the manpower, at over a billion strong.

Vince said...

Egghead; I 100% agree that oil rich Arab states should take in Muslim refugees. But as we all know immigrants even Muslim ones are treated very badly in other Muslim states e.g Palestinians in Lebanon, bangladeshis in Qatar, malaysians in Saudi etc.

Well again from what I have seen from some Muslims I have seen is that they hold the label Muslim because they come from a place were it would mean death if they said they were athiest Christian etc. It's only in the west they are free.

I don't believe simply stopping immigration from Muslim countries full stop, as mentioned my grandfather was educated and came here to take a professional job for which their was a shortage of skilled people at the time. To be fair however importing people is not the solution to a skills shortage, but there you have it. But again educated people are more likely to integrate, intermarry etc over backwards illiterates from the rural mountains of kasmir somalia etc

I also agree with the fact that we have no idea which Muslims are going to strike. You could theoretically have
3 generations of liberal westernised Muslims, then suddenly one child in the fourth generation decides to
strap a bomb to themselves.

Even if you halted third world immigration full stop you still have millions of Muslims already within. Simply banning Islam would most likely just push it underground and make it more violent amongst the Muslim majority.

It's why I feel conflict is the end result. I myself can not think of a way to deal with the problem in a fair way. If you are willing to be unfair the answers are much simpler, one would be merely deport any Muslim that is not willing to renounce his faith and accept the life of the country they live in.

If you think about it a govt actually willing to deal with the issues (whether you regard them as fair or unfair) would have a tough enough time of it. The fact that Europe seems to vote in socialists time after time certainly does not help.

Despite all this I feel practical steps can and are being taken even of conflict is an inevitability. For example street movements and pressure groups that are highlighting issues with Islam, a push to stop uncontrolled immigration and a push towards integration.

I'd the trend was that younger Muslims were becoming more western and immigration was under control, I don't think their would be as much concern. But the fact that both points have the opposite occurring.

I feel tackling these two points could possibly have some positive affect, potentially improving things. But again doubt this would be enough. If it had if happened mid 1980s there may have been hope to reverse things. But I think like all of us the world only took notice after 9/11

Vince said...

Egghead: the sad thing is no continent or nation is now untouched by this form of Islam. I say form because there are other interpretations of Islam such as Sufism. If you watch 1960s or 1970s arabic television. It was rare to see a woman scarved. I believe during this period it was Arab nationalism and idea of self rule that was the Arabs rallying cry against the west. Islam was obviously still there but it would seem it was secondary to the nationalism front.

Through the wests funding of a particular nomadic tribe ( primarily the royal families of Saudi, Yemen, Qatar etc) we have directly funded the spread of wahhabist Islam. But then again does Wahhabism directly address hostility from the weed smoking,alcohol drinking ghettoised muslim youth, that clearly do not have a clue about Islam let alone Wahhabism. Many call what they do street jihad, but I feel they are merely a European replica of entrenched black ghettos in America. For example in marseilles the black Senegalese youth hate White French just as much as Moroccan or Algerian youth. And both groups adopt the black ghetto culture.

Again we only have to look at irans Islamic revolution not related to Wahhabism and at a time when most Arabs were displaying liberal tendencies. As you say it is perhaps inherent in Islam, regardless of sect, However I do feel Wahhabism has played a major role.

But why is it now all this is happening? As the name of the site suggests this is only the second part to a very old conflict. But I feel that it's resurgence is also partly due to the wests own humanistic evolution. For example we could have easily have just taken the oil from the Saudis if we wished. It's only because we have shed our barbarian past, that we treat other cultures equally, both internally and internationally.

What would the face of America look like if the Europeans had of treated the red Indians equally? Their culture as valid? What would happen once the Indians progressed educationally and militarily over time? Once they decided they were going to take back their land. Unfortunately the success story that was Americas inception was only on the back of the destruction of red Indian culture. Perhaps that is why the native Indians live somewhat in peace in America rather than waging civil rebellion

Anonymous said...

Laine: Yes, many 'educated' and rich Muslims like Osama bin Laden cause much trouble for the West.

Vince: Great questions. Thanks for being so civil. :)

Speaking of American Indians, I have heard that Muslims are trying to develop relationships with American Indians on reservations - relationships which are bound to be a big problem moving into the future.

Perhaps that is the true reason that the OIC-controlled United Nations is pushing for the United States to give more reparations money and land to the American Indians?!

To your point about conflict being inevitable, I feel that conflict will occur but indigenous people may very well be discriminated against and then slaughtered in dribs and drabs by Muslims and their atheist Marxist Communist allies as Muslim immigrants begin to form large minorities and then majorities in each Western land - akin to Egypt's treatment of the Copts.

Already, look at how Western countries are actively harassing and marginalizing Christians in the West. In England, Christians cannot wear their crosses to work or speak of Christianity at work whereas Muslims may wear Muslim clothing to work and 'benefit' from the observance of Muslim fasting by non-Muslim politicians at work meetings during Ramadan. In the United States, some colleges are forcing Christian groups off campuses while other colleges are providing Muslim footbaths and private prayer spaces for Muslims.