Saturday, July 30, 2011

Bilal Zaheer Ahmad – ‘the viper in our midst’

He never killed anyone; simply exhorted others to do so. He incited his fellow Muslims to attack British MPs who voted in favour of the Iraq war; people like Roshonara Choudhry faithfully obeyed.

He posted on Facebook: ‘This sister has put us men to shame. WE SHOULD BE DOING THIS.’ A few days later, he posted on a website: ‘I think Timms got let off lightly, in comparison to the countless civilians that have been killed as a direct result of the war he voted for. Roshonara Choudhry is a heroine. Free Roshonara Choudhry and give her a medal for justice.’

He listed pro-war politicians on the website and urged his co-religionists to 'raise the knife of jihad' against them. He explained how to find out constituency surgery details, and then helpfully provided a link to an online shopping site selling knives. How very thoughtful if him. He also possessed electronic copies of books called, two of which were entitles 39 Ways to Serve and Participate in Jihad and Zaad-e-Mujahid: Essential Provisions of a Mujahadid. It really needed no new legislation; no particular statutory prohibition of ‘hate crime’ to deal with this: Bilal Zaheer Ahmad was soliciting murder. He posted his poison on US-based website (since taken down in the US, but which re-directs in the UK – His Grace does not wish to link).

He not only called for a further attack upon Stephen Timms MP (in a prayer, no less), but also the judge who had sentenced Roshonara Choudhry. And so Mr Justice Royce jailed him for 12 years with an additional five years’ extended period on licence. The Judge told him: “Whatever our views on the Iraq War we are a democracy. You purport to be a British citizen but what you stand for is totally alien to what we stand for in our country. You became a viper in our midst willing to go to as far as possible to strike at the heart of our system.”

Mr Justice Royce told Ahmad his views were ‘corrosively dangerous’ and that he had attempted to strike at the heart of British democracy. “Politicians are often faced with difficult decisions. They don’t always get it right,” he said. “They have to face up to serious criticism on occasions as part of the democratic process. The same can be said for bankers, press barons and judges. It is important MPs can hold constituency surgeries without the threat of someone pulling out a knife and trying to kill them. You were intent on striking at the heart of our democracy and if our politicians are to be at risk from those like you, then the message must go out loud and clear that this country will not be tolerate such threats to its democratic processes.”

Imran Khan, defending, said Ahmad had fallen in with members of Islamist movement al-Muhajiroun when aged 16 at college because he felt ‘excluded from mainstream society’. "This is not the case of a man indoctrinating but of a man who has been indoctrinated by others," Mr Khan said.

It is no defence at all to plead ‘exclusion’: it is a little like blaming the father of Anders Behring Breivik for not being a good dad.

A few months ago, the Home Secretary Theresa May said that it was insufficient to focus on the murderers; attention must be paid to the ideology. She told us that in addition to combating violent extremism, the Government will tackle ‘extremist philosophies’ by looking closely at ‘the values’ of the organisations themselves. Mrs May said: “There’s an ideology out there that we need to challenge and when we first came in as a government one of the things we were very clear about here at the Home Office was we needed to look at extremism, not just violent extremism.” The assertion is that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism.

Indeed it is.

And so ‘the viper in our midst’ is not simply the serpent, but the serpentine religio-political philosophy which meanders through society, twisting and turning, meandering and beguiling, spinning its spell and weaving its contorted and perverted message into the foundations of our culture.
And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.

188 Comments:

Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.


And thus began the mysogenstic attack on the status and character of women by the religious - Why did they need to do this? I had not heard of the expression 'The Whore of Babylon' and looked in to it - again no condemnation of the men who used the whore whatever it is meant to represent other than something scorned and despised.

It's the same in Islam where the woman is deeemed a possession of a man to be bartered, traded, hidden, used abused and sacrificed at the will of men.

In other religions and cults the image of woman as Earth Mother prevails - If I had to chose think I would prefer the latter - it makes more sense.

30 July 2011 at 10:32  
Blogger Jonathan Hunt said...

Dreadnaught - what utter nonsense. Women are treated badly in Christianity and 'its the same in Islam'. Yeah, right.

Besides which, His Grace was not using the text with Eve as a woman, but Eve as a human being, being beguiled by a 'serpent' - that being the case in point.

And lest we forget, Eve was not more guilty than Adam. Indeed, we read in the New Testament that 'In Adam all sinned'. Not 'In Eve'.

The mind boggles.

30 July 2011 at 10:56  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

A good post opening the question of how to challenge the evil presentation of Islam in society without this being perceived as an attack on Muslims.

Simplistic and hate filled approaches towards Islam and Muslims will only create the conditions for the serpent's influence to grow.

Bernard Lewis, a renowned expert on Islam, writes in his book 'The Religion of the People' that jihad is a distinct "religious obligation", but also "it is a pity" that people engaging in terrorist activities are not more aware of their own religion:

"Muslim fighters are commanded not to kill women, children, or the aged unless they attack first; not to torture or otherwise ill-treat prisoners; to give fair warning of the opening of hostilities or their resumption after a truce; and to honor agreements... At no time did the classical jurists offer any approval or legitimacy to what we nowadays call terrorism. Nor indeed is there any evidence of the use of terrorism as it is practiced nowadays."

In Lewis' view, the "by now widespread terrorism practice of suicide bombing is a development of the 20th century" with "no antecedents in Islamic history, and no justification in terms of Islamic theology, law, or tradition." He further comments that "the fanatical warrior offering his victims the choice of the Koran or the sword is not only untrue, it is impossible" and that "generally speaking, Muslim tolerance of unbelievers was far better than anything available in Christendom, until the rise of secularism in the 17th century."

Is Islam at its very core a religio-political philosophy that breeds violence and extremist action?

30 July 2011 at 11:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's always a difficult thing for a liberal to limit the freedom of speech but I suppose this is the way we must go. It's easy to see how directing a crowd with its heat up is incitement to violence but with slower burners like this, there's going to be degrees of it. In a very connected, internet-oriented world one's actual audience is unknown and one must consider that and the potential consequences of what one broadcasts. All that said, I can't say I'm going to lose sleep over the sentence given to this particular bloke.

30 July 2011 at 11:05  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

When this guy gets out of prison, will he be allowed to remain here? We have seen Muslims coming to this country and being amazed that we do not allow honour killings, we have had them demonstrating in the street advocating the killing of those who criticize Islam, we have had fathers killing their own daughter because they won't marry the guy chosen for them and we have had them openly suggesting Sharia law for this country. It is clear that Islam cannot co-exist with other religions so is there not a case for the UK and the whole EU if possible to put a ban on Muslim immigration and to institute laws which put killers and rapist back to where they came from even if they claim they will be persecuted there? They have done enough persecution here. Every time you go into an airport you can see the effect of Islamic terror. Let them live with their own kind and in the meantime let's get out of Afghamnistan and Pakistan.

30 July 2011 at 11:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm quite surprising the EDL's Guramit Singh got away with stirring up that crowd in Peterborough. Perhaps a conviction like this will also fire a shot over the bows of tossers like that too.

30 July 2011 at 11:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Shacklefree: "When this guy gets out of prison, will he be allowed to remain here?"

He apparently holds a Pakistani passport as well as a British one so it's an option I guess.

30 July 2011 at 11:10  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Dodo the violence begamn with Mohammed:
The first in the series of assassinations that the prophet ordered was an old Jewish man named Ibnu’l-Ashraf. His crime was writing poetry against Muslims … In the very next incident in this biography of prophet Muhammad we read, “The apostle said, ‘Kill any Jew that falls into your power.’” …In another famous incident … the prophet orchestrated the execution of all the adult males of the last Jewish tribe of the city.
Answering Islam, Geisler and Saleeb

Following the death of Muhammad the violent expansion of Islam continued. In 712 A.D. the Muslim invasion of India began on the orders of Hajjaj, the governor of Iraq and under the leadership of Qasim. He took three days to slaughter the population of Debal but afterwards he allowed a degree of religious tolerance as a result of which Hajjaj wrote a letter indicating that Qasim was not following the teaching of Islam:

But the way of granting pardon prescribed by the law is different from the one adopted by you … The great God says in the Kuran [47.4]: “O True Believers, when you encounter unbelievers, strike off their heads,” The above command of the Great God is a great command and must be respected and followed. … Qasim obeyed, and, on his arrival at the town of Brahminabad, massacred between 6,000 and 16,000 men.
Trifkovic – The Sword of the Prophet
Withn regard to women, on one excursion, after having slaughtered the men and captured the women, his men were feeling the problem of not having their wives and wanted to rape the captive women. They said we have the prophet here, lets us ask him, upon which Muhammed said it doesn't matter if you do it because every child conceived was willed by Allah.

30 July 2011 at 11:13  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Theresa May should name the ideology she is referring to. Surely it must be obvious to all and sundry that we are in the midst of an ideological war with Islam. You know you’re in trouble when your ideological opponent is a primitive seventh-century belief system, and yet the best that your top strategists hope for is to look closely at 'the values' of said ideology.

30 July 2011 at 11:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "The assertion is that violent extremism is incubated within the ideology of non-violent extremism. Indeed it is."

One can look at Mr Breivik for an example of that too. All that crap about crusades and stuff came from many and varied Far Right websites by the look of it.

30 July 2011 at 11:15  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Ok Mr Hunt - where are the women Popes and Arch Bishops? Where for that matter are the women Phrophets? and more to the point why the concept that God is a male figure?

30 July 2011 at 11:20  
Anonymous crombouke said...

Muslims are preparing for the war of the memes: http://www.theamericanmuslim.org/tam.php/features/articles/islamophobia_manifesto/0018698

30 July 2011 at 11:31  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

All too predictably the new Bishop of Stepney is succouring the serpent, as he parrots the Establishment line about the ‘mutual respect that different faiths hold for each other’ in some imaginary East End of London. Meanwhile, in the real East End:

❛Several churches have been attacked, though the area’s churchmen try to play down the religious nature of the incidents. There has been a large rise in attacks on gay people. Jewish history tours of the area have twice been subject to attacks by gangs of local youths. A local Hindu group, the Sanaton Association, had to move its events after they were repeatedly attacked by Muslim youths. And, although there are still many racist attacks on Muslims, the fastest-rising group of victims of race attacks has been whites.❜

30 July 2011 at 11:31  
Anonymous AnonymousinBelfast said...

On the exclusion issue, whilst I am broadly sympathetic to the ideals of multiculturalism, I try to acknowledge, where my peers do not, that it is a peculiarly middle-class obsession, and that very often its negative consequences are not felt by the privileged. Perhaps if the Church was a little more brave in trying to reach out to everyone, including Muslims, there would be fewer feelings of exclusion on all sides, and less to justify the perception that our nation is exclusive.

@Dreadnought: I have always understood that particular part of the Genesis story as being a poetic juxtaposition of humanity's response to sin.

Adam responds to God's displeasure by attempting to foist blame onto the woman, but also indirectly God himself: "The woman You put here with me" (Genesis 3:12). Eve also tries the same tack, blaming the serpent.

Notice that when they eat the fruit, it is only after *both* have partaken that "the eyes of both were opened" (Genesis 3:6-10). This is entirely in keeping with the model in Genesis that unifies Men and Women, and raises the implication that all that would have been required is one of them (regardless of gender) remembering and honouring God's commandment. I also suspect that God's interrogation of both Adam and Eve, is intended to allow both the opportunity to own up to their own actions - to take responsibility. That both (starting with Adam) seek to defer blame, is entirely indicative of the Bible's conception of Sin - that it is not merely man's capacity for evil, but his persisent attempts to find justification for it that so grieves God.

Exegesis, particularly that based on 1 Timothy 2, has tended to read Eve particularly harshly - I won't deny that. I will observe, though, that much of the early church's teaching, including that of Paul, is based on grids of meaning, in which "man" and "woman" frequently stand as figures for "Christ" and "the Church". There are Christians who prefer to read these passages mysogynistically, without being worried that such readings seem (at least to me) to contradict the numerous assertions of equality between genders, in the actions of Christ, but also in the teaching of Paul. I find it more credible, and more coherent, to read these passages through those statements - that is, not as specific attacks on women, but as comments on the shared sinful nature of women and men co-equally.

Finally, I might observe that the Early Church was particularly successful amongst women married to pagan men - many of whom believed in mother goddesses, sister goddesses, goddesses of wisdom etc. Ancient institutions of female deities were very often the means by which ritual prostitution, and more broadly female servitude were ensured. Ancient women did not fare well - pagan states viewed their legal standing as less than men, their virginity was "valued" (in the commercial sense) more than their personhood, and very often they were discouraged from participating in intellectual life.

The Early Church, on the other hand, taught their equality, their value as individuals before Christ, and had - as witnessed in the Bible - numerous prominent women involved in the leadership of the Church.

Many women who encountered that Church chose, of their own free will, and often against the will of their pagan husbands, to believe. I wonder if they would agree that they prefered such pagan cultures?

30 July 2011 at 11:34  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

I still can't accept that we fail to invoke the existing Laws and proscription of what is nothing less than High Treason and fitting of a life sentence that means exactly that.

30 July 2011 at 11:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dodo the Dude (11:04)—‘Muslim tolerance of unbelievers’ comes at a price, the poll tax or jizyah. Further, tolerance is only extended to Jews, Christians, Zoroastrians and a couple of minor sects; other faiths and atheists are excluded. The tolerated unbelievers must willingly subjugate themselves to the state, follow Islamic rules and pay the jizyah. Among other stipulations, they may not repair their places of worship nor build new ones. If the agreement is violated, the punishments range from exile to death.

30 July 2011 at 12:11  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Johnny Rottenborough's quotation simply reiterates that Islam cannot co-exist. There's no problem with Hindus or Buddhists. There are lot's of peaceful Muslims who stay very quiet and the reason is they know they will be killed and yet they continue to support rockets from Gaza onto civilians populations. It's about time they left the religion of death. Osama bin Ladan said Muslims did not need to distinguish between civilians and politicians - all are legitimate targets. We have shown ample evidence that we can co-exist but they have rejected it all. If you remember a head teacher of a school in Yorkshire decades ago long before 911, wrote an article in which he expressed concerns about multi-cultural education. There was an immediate protest from Muslims DEMANDING he be sacked. Guess what - he was sacked.

30 July 2011 at 12:12  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Shacklefree, the head teacher in question was Ray Honeyford. Readers may Google him, and also take a look at Theodore Dalrymple's view at:
http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_2_oh_to_be.html

30 July 2011 at 13:04  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Excellent article Ababaptist. Yes I remember Ray Honeyway and the shameful way he was treated. The problem is that if decent normal people had protested in his support they would have been attacked. We really have to find a way of rooting out this cancer in our midst.

30 July 2011 at 13:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Happiness is a homogenous people - it's never been bettered. Mess with it at your peril: what took millenia to put together has been smashed to pieces in less than one lifetime.

It ain't pretty and it will get worse. A a lot worse.

Steve

30 July 2011 at 14:09  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Who let them in.

30 July 2011 at 14:21  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (11:05)—It’s always a difficult thing for a liberal to limit the freedom of speech but I suppose this is the way we must go.

Yes, you can either have a true nation (as we were until 60 years ago) with an extraordinary degree of freedom, or, a multicultural, multiracial, multi-faith country that has to limit freedom and even resort to the concept of thought crime to keep itself patched and afloat.

30 July 2011 at 14:30  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Round em' up, and ship em' out.

There is absolutely NO point in trying to change their ways. A moderate, pro-British muslim, cannot ever guarantee that his children/grandchildren, will feel the same way.

Any aid to Pakistan, or anywhere else, should be given on the basis of 'taking back' their genetic nationals. Give em' all a couple of grand, and a government-issue suitcase or two, and be done with them for ever!

30 July 2011 at 14:42  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

Would this case have been so vigorously pursued if it did not involve incitement to kill MPs? If the intended victims were not politicians and a judge would it have been pursued at all?

How many times have we seen placards and websites exhorting Muslims to “kill the infidel” and “behead those who insult Islam.” Isn't that incitement against non-muslims? Where are the indictments? Where are the prosecutions? I hope the Home Secretary will agree that those offenders should also be in jail or on their way back to the lands of their forefathers.

It's all fine and dandy for those of us in authority to be protected but I detect insufficient concern for the safety of the lower echelons of the infidel community. It is of course a matter of finite resources rather than some dark conspiratorial agenda, but the worry is that the police are now so mired in resource hungry investigations like phone hacking and wholesale metal theft that terrorists will literally get away with murder.

30 July 2011 at 14:48  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Oswin said...
Round em' up, and ship em' out.

Great Idea! Well, except for a few points.

1. They aren't going to want to go, so you are going to have to force them. That means you have to find some spare Sturmbannführers hanging around to actually effect the transfer. They are going to have to be hard men, after all, to perform the task you have set before them. It's going to take a long time, and they will not be able to be gentle. Conscience will only get in the way.

2. To control the population prior to transfer, you are going to have to send them to camps somewhere. Perhaps you could use rail cars for efficient transfer, and put inspirational sayings on the gates like "A Stiff Upper Lip Makes You Free."

3. Have you considered the logistics of trying to send (say) 1,000,000 people outward? They aren't just going to get on a plane or a boat voluntarily. That means they have to be controlled during transport. Looks like you will need some Sturmscharführers as well. And it will need to be a direct transport to the receiving country. No stops along the route will be allowed.

4. You might have some difficulty finding carriers who will participate in this scheme. Ships and transport aircraft are going to be hard to find to move a million people against their will to another country. You might have to build them yourself. And staff them yourself. Good thing you are recruiting all those Hauptsturmführers to run your ships.

5. The Receiving country is not going to receive them, of course. What would said country do with them? Its economy is not going to be able to support the sudden introduction of these people. The transportees have no place to live. They have no way to earn money. They might not even speak the language. They are simply 1,000,000 refugees that will starve unless supported. So if you want to transport these people, you are going to have to force their immigration at gunpoint. So now you need an invasion fleet, and lots and lots of Oberscharführers, and Scharführers, and Unterscharführers, and you are going to have to maintain them in the receiving country until the population transport is complete.

I fear this plan has some major problems upon second examination. I could also point out that it would be morally wrong, and highly unjust since some of these people would be British citizens, and others totally innocent ... although "You must be deported because your children might be disloyal" is rather creative in that regard.

Think through the implications of what you write.

carl

30 July 2011 at 15:41  
Anonymous Paul said...

Furor religio in...

30 July 2011 at 15:45  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

>>And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.<<

"The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet. The grace of our Lord Jesus be with you." Romans 16:20

http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2011/07/this-england.html

30 July 2011 at 15:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Think through the implications of what you write."

Welcome to His Grace's blog. Have you not noticed the underlying themes and philosophy down here in the comments section before? They know the implications and they don't actually care. One has to break a few eggs to make an omlette etc.

30 July 2011 at 15:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

carl jacobs

You're being a tad scrupulous dear boy.

I'm sure we could come up with a 'Final Solution' to this problem with some thought, organisation and effort. There is a precedent, afterall.

30 July 2011 at 16:22  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Carl Jacobs: I've thought though all that you detail, most of which would be wholly unnecessary. The mere change in the political/social consciousness would hasten the voluntary departure for the majority.

As for the question of 'who would take them' - it's simply a matter of money; anyhows, Britain cannot be the ONLY country who accepts unwanted arrivals, surely?

Morally wrong???

DanJo: thankyou for your self-righteous offering too. Being smug will not save you and yours.

All - do nothing, sit on your arses and await the day. It will be small comfort for me, and the majority, who get to say : ''I told you so!''

'Liberals' will bring this country to war, not the likes of myself.

30 July 2011 at 16:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "DanJo: thankyou for your self-righteous offering too. Being smug will not save you and yours."

Smug? I felt physically sick when I first saw some of the posted EDL videos and extreme right-wing comments here. Seriously. Radicalised and fecked-up Muslims are only half the problem.

30 July 2011 at 16:40  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Oswin

The mere change in the political/social consciousness would hasten the voluntary departure for the majority.

Interesting characterization of "Round em' up, and ship em' out."

carl

30 July 2011 at 16:45  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr DanJ0,

Could you please clarify something? When have you seen upon His Grace's blog 'posted EDL videos'? To what 'extreme right-wing comments' are you alluding, and what makes them specifically 'right-wing'? If you felt so sick, what is your remedy? Censorship? Why do you keep returning if His Grace's blog makes you so profoundly ill? Are you saying His Grace's blog contributes to 'the problem'? How do you define 'the problem'?

30 July 2011 at 16:47  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Let's face it, our incompetence has been manifest for generations and centuries and during all that time have we really followed the path of Christ? You just have to go back a few years to find a democratic country dropping not one but two atoms bombs on civilians. Not long before that the British decided to take over the gold mines of a foreign country and with an army of 300,000against 30,000 farmers they were failing and finally they put all the women and children in concentration camps to force the surrender of the amateur soldiers. 7000 of our soldiers died, 7000 Boers and 32000 women and children. I'm afraid that when we try to resort to political solutions they don't turn out very well.

30 July 2011 at 17:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "Could you please clarify something? When have you seen upon His Grace's blog 'posted EDL videos'?"

Some months ago as I recall. You swiftly deleted them. One shows some Muslims with a stall in what may have been Leicester and being filmed, which one took exception to, and the subsequent near riot when the filmer's mob rocked up after a phone call.

"To what 'extreme right-wing comments' are you alluding, and what makes them specifically 'right-wing'?"

Deporting Muslims, including our British born citizens, from our shores so that they number as close to zero as possible was one example. I don't keep a record. I'm surprised there's any doubt really.

What makes them right-wing? Well, it's a very broad term of course but I set out my thoughts here already at 27 July 2011 07:01.

"If you felt so sick, what is your remedy? Censorship?"

No, definitely not censorship as long as they fall within the law. and your discretion of course. I want the UK en masse to see them and recognise their direction. If Breivik did anything then he publicised what's on the web in that genre.

"Why do you keep returning if His Grace's blog makes you so profoundly ill?"

That's not what I said, as you'll see if you reread it. I said those comments under your blog made me feel ill when I first saw them. Being repulsed by something is quite positive in its own way, I find. It prevents complacency, for one thing.

"Are you saying His Grace's blog contributes to 'the problem'? How do you define 'the problem'?"

In some ways, the opposite. The blog articles are varied and mainstream and therefore likely to be read by normal people. The debate needs to be had, and often, and needs to take note of the extremists so that we end up with a much more moderate plan if one is necessary. I think we need to recognise the extremism.

The problem is the extremism, whether Islamist, Far Right, Far Left, Animal Rightist, or whatever, when it is put into action or becomes an incitement to acts which significantly harms the rest of us: nail bombs in Soho, bomb plots in Leeds, economic terrorism against medical research companies, and so on.

I'm well aware of the progroms against Jews which took place in England over the centuries. I'm well aware that kings enacted special laws specifically against Jews which deliberately restricted their liberty and ability to stay in the country (see an echo there?). I'm well aware of the forced conversions on pain of death. No matter how much I dislike belief in Islam, I'll be damned if I stand by and allow pogroms to happen in our time too. And that's really what is being suggested in some of these comments, isn't it?

30 July 2011 at 17:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"If Breivik did anything [...]" <- anything good, I meant.

30 July 2011 at 17:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Carl 16:45
“The mere change in the political/social consciousness would hasten the voluntary departure for the majority.”
Exactly.
So why has this probe into secret Sharia law courts been scrapped? Or no new one started? Why are we allowing muslim leaders to close ranks? This is being lilly livered. Ministers have the power invested in them by the voters to act on behalf of the people who voted for them. It is in the public interest to know what is going on in our society surely.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020391/Probe-secretive-Sharia-law-courts-scrapped-Muslim-leaders-close-ranks.html

WE need to stop pandering to demands and whims of the minorities. We allow ourselves to be swayed in any direction in the name of multiculturalism to our detriment, from allowing funeral pyres for the Sikh’s to employing muslims as conservative party chairman and looking on as she addresses all her fellow countrymen at a bi election in their own language of Urdu instead of English the language of our country.

It seems the “moderate” muslims in parliament and other groups and organisations of influence have got us over a barrel with their demands and dislikes of our attempts at getting control back of our own country.

30 July 2011 at 17:29  
Anonymous Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree

It is of the Inspector General's opinion that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan 'put out' a thoroughly nasty war...

30 July 2011 at 17:30  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Dreadnaught, can I also mention another English hero or heroine - Emily Hobhouse. A truly wonderful lady with whom I have fallen head over heels in love with even though she has been long dead. There's no doubt where she is now and I hope she says a prayer for me.

30 July 2011 at 17:31  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Well inspector General if you think wiping out millions of civilians in an instant is good form are you going to have the nerve to complain about Mohammed Atta?

30 July 2011 at 17:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His Grace's blog is a public service - of incalculable worth, I would add.

Ponder this:

If the world has 100 unique societies it also has 100 unique cultures.

If one of those unique societies is transformed into a multicultural society the world is left with 99 unique cultures.

Do the math, multiculturalism subtracts and will continue to subtract to the point where there is just one culture.

This is the future they have planned for us, commodified and standardized into oblivion.

Steve

30 July 2011 at 17:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "It seems the “moderate” muslims in parliament and other groups and organisations of influence have got us over a barrel with their demands and dislikes of our attempts at getting control back of our own country."

I might as well go out with a liberal BANG if, ahem, being invited to leave is coming. :)

Our own country? We're on at least the third generation now. It's their country too. It belongs to all of us. *puts on John Stuart Mill's hat* That's why we have rights, to protect people from the tyranny of the majority.

30 July 2011 at 17:38  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Carl Jacobs @ 16:45: now you are just being gratuitously disingenuous; or else remarkably too literal perhaps?

30 July 2011 at 17:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin, if you talk to young British Indians (to take a less emotive example) who have visited their ancestral homeland then you'll probably find out that they're treated as tourists there. They don't fit it. Their expectations are usually much higher, their shared language is different to the point where it's hard to understand each other, and the culture is odd. Encouraging them to go 'home' by (say) making eating beef compulsory is not a voluntary repatriation and they won't be going home.

30 July 2011 at 17:52  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo @ 17:38 : I can't be arsed to dress it up, what you say is utter bollox. It is NOT their country nor will it ever be so.

If the process is good enough for 'Zimbabwe' et al, it's good enough for us too. Only the method need be more humane, is all.

I repeat, it is you liberals who will foster murder, mayhem and destruction.

30 July 2011 at 17:54  
Blogger The Worker said...

Didn't we all 'come out of Africa'? Or alternatively, from Adam and Eve are common parents?

In the beginning we were all one culture. There are no different 'races', just different belief systems. What's the harm in returning to one vibrant, dynamic society?

Were's the faith in Divine Providence and the unfolding of the Divine Will? Surely God wouldn't want us to wipe all non-Christians from the face of the earth or to stop meeting them as as brothers and sisters?

Christianity, if it be from God, cannot be defeated!

"But if it be of God, you cannot overthrow it, lest perhaps you be found even to fight against God."

30 July 2011 at 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"DanJo @ 17:38 : I can't be arsed to dress it up, what you say is utter bollox. It is NOT their country nor will it ever be so."

Well, the attempted justifications for that are probably at the crux of the issue I expect.

30 July 2011 at 18:00  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (16:40)—extreme right-wing comments

What is ‘extreme’ about wishing to prevent this country, or any country, falling under the sway of a retarded philosophy like Islam?

30 July 2011 at 18:10  
Anonymous Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree

It was a few hundred thousand, and yes, at least a million allied lives, including maybe some contributors forebears, were saved.

It pays to remind our enemies that we have these weapons, and we will use them...

30 July 2011 at 18:11  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo : well, is it not true that 'Rhodesia' et al, has disappeared, and with it most of the - call them what you will, British? What price their so-called birthright? It happened there and many other places besides; it can happen here too, and what is more, it will happen.

My way would be less dramatic than your insistence to the contrary. I repeat, now ad nauseum, you would have us, with your idealistic nonsense, degenerate into war.

30 July 2011 at 18:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "What is ‘extreme’ about wishing to prevent this country, or any country, falling under the sway of a retarded philosophy like Islam?"

That's a nice slide there. As long as you're fulfilling your wish, which you think is commendable, then it's not extreme to want to deport some of our citizens in a ethnic-cleansing session? Perhaps Breivik can use that as a defense too: I was only stopping the country falling into the hands of Islam by killing all these people. The end justifies the means.

30 July 2011 at 18:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "My way would be less dramatic than your insistence to the contrary. I repeat, now ad nauseum, you would have us, with your idealistic nonsense, degenerate into war."

That's a speculation. To serve that speculation, you want to institute a pogrom on a section of our citizens; destination not important as long as it is away from here.

30 July 2011 at 18:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

The Worker @ 17:59

Really, it will not do. On one side there be DanJo, and on t'other, daft religious fanatics that throw common-sense to the four winds. Both are dangerously naive.

Surely God/Jesus gave US our choices? It is up to US to ensure Christianity survives. God won't thank you for siting on your butt-end whilst the legions muster!

I don't believe a bit of common-sense and a degree or two of pragmatism is somehow 'unholy' or 'unGodlike' ... wishful thinking stands for nowt.

30 July 2011 at 18:29  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo: if it is mere ''speculation'' it is speculation based upon the whole of history. Forgive me if I believe that the weight of proof lies MASSIVELY in support of my assertions. There may be a few examples to the contrary, but they really don't serve.

30 July 2011 at 18:34  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

“It's their country” So they keep telling us!
They may be third generation but they show very little gratitude or loyalty to Britain the country that allowed them to flourish? I would say the tables have been turned we now have the tyranny of the minorities. What Bill of Rights is there to protect the majority from the minorities' tyranny?

30 July 2011 at 18:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

Islam is worse than catholicism, and that's saying something.

I don't care if people call me an extremist; extreme problems call for extreme answers.

Get rid. Every last one that wishes to cling to their so-called religion. Before it's too late.

30 July 2011 at 18:52  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS

Bilhal Zaheer Ahmad appears to be living proof that marrying your cousin produces mental defectives.

30 July 2011 at 18:57  
Anonymous Office of Inspector General said...

Aye, we are heading down the same path as Ireland. The newcomers to impose their WILL, their RELIGION, their WAY OF LIFE on the rest of us...

30 July 2011 at 18:59  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (18:23)—I didn’t realize it was an elision; I just thought it was a reasonable question, and one deserving of an answer. If an advanced civilization is threatened by a retrograde force, is it acceptable for the advanced civilization to defend itself?

30 July 2011 at 19:09  
Blogger English Viking said...

Johnny @ 19:09

You're damn straight it is.

In the words of Caligula: Let them hate, so long as they fear!

30 July 2011 at 19:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

Please stop with the Breivik comparisons, it's already as boring as calling people with whom you disagree 'right-wing fanatics' or 'nazis'.

Come up with something reasoned, factual and incisive, instead of regurgitating liberal shite, won't you?

30 July 2011 at 19:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "“It's their country” So they keep telling us!
They may be third generation but they show very little gratitude or loyalty to Britain the country that allowed them to flourish?"

You mean in numbers? I actually don't think they're doing that well economically as a group. Or do you mean in culture? Have women shown gratitude for us allowing them the vote? All they want these days is equal pay and stuff.

"I would say the tables have been turned we now have the tyranny of the minorities. What Bill of Rights is there to protect the majority from the minorities' tyranny?"

You clearly don't understand power relations by writing that.

30 July 2011 at 19:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "Please stop with the Breivik comparisons, it's already as boring as calling people with whom you disagree 'right-wing fanatics' or 'nazis'."

Read his manifesto and look where the contents have come from. Also, this is the continuation of a previous debate in some ways. If the means justify the end, as appears to be the argument, then what is restraining the means if deportation is apparently acceptable? Breivik is very relevant here. In particular because his actions were used very recently here to argue certain things. This is not a reductio ad hitlterum.

30 July 2011 at 19:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "If an advanced civilization is threatened by a retrograde force, is it acceptable for the advanced civilization to defend itself?"

Are we speaking about the round-heads or the cavaliers here being the retrograde force? Because that's the scenario. You're arguing for a civil war, very well in advance of the outcome you claim is unavoidable by other means, rather than a defense of the borders.

30 July 2011 at 19:37  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

DanJO@17:38

That's why we have rights, to protect people from the tyranny of the majority.

Would those be the rights that don't protect the freedom of conscience of Christian B&B owners, Catholic adoption agencies, pro-life charities that want to hold celebrations in Witney, nurses who offer to pray for their patients, workers who wear the Cross in their place of employment and registrars who cannot in all conscience officiate at civil partnerships?

How are these minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority?

30 July 2011 at 19:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, once the Muslims have gone then we can start on black people because they apparently have a lower IQ on average, and why import failure, as Johnny once argued? Does a lower IQ on average count as a retrograde force? Afterall, we're trying to get back to a UK of 60 years ago it seems and more people were white and mono-cultured (in a more hierachical class-ridden way) back then. Obviously the labour movement was much stronger then so perhaps we should be aiming for 110 years instead of 60 so that we can deport the socialists too. Just what counts as a retrograde force?

30 July 2011 at 19:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Minister: "How are these minorities protected from the tyranny of the majority?"

See my many past arguments about that. But if we're to carry on along those lines, the majority is not Christian, other than in some very weak cultural sense, but they are white and non-Muslim therefore they count significantly somehow, so perhaps we should be deporting Catholic Christians to Italy and Protestant ones to Scandanavia or America where they may feel more at home?

30 July 2011 at 19:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (19:37)—The advanced civilization is (or used to be) Britain, the retrograde force is Islam, and I argue for the aided resettlement of Muslims as a peaceful means of defending ourselves against Islam. Violence is precisely what I wish to avoid.

30 July 2011 at 19:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Violence is precisely what I wish to avoid."

And if they refuse to go because they see this as their home, many of whom having been born here?

30 July 2011 at 19:57  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0 @ 19:57,

Then remove them by force.

PS If a dog is born in a stable, does that make it a horse?

30 July 2011 at 20:15  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Oswin said...

Now you are just being gratuitously disingenuous; or else remarkably too literal perhaps?

Nothing that you have said on this thread would lead me to believe I shouldn't take you literally. In fact, I took your words with great seriousness.

carl

30 July 2011 at 20:16  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Oswin: "well, is it not true that 'Rhodesia' et al, has disappeared, and with it most of the - call them what you will, British? What price their so-called birthright?"

Yes.


wv:juryoute !!

30 July 2011 at 20:17  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Oh,and on the price: very high indeed. Not least among them the damage sustained by various forms of rapine.

And now, having come Home .... well, it isn't any more, is it?

30 July 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

DanJO@19:52

so perhaps we should be deporting Catholic Christians to Italy and Protestant ones to Scandinavia or America where they may feel more at home?

And where would you like to deport Muslims? Or can they stay because they feel more at home here?

In a free society individual rights like freedom of belief and freedom of conscience would not be subject to a public vote. There would be inviolable constitutional rights in place precisely to protect minorities from majority oppression. A society that claims to be liberal but whose legislators only tolerate a prescribed set of norms that suits their politically correct agenda is illiberal. It will become increasingly authoritarian and ultimately totalitarian to the detriment of all citizens.

30 July 2011 at 20:22  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Shacklefree said...

You just have to go back a few years to find a democratic country dropping not one but two atoms bombs on civilians.

As opposed to what, Shacklefree? War is a long list of bad alternatives from which to choose. So kindly inform us what alternative you would have chosen. And please don't say something historically ignorant like "The Japanese were going to surrender anyways."

carl

30 July 2011 at 20:22  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (19:57)—And if they refuse to go

…brings us neatly back to my original question. Is a free country entitled to defend itself against an ideology that has shown itself to be the enemy of freedom? Is a tolerant country entitled to defend itself against intolerance? Should women’s rights be defended or allowed to lapse in the face of a religion that sees women as inferior?

30 July 2011 at 20:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "Then remove them by force."

I didn't doubt your commitment to a pogrom. I'm just inviting Johnny to admit that they'd be forced on cattle trucks at the point of a bayonet in his world. It's the natural and obvious conclusion but it needs to be said I think.

30 July 2011 at 20:28  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

What a bunch of fecking nutters!

English Viking, Johnny Rottenborough, Office of Whatever, Minister of Whomever and Oswin it is you lot that should go because you are the real danger to Britain. You're all talking cobblers.

Just the type of nutters that inspire extremist action. And I bet none of you have the balls to act on your ideas. If you have then go somewhere you are wanted - like Zimbawe. I'm sure Mugabe could use you.

30 July 2011 at 20:31  
Blogger Owl said...

When immigration was at a level where the immigrant could be absorbed there was no major problem. The first generation immigrant never completely "joined" the new culture but the second and third generations did.

We now have a situation that we have a State within the State. The is no real integration anymore as the Islamic State exists within the UK. Allegiance is to this Islamic State not to the UK.

This happened because Blair and associated Fabians opened the gates of mass immigration, fully aware that this would undermine the British culture. This process has also been followed by the EU.

An immediate stop to Islamic immigration and the break up of the Islamic State with our borders is the only possible way to proceed.

Our "Third Way" politicians seem incapable of brushing their own teeth nevermind dealing with this difficult problem, so who is going to begin stopping the rot?

If the people themselves have to, then it's going to be bloody.

30 July 2011 at 20:31  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Sorry for being in a rush - should have written: "Not least among the atrocities, the damage sustained as a result of various forms of rapine."

30 July 2011 at 20:31  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@Danj0 18:28
I meant culturally and in numbers. Isn't knowledge power though? Did successive governments ignore history knowing full well what Islam stands for and how it spreads when they welcomed them all with open arms?

Of course women were and are grateful for the vote and well the equal pay thing is also not too much of an issue anymore even though there are instances where women still get less but the tables there too are being turned, extreme feminism is rearing its ugly head. It is something when a woman can take well over half of a disabled man's compensation to buy a house and look after his children.

I think a government nowadays has to be more anticipatory and proactive rather than reactive as they are. The Labour government risked our lives and happy equilibrium to serve their multi culti dream. Baroness Cox seems to be the only one who does understand. The old boys and girls in the HOL understand, God Bless them.

Anyway what's your fascination with Brevik? I think he was a loner with a massive personality imbalance in that the emotional side was not developed in my speculative opinion and an inner anger probably stemming from when his parents split that festered over years. He found an outlet when he was attacked by Pakistani's more than once and saw his city change for the worse. He also was taking stimulant drugs and you can see that in the size of his pupils in one of the photos. We don't know what else. I can understand where he was coming from but normal balanced people don't go and actually kill anyone. He doesn't feel guilt or remorse because he feels no emotion. He is deluded in that he thinks he's done good and he might well have as he certainly has brought the topic of immigration into centre stage. He should have had a mentor and therapy years ago.

30 July 2011 at 20:37  
Anonymous tony b said...

You probably need to send the Catholics back to Poland or Ireland.

30 July 2011 at 20:39  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

How the Hell did I end up on the same side of an argument as DanJ0? It's like a rip in the space-time continuum. Something has to happen to right the balance or all matter in the universe is going to disappear into a void. (He says wondering how so many people who self-identify as Christians can talk so cavalierly about forced deportations, and the necessary violence that would attend it.)

If your own culture was strong and vibrant, you wouldn't be so afraid. Out of fear, you would impose a horrible cost on those you fear, lest you lose what you fear you are not strong enough to maintain. Couldn't you just evangelize and have children? And if you aren't strong enough to survive Islamic immigration without resorting to such violent measures as forced deportation, then why do you deserve to survive in the first place?

carl

30 July 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Minister: "And where would you like to deport Muslims? Or can they stay because they feel more at home here?"

I'm not advocating deporting Muslims for being Muslim. They can stay here because they're British.

"In a free society individual rights like freedom of belief and freedom of conscience would not be subject to a public vote."

Yes. All the people in your examples had and have freedom of belief in the UK because, well, the UK is nominally a free society.

Freedom of conscience? That implies action and freedom to act is always necessarily limited otherwise we'd be living in a State of Nature.

I invite you to join me in commenting about our Muslim citizens in the UK. They want freedom of belief too. Will you deny it to them like Johnny et al would?

"A society that claims to be liberal but whose legislators only tolerate a prescribed set of norms that suits their politically correct agenda is illiberal."

Is this before or after gay acts were decriminalised in various stages that you're talking about here? If we're to go back 60 years in culture as has been suggested then where does that leave us. Are you with me or them here? We can talk about divorce, birth control, and so on in a bit.

30 July 2011 at 20:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"You probably need to send the Catholics back to Poland or Ireland."

Scotland or France, perhaps. If we're to consider being properly British is something to do with Elizabeth Tudor as well.

30 July 2011 at 20:45  
Anonymous tony b said...

Actually I'd make an interesting case: Jewish and Sussex on my paternal side, Kentish and Irish on my maternal side, raised a Catholic and with Hebrew surname. Entitled to an Irish, British and probably an Israeli passport. Any suggestions as to where I should go? Or am I OK, being more or less white?

30 July 2011 at 20:45  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (20:39)—If your own culture was strong and vibrant, you wouldn’t be so afraid.

You’ll be pleased to hear that the rise of Islam has prompted a reaction in Britain and Europe through support for nationalist parties and the formation of defence leagues. Strength and vibrancy, just what you ordered. I preferred the quiet, understated patriotism of the English—so understated you wouldn’t know it existed—but needs must.

30 July 2011 at 21:03  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Sadly, while the BBC and the rest of the left wing driven media scream blue murder for a witch-hunt against "right wing extremists" this fellow can continue his hate campaign. So can the violent thugs of the "Anti-Nazi League" and several other leftist organisations.

We need to move against all extremists - not just look in one direction.

30 July 2011 at 21:25  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Johnny Rottenborough

You’ll be pleased to hear that the rise of Islam has prompted a reaction in Britain and Europe through support for nationalist parties and the formation of defence leagues.

Great. The Hakenkreuz once again flies over Europe. At least I know where the manpower to expel all these people from their homes will come from.

The problem is not the strength of Islam, but rather the weakness of secular Europe. Such parties & leagues only magnify the extent of that weakness.

carl

30 July 2011 at 21:25  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

As opposed to what, Shacklefree? War is a long list of bad alternatives from which to choose. So kindly inform us what alternative you would have chosen.

The point I was making is that nuclear warfare should not be an option at any time. The end does not justify the means. It is wrong to perform an evil act in order to produce a 'good' result.

30 July 2011 at 21:30  
Anonymous Office of Inspector General said...

It is the opinion of the Inspector General that the sons and daughters of non-western immigranrts may have a problem reconcilling their religion with the realities of life in the UK. This is not their fault or anybody elses. We need to be compassionate about this, and offer assisted resettlement to these people. At the same time, where we have clear examples of sedition, to use an old fashioned word, we need to give these individuals 'the boot', without sending them to (expensive) prison....

30 July 2011 at 21:54  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl jacobs (21:25)—Make your mind up, carl. You question whether we ‘deserve to survive’ because our culture lacks strength and vibrancy, and then, when we follow your advice and show a bit of backbone, you call us Nazis. There’s no pleasing some people.

30 July 2011 at 22:03  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

Oswin, once again you are correct and danjo is wrong, as usual.

30 July 2011 at 22:33  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Shacklefree

The point I was making is that nuclear warfare should not be an option at any time. The end does not justify the means. It is wrong to perform an evil act in order to produce a 'good' result.

So what means would you have preferred to end the war with Japan?

1. The fire raids? Hard to see how they were different from the atomic bombings.

2. The systematic destruction of the Japanese rail network that was scheduled to replace the fire raids? This would have dramatically exacerbated the famine in Japan. but you cannot deny that a rail system is a legitimate military target.

3. Invasion? The Japanese were busy turning the population of Japan into a militia in order to bleed the Americans into suing for peace. The estimated 1,000,000 American casualties don't count the perhaps 25 million Japanese lives that would have been lost in an invasion of Honshu.

And while you were busy protecting your scruples, you would have to accept the fact that perhaps 100,000 Chinese were dying each month. Not to mention the 300,000 allied POWs who were scheduled to be killed by November 1945. So, you also have to ask "How many allied non-combatants am I willing to sacrifice for the sake of protecting Japanese non-combatants?"

These decisions are no so easy when there are real actual lives at stake.

carl

30 July 2011 at 22:43  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Johnny Rottenborough

I guess we have different definitions of 'strength and vibrancy.' btw, can you imagine the furor on this board if the new Gov't in Egypt did something like this to the Copts?

Consistency. It's not just for breakfast anymore.

carl

30 July 2011 at 22:48  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

And to think we live in a democracy, with freedom of religion, expression and the rule of law.

Do stop the childish rants about Islam and the ridiculous proposals to deport Muslims. It makes those purporting to be Christian look like hypocrites.

Why whip yourselves into a frenzy? This country and it's institutions are strong enough to withstand illegitimate attempts at an Islam State within our country. And if we do ever become out numbered by Muslims and they want to use the democratic processes to impose Islam, who will be to blame?

Do stop bleating and spreading nonsensical paranoia. Yes, Islamism has to be resolutely tackled. No, this doesn't mean labelling all Muslims as 'fifth columnists' waiting to take over.

30 July 2011 at 22:55  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Shacklefree

A theologically based moral defence can be made for the use of the Atomic bomb in Japan - just.

It ended the war, a legitimate war against an aggressor. It was intended to bring Japan to it's senses. A consequence was the death of many thousands of people. It also saved many other lives and, an unintended consequence, it meant Russia couldn't run riot over Europe or China.

30 July 2011 at 23:01  
Blogger English Viking said...

DanJ0,

'Right-wing nationalist'.

You say it like I should be ashamed. I'm not.

Pay this dross to leave, push those that prevaricate, cattle-truck those that refuse.

Those that go just that little bit further, shoot.

I think I'd look good in a black uniform, with those shiny leather boots, don't you?

Have we as a nation become so feminised that we piss our pants and squeal when the colonials get feisty?

Show them a strong hand, they'll respect you for it.

Poxy char wallahs.

30 July 2011 at 23:04  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

DanJO

In reply to your response @20:42

I'm not advocating deporting Muslims for being Muslim. They can stay here because they're British
If they are British some are rather well disguised.

Yes. All the people in your examples had and have freedom of belief in the UK because, well, the UK is nominally a free society.
Nominally is just about right. You can believe but keep it out of the workplace. Other religions are not treated the same.

Freedom of conscience? That implies action and freedom to act is always necessarily limited otherwise we'd be living in a State of Nature.
Freedom of conscience only seeks limited opt outs and has to be justified by genuine religious etc beliefs.

I invite you to join me in commenting about our Muslim citizens in the UK. They want freedom of belief too. Will you deny it to them like Johnny et al would?,
My answer has to be no, but. The 'but' has to do with doctrines that are Islamofascist and Antisemitic etc.

Regarding your other points. We cannot put the clock back. We can only go forward from where we are.

30 July 2011 at 23:24  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

You speak of Nippon as if you have experience of the land of the rising sun; have you ever been to these islands?

I have, and it appears to me that they are the last bastion of a nation state with any meaning.

How many black Japanese have you seen?

None.

30 July 2011 at 23:25  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

Don't you like how succinct the nip language is? They say in one word what we say in many.

Joui!

(trans) The deportation of foreigners.

PS See how I'm not really a racist? I like foreign cultures, languages, etc. I even admire them.

I just don't want them to predominate in my own country.

30 July 2011 at 23:31  
Anonymous Office Of Inspector General said...

carl

30 July 2011 22:43


First class post. Anyone who wonders where our freedoms result from should read recent history and the ugly way some nations behaved...

30 July 2011 at 23:34  
Blogger English Viking said...

Carl,

Like it or not, the sole object of war is to kill as many of the enemy as possible in as short a period of time as possible.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were perfection. They brought a warrior nation to its knees in 2 weeks, and spared (probably) millions of Allied lives, not wasted in battling persons who think that death in battle is desirable.

In the words of Gene Hackman: Drop that f***er, drop it twice.

PS See how Western (do I mean white?) technology outstrips all others to the point of infinity?

PPS Please don't bleat about civilians. The Jappos have no such concept during war; every one is a warrior, everyone is expected to fight. Man, woman, child. Every one.

30 July 2011 at 23:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

Carl,

Just re-read your post and I now realise that I have misunderstood.

Apologies. You're not a lilly-livered, lefty gay-boy after all.

Well done.

30 July 2011 at 23:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dodo the Dude (22:55)—Please do not accuse me of being a Christian. My already tenuous connexion to the faith has all but broken, partly as a result of the breathtaking complacency of Christians on these threads who believe that a national revival of worshipping saints’ bits is all that’s needed to send Islam packing, and partly through witnessing the antics of the national Church as it scutters to accommodate the declared enemy of Christianity.

‘… while the biggest Christian population is [in the] over-70s bracket, for Muslims it is the under-4s.’—The Times

31 July 2011 at 00:01  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Were it not so serious this might appear a sick joke given its hypocrisy. From the 'Voice Of The Copts' Blog this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wBfH8ExYfg&feature=player_embedded#at=13
Islamic Emirate Project, which claims to be the Muslim response to the tragedy in Norway by calling for the Sharia in Britain, Europe and the World.
Dismissed as nutters, extremists often take matters into their own hands as demonstrated with the declaration of Britain's first Sharia law zone.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2020382/You-entering-Sharia-law-Britain-As-Islamic-extremists-declare-Sharia-law-zone-London-suburb-worrying-social-moral-implications.html

31 July 2011 at 00:13  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

English Viking

You're not a lilly-livered, lefty gay-boy after all.

Well, umm ... thanks. Actually, I spent four years of my life with my finger on a nuclear trigger. This isn't just an abstract issue for me. It was once my professional responsibility. I am a pretty conventional conservative in the American political sense of the word. Think Edmund Burke - who was, as well all know, a Great American. [Scampers away and hides.]

This weblog is quite different from other weblog on which I have participated. It has a tremendous spread of opinion, and with a few exceptions, I find it difficult to place people on a spectrum. You in particular have caused me great difficulty. I often wonder if you are just affecting the pose of a crotchety iconoclast, or if you really mean all the stuff you post.

Are you serious when you say things like ...

"Pay this dross to leave, push those that prevaricate, cattle-truck those that refuse. Those that go just that little bit further, shoot."

Because that is a morally horrendous statement, and scandalous when it comes from the mouth of a professed Christian.

These things should not be, English Viking. Think of Who you represent, and how you represent Him. Otherwise, the unbelievers will point at you and say "There is the true face of Christianity. There is the true nature of their god."

carl

31 July 2011 at 00:13  
Blogger English Viking said...

Carl,

You admit to being an unbeliever, yet you attempt to teach those who believe?

I thank you for your years of service. No, really.

You think me 'morally horrendous', because you do not know my master. A most austere man. One who plucks up where he did not sow, etc...

Christ will wade to the ankles in the blood of those who disagree with him. Just because I am (to your mind) brutal, does this make me a non-Christian?

You ask me to represent my own God, as though He holds different opinions from me.

I derived my opinions from Him.

He rules. All else is shite.

Do you want God to be weak?

WV inglor(ious). Spooky.

31 July 2011 at 01:16  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

English Viking

1. Were I an unbeliever, I wouldn't have bothered to correct you.

2. The people whom you would deport, and shoot - what crime have they committed other than believing what you would not have them believe, and living where you would not have them live. Whose interest are you protecting? Do you hold up your own selfish judgments and compare them to the righteous judgment on the Last Day?

From the beginning of this thread, I have seen people run in terror for the sake of their own weakness. You want to save your own culture from being dominated, but you refuse to look at why your culture is so weak that it might be dominated. It's not the fault of Islamic immigrants that Europe is dying. Why hold them to account for it?

Heal yourself, Physician. Don't just kill to cover up the natural consequences of your own faults.

carl

31 July 2011 at 01:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"He never killed anyone; simply exhorted others to do so."

Rather like HM Govt,past and present, with its foreign wars policy,then.


Marcus Foxall

31 July 2011 at 04:17  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

There is a great variety of opinion about how we should deal politically with the problems of our times and this blog reveals that people think that political solutions including war can bring peace. Christ is the prince of peace and when we advocate and implement apocalyptic killing by means of nuclear holocaust we have despaired of relying on the power of God. The Japanese were certainly brutal and our response was also to be brutal. I have read that the Japanese tried to sue for peace after the first bomb but the Americans wanted to test the second bomb too and so did not respond to the Japanese request until after it was dropped. I’m not justifying the Japanese but we were pretty brutal with the bombing of Dresden. That’s what happens in war people lose their sense of proportion. Apparently bomber Harris was stopped for speeding during the war and a policeman said ‘Sir you will kill someone driving at that speed’ to which he replied ‘I kill thousands of people every night’. After the First World War when Germany had agreed to surrender, we set up conditions which were so punitive for the Germans that a Hitler type of figure was almost guaranteed to appear. Rudolf Hess said that if the allies insisted on imposing such reparations that it would lead to another war. All this talk about what would I suggest is after the fact, after we have contributed to the problem in the first place. Our Lady of Fatima said that war is the result of the sinfulness of mankind. There is certainly a lot of what I would consider to be unchristian policies coming out of the mouths of Christians in this blog and much of it I would think will make matters worse it were implemented. We are faced with more war and bloodshed unless we truly amend our lives and bring Christ back into our society instead of pushing him to the margins. That has to be the first step rather than ethnic cleansing. Christianity teaches that we are all part of one family and the fact that Islam has one set of laws for Muslims and another for infidels should not make us do the same.

31 July 2011 at 05:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It should not be make into a christian or unchristian issue when one seek to oppose any of the islamic nonsense that is rapidly endangering our western freedom and quality of life. Whether we are Christians or not, islam is not part of our family and never was as islamics had been using their islamic religion to gain more power to discriminate against us nonbelievers.
WLIL

31 July 2011 at 06:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

john in cheshire: "Oswin, once again you are correct and danjo is wrong, as usual."

Masterful argument again there, john.

31 July 2011 at 07:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Minister: "If they are British some are rather well disguised."

Lots of them are more British than Johnny, Viking, et al, because they share our core values despite their belief in Islam and its uneasy position with those values.

I've had many discussions on forums, including this one, about what being British means and no-one, literally no-one, can come up with a usable definition that satisfies even most people let alone all.

At the end of the day, many of them are British because they were born here in circumstances where they qualify immediately for a passport.

"Nominally is just about right. You can believe but keep it out of the workplace. Other religions are not treated the same."

If other religions are not simply because they are other religions then they should be. We ought to make exceptions on a case by case basis for certain things as a balance between exclusion of whole sectors of people and practicality but religion is, and should be, a private matter. Bear in mind you're talking to an advocate of secularism here.

"Freedom of conscience only seeks limited opt outs and has to be justified by genuine religious etc beliefs."

As His Grace has pointed out a number of times, albeit from the other side, what does 'genuine' mean there? Bear in mind you're talking to an atheist here. To me, you're all merely 'cultural Christians' here by definition.

"My answer has to be no, but. The 'but' has to do with doctrines that are Islamofascist and Antisemitic etc."

Well, there you go. Busted! So much for "inviolable constitutional rights". You want freedom of belief but only for those with acceptable beliefs and you only want to "tolerate a prescribed set of norms that suit [your own views]". In short, you're advocating an illiberal State and society contrary to what many would say is a core British value. Let me call the cattle truck and I'll fix the bayonet to my rifle. You're not British.

"Regarding your other points. We cannot put the clock back. We can only go forward from where we are."

At least we agree on that. This is the difficulty we face. Do we ditch our core British values to defend our Britishness? The argument to do so is incoherent at its core ... as I try to show when the opportunity presents itself.

31 July 2011 at 07:29  
Anonymous Tony B said...

>Sadly, while the BBC and the rest of the left wing driven media scream blue murder for a witch-hunt against "right wing extremists" this fellow can continue his hate campaign.

Nooo, he's been locked up. Didn't you read that bit?

31 July 2011 at 07:37  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

Carl Jacobs,
Do you remember who described arguing with somebody as like " pissing against the Hoover Dam" - now you understand! Both that structure, and the Gospel of Hate are man made constructions.

31 July 2011 at 07:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Otherwise, the unbelievers will point at you and say "There is the true face of Christianity. There is the true nature of their god.""

We know what the god as described in the bible is actually like when we read about the account of the destruction of Jericho. It gave instructions to its followers to murder every last man, woman, and child, together with their animals, and steal their treasure. Not great, is it?

But no, people like me do not say that Viking etc are the true face of Christianity. We look at all the people who claim to be Christians and assess the power of the Holy Spirit to change them, according to the Gospel values at least, and find that it is so weak it appears to be non-existent, thus confirming what we know in real life anyway.

31 July 2011 at 07:43  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Anonymous said Islam is not part of our family. Anonymous, we are in complete agreement and when you look at Islamic doctrine it should not be part of anyone's family. I find it astounding that given the actual history of Mohammed written by Muslims we still hear them say that Islam is a religion of peace. That's why they should leave the religion of death. That said we have to accept freedom of belief. However, we should be checking on what they are teaching British muslim kids in British schools and we should be informing teenage Muslim girls in Muslim schools that if they feel they are going to be sent back to Pakistan against their will to get married, that they need only contact the authorities. Let us do a bit of insisting.

31 July 2011 at 07:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "'Right-wing nationalist'. You say it like I should be ashamed. I'm not."

Well, some Tories could easily and politely be called right-wing nationalists. You're an extreme right-wing, ultra-nationalist, which is not a Tory. Well, when I say 'you' I mean, of course, the persona you choose to adopt here ... which I suppose is a forum caricature for rhetorical purposes.

31 July 2011 at 08:06  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shacklefree, don't you think it is time for the islamic community to sort out their own islamic problems? Those pakistani islamic girls can always turn to their other many islamic tribes for help. It is unfair to expect us nonbelievers who are already affected by their islamic misrules, islamic impositon, islamic intrusion to do anything, when our priority is to prevent those islamic misrules or islamic rules or deceptive islamic community from causing more hardship to our nonbelievers life.
WLIL

31 July 2011 at 08:38  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Re: The immoral use of the atom bombs on Japan. Let's hear from those present.
President Eisenhower;
"...the Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing."

Admiral William D. Leahy {Roosevelt and Truman's Chief of Staff);
"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender because of the effective sea blockade and the successful bombing with conventional weapons."

"The lethal possibilities of atomic warfare in the future are frightening. My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."

Herbert Hoover;
"I am convinced that if you, as President, will make a shortwave broadcast to the people of Japan - tell them they can have their Emperor if they surrender, that it will not mean unconditional surrender except for the militarists - you'll get a peace in Japan - you'll have both wars over."

31 July 2011 at 08:42  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Anonymous, Can we not have some compassion for young girls of a different faith who are essentially abducted by their own parents and forced into a life of rape and beatings against their will? A little information given in a school environment might save some of them from that awful creed.

31 July 2011 at 08:47  
Anonymous James McCloy said...

Your Grace,

*Sigh* It looks like the right wing extremists have taken over the blog. What is most depressing is that a few claim to be Christian. I am guessing that this is cultural Christianity and not any attempt to really follow the Jesus Christ of the Bible.

31 July 2011 at 08:53  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

English Viking Said :

"You ask me to represent my own God, as though He holds different opinions from me."

Looks like God does actually according to Matthew Chapter 22 Verses 36 to 40.

31 July 2011 at 08:59  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

"non violent extremism"now there is a rare bird,almost like "moderate muslims".We are in these straightened circumstances because we have abandoned our duty ,to ourselves,our society,and our country,instead every-one is pursuing the dream of an immaculate,unsullied conscience,the glory of being absolutely correct,flawless,consequently nothing is ever achieved,only more words to fill the vacuum left by the flight of our courage,and society becomes more fractured,the muslim does not come to reason,debate or compromise ,he comes to rule,and when he considers himself strong enough to totally overwhelm us ,there will be no discussion ,he will kill without a second thought,your democracy is as meaningless to him as the ridiculous piece of paper that purports to make him "british",and there is no way that islam will "share" this island with us,one day soon you will have to fight for your future,you had better be ready,because the muslim is.

31 July 2011 at 09:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^Jews eat babies too and drink their blood. Have you ever actually met a Muslim? The language "the muslim" is so depersonalising and such a generalisation that it becomes apparent what it is intended to do: demonise prior to dreadful events, and we've seen that before haven't we?

31 July 2011 at 09:13  
Blogger len said...

The clamour of many voices ,grains of truth,but the 'big picture' the pieces of the jigsaw have been scattered by the winds and ignored by the ignorant.

31 July 2011 at 09:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shacklefree, if their islamic culture have no compassion for us nonbelievers in the first place, can we afford to have compassion for their islamic culture that have no commpassion for us disadvantaged nonbelievers? Furthermore, their using their islamic girls to force gullible nonbelievers to involve in their islamic community problems which the islamic community is most capable of sorting it themselves should also be considered instead of using their islamic problems to manipulate us already disadvantaged nonbelievers.
WLIL

31 July 2011 at 10:17  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

DanJ0 said...

^Jews eat babies too and drink their blood. Have you ever actually met a Muslim? The language "the muslim" is so depersonalising and such a generalisation that it becomes apparent what it is intended to do: demonise prior to dreadful events, and we've seen that before haven't we?

Yes I have met and worked with many muslims during my time at the Post Office and I recall these so called moderate muslim cheering and dancing when 9/11 happened.

Remember there are no moderate muslims, there are only those that tell the truth(Radicals,extremists)call them what you will and those that keep quiet but whole hearedly agree with what they say and do.

I have yet to see moderate muslims demonstrate against the so-called hijacking of their faith.

31 July 2011 at 10:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with Englishman that there would be no discussion whatsoever if islam become strong enough, which I hope it would never get to be, to overwhelm us nonbelievers.
Islamic rule in asia and middle east had been known to expect, demand and imposed their islamic rules or what they called as part of their sharia, for any socalled good life that those islamic people give out in asia or middle east, even when it violate our basic nonbeliever belief.
WLIL

31 July 2011 at 10:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

malvoisin: "Remember there are no moderate muslims, there are only those that tell the truth(Radicals,extremists)call them what you will and those that keep quiet but whole hearedly agree with what they say and do."

That's simply not true. People with Muslim friends and colleagues (like me) know that it is not true. You're better off trying that line with people for whom Muslims are exotic and unusual, or for people with racist views. It won't wash with me and I'm almost offended you think it might to be honest. Dear oh dear.

31 July 2011 at 10:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm wondering if Carl is still :O :O :O now.

:)

31 July 2011 at 10:45  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Some of DanJ0’s more-British-than-the-British voice their opinions in this brief excerpt from a Channel 4 documentary. They live in Walsall.

31 July 2011 at 11:09  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Anonymous said "can we afford to have compassion for their islamic culture that have no commpassion for us disadvantaged nonbelievers?"

Yes we can and if we don't we have lost our Christianity and are no true followers of Christ. Christianity is not a racist religion - it is for all mankind and we should reach out to those who are forced into a life style not of their own choosing.

31 July 2011 at 11:33  
Anonymous malvoisin said...

Danjo states

That's simply not true. People with Muslim friends and colleagues (like me) know that it is not true. You're better off trying that line with people for whom Muslims are exotic and unusual, or for people with racist views. It won't wash with me and I'm almost offended you think it might to be honest. Dear oh dear.;

I speak as I find, I must admit to some surprise at you using the race card so early, clearly an admission of defeat.

31 July 2011 at 11:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This blog has become like a BNP Chat room...

31 July 2011 at 12:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Even if Christianity is not a racist religion, it should not forced christians or nonchristians to pander to any racist religion or racist ideology that caused harm to us nonbelievers. Anyway, all religions are racist by nature, even when it preached about international brotherhood. Why is only islamic people get so much undue attention or "special"? I still think we disadvantaged nonbelievers who had been bullied by islamic people or had islamic rules imposed on us nonbelievers, cannot afford to have compassion towards those rich manipulative islamic communities or more problems from their islamic communities. Those islamics should first of all educate themselves what free will is and not try to push their socalled piousness. If those islamic have the opportunity to publicise their problems, that means they already have some freedom to manipulate us nonbelievers and the media. What about those other individuals from other backward tribes or other faith or nonfaith that have no oppportunity to publicise their problems or did not do so out of nonsupport from their community or media or get no help from anyone?
WLIL

31 July 2011 at 12:37  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

We know what the god as described in the bible is actually like when we read about the account of the destruction of Jericho. It gave instructions to its followers to murder every last man, woman, and child, together with their animals, and steal their treasure. Not great, is it?

You completely missed the point, and frankly, this statement is the statement of a fool. God is not a man that you can judge Him. You are not His peer that you may comment on His justice. He makes alive and He kills. He has the sovereign right to execute His justice at any point and by any means He chooses. It is merely by the sufferance of His grace that we are not all judged this very moment, for we all deserve it.

There is not one commandment that sits over God to hold Him to account. He cannot steal. Everything is His. He cannot covet. What does He lack? He has no beginning or end. Where are the parents He should honor? He cannot bear false witness. He cannot lie. He cannot murder. He is the Righteous judge. So then where is the law by which you condemn Him? The Law that binds you? And how would you even know of it unless He told you?

God is good, and His judgments are just and right. He is not a man, nor does He think like a man, and He cares less than nothing for your opinions - except that they show the heart of rebellion. Woe to the rebel, for it is a terrible thing to fall into the Hands of the Living God. Surely He will demand you pay every cent of the debt you owe Him, and you will not be able to do so.

carl

31 July 2011 at 12:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Furthermore their islamic lifestyle is not our nonbelievers problems. It is their islamic community problems to solve or to reform. I don't know about christianity, but I as a nonbeliever is already struggling to solve my own nonbeliever problems in their islamic infested rotten hell hole. I have to sacrifise living with no job just to avoid their islamic imposition. Who are going to help me, a nonbeliever who disliked living in their horrible islamic rule country?
WLIL

31 July 2011 at 13:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

malvoisin: "I speak as I find, I must admit to some surprise at you using the race card so early, clearly an admission of defeat."

Ha. I've wiped the floor here with the Far Right so far and you say that.

31 July 2011 at 13:02  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

DanJ0@07:29

No I am not "busted". Where have I suggested that Muslims should be denied freedom of belief and worship? Is it unreasonable to have reservations about Islamofacist Antisemitic interpretations and their mandatory progression to incitement and violence?

You should know very well that any democratically inspired inviolable constitution of rights would be no haven for the monstrous excesses of Islamic extremism. Neither would it sanction the bayonet prodding, cattle truck deportations that you seem to think I approve of.

31 July 2011 at 13:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "You completely missed the point, and frankly, this statement is the statement of a fool. God is not a man that you can judge Him."

You include implicit assumptions again. It almost certainly doesn't exist and I judge the biblical messages as I find them. In that, the god as portrayed is profoundly evil. But you would have me take the position of Job where you, on behalf of your god, a mere hypothesis at this point, ask me where I was when it laid the foundations of the earth. Yet I have to assess what is right and wrong everyday in the here and now and with what I have to hand. It itself is conspicuous by its absence. Making it a divine mystery or the owner of life to murder if it wishes is an easy excuse.

31 July 2011 at 13:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Surely He will demand you pay every cent of the debt you owe Him, and you will not be able to do so."

If its name is Allah then you're fecked too. Sorry. If its name is Krishna then we can sing the old Vera Lynn song together if you like.

31 July 2011 at 13:17  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

IanCad

Yes, let's hear from those who were there.

Despite the best that has been done by every one -- the gallant fighting of military and naval forces, the diligence and assiduity of Our servants of the State and the devoted service of Our one hundred million people, the war situation has developed not necessarily to Japan's advantage, while the general trends of the world have all turned against her interest. Moreover, the enemy has begun to employ a new and most cruel bomb, the power of which to do damage is indeed incalculable, taking the toll of many innocent lives. Should we continue to fight, it would not only result in an ultimate collapse and obliteration of the Japanese nation, but also it would lead to the total extinction of human civilization.

Emperor Hirohito
August 15, 1945


So who exactly are these "Japanese" who were ready to surrender? Chapter 1, Article 11 of the Japanese Constitution said "The Emperor has the supreme command of the Army and Navy." This was the foundation of the Independence of Command that created the militarist gov't in Japan. It removed the military from the direct line of authority of the civil government. The Japanese Gov't had no direct authority to issue orders to the Japanese military.

It's true that six select individuals in the Japanese cabinet were discussing amongst themselves terms of surrender in July/August 1945. It is also true that:

1. This group never came to consensus regarding acceptable terms of surrender.

2. This group was conducting this discussion in secret for fear of assassination by the Army.

3. This group had no authority to order the Army to surrender, and the Army was the only functioning authority remaining in Japan at that stage in the war.

Only the Emperor had the power to compel the Army to stop the war. And the Emperor attributed his decision to surrender to the atomic bombings. Even so, there was nearly a palace coup by the Army the night before the surrender broadcast. It had plans of seizing Hirohito and taking him to the mountains to fight to the bitter end. If not for the foresight of an imperial servant who hid the recordings, there would not have been a surrender on 15 August 1945.

Why did Hirohito surrender? The Japanese strategy to receive favorable surrender terms depended upon an American invasion. The Japanese were prepared to sacrifice millions in order to inflict heavy casualties on a war-weary United States. And they were getting better at it. They had learned from the mistakes of the islands campaigns. That's why Iwo Jima and Okinawa were so bloody. The Japanese were adapting their strategies and tactics. The atomic bomb invalidated this strategy because it meant the US could destroy Japan without closing for the final fight.

Would Japan have surrendered anyways? We don't know. We only know what did happen. Not one single Japanese military component surrendered as an organized unit during the entire course of the war. The Japanese did not surrender until after the second atomic bombing.

We also know this. In the absence of the atomic bombings, the impetus for surrender would have been starvation. That was the only credible alternative to invasion. There was already a growing famine in Japan in 1945, and the US military was poised to make it a lot worse. I am not sure I understand the moral calculus that condemns the atomic bombing even as it seeks to replace it with mass starvation.

carl

31 July 2011 at 13:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

p.s. Carl, don't take what I wrote to heart, I'm just trying to close the rip in the space-time continuum. :)

31 July 2011 at 13:44  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

You don't have to worry about that. I don't take arguments personally - with the noticeable exception of the Vietnam War. That's too close. Otherwise, I would much rather confront someone who will tell me to my face that I am wrong as opposed to someone who says "Your truth is true for you."

And, yes, this thread was somewhat of a surprise to me. I expected it to follow a much different direction when I made that first post.

carl

31 July 2011 at 14:05  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Let's not forget that Our Lord predicted a time of great tribulation for the Earth and St Paul told us that before the time of the anti-christ many many people would lose faith and love in the hearts of most men would grow cold. That's what we seem to have today even in the columns of this blog. There have been recent prophesies about the coming chastisement suggesting it will be soon because of the sins of the world. Here we are coming up with various ideas about how to improve the world when God's chastisement may be just around the corner. Jesus told us to sort out our own sinfulness before we think about sorting out the world.

31 July 2011 at 14:11  
Anonymous Dr Perhaps, Dr Who's Cousin said...

@ Carl Jacobs&Danjo

It looks like the rift in the space time vortex occured shortly after the end of the last great time war and allowed several Daleks from the planet Skaro through. You might recall the daleks, them that are into racial purity and the extermination of all other life forms? - good company for English Viking, Oswin, Marie 1797 etc

31 July 2011 at 14:49  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

There is no Dr Who but John Pertwee. All others are imposters and pretenders.

carl

31 July 2011 at 14:59  
Anonymous Third Doctor Who (as played by Jon Pertwee) said...

I've reversed the polarity of the neutron flow Brigader Lethbridge Stuart...

31 July 2011 at 15:18  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dr. Perhaps : I advocate the extermination of who exactly? Perhaps Doctor, your comprehension skills have suffered during recent regenerations? Well, I suppose it was bound to happen eventually...

31 July 2011 at 15:35  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo @ 13:02:

You've ''wiped the floor here with the Far right'' ... that would be just like my dog eh, when he has an itchy arse?

31 July 2011 at 15:43  
Blogger English Viking said...

Anon @ 08:59,

I have considered the passage you mention.

Perhaps it is not loving to allow idolaters to defæcate on one's own nation?

Have you considered John 2: 12-22?

Christ was/is not averse to violence, in fact He excels at it. Imagine the bloodbath of Armageddon. An army led by the Christ.

Johnny,

Don't say that. You are confusing wet liberals with proper Christians.

Christ will return; not on a donkey, but on a charger, for war.

31 July 2011 at 19:51  
Blogger English Viking said...

BTW,

Some people seem to think that I am a caricature, that I do not really believe what I say, that I am a troll.

Oh no. I'm real, and I believe every last word.

31 July 2011 at 19:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Viking: "Christ will return; not on a donkey, but on a charger, for war."

It's not really very practical is it? I worry about things like that, you know.

31 July 2011 at 20:55  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Danjo

Figurative, dear boy, figurative.

Viking
Assuming you're not being literal, is "charger" a simile, metaphor or analogy?

Christ will have no need to use physical violence. Satan, his demons and those representing them, will be beaten in a heart beat.

Christ does not use violence where it is unnecessary. The example you cite resulted in rightous anger and physical force, not violence, because it was His Father's house that was being insulted. He drove the exploitative 'capitalists' and 'bankers' out of the Temple. They retreated before His power.

The Christ I know most certainly does not excel at violence nor would He sanction a "blood bath".

Your vision of Christ is suggestive of Judiasm's misunderstanding of the Messiah. His is not a physical kingdom or realm to be taken by armed struggle. His Glory is His Godhead and when He returns all will shrink before Him.

I admire your outspokenness and share your view on many things, apart from Roman Catholicism. I just do not agree with your proposed solutions and methods, particularly in respect of Islam, as I do not think they reflect a Christian approach.

Maybe you should reflect on the question "What would Jesus the man and Jesus the Christ do?"

Certainly He spoke His mind and didn't mind challenging the representatives of authority in public. Did He descend to verbal abuse? Call anyone a 'tit'? When speaking with sinners did He insult them or call them 'shirt-lifters'?

31 July 2011 at 23:14  
Blogger len said...

There is a time for war and a time for peace (Ecc 3:8). God wages war when it is necessary, though he prefers peace to war, just as he punishes the wicked because justice demands it, though he would rather that the wicked repented (Ezek 33:11). Sometimes, particularly in the OT, God uses war to punish wicked civilizations. Exodus 15:3 refers to the destruction of Pharaoh and his army, who had repeatedly rejected God despite seeing his power through the Plagues and hearing his warnings. In 1 Samuel 15, God tells the Israelites to make war on the Amalekites because the Amalekites first attacked Israel without provocation and killed the weakest people in their population (Deut 25:17-18).


Jesus came to mediate between fallen man and a Holy God.

And when Jesus returns; "Then I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse! The one sitting on it is called Faithful and True, and in righteousness he judges and makes war. His eyes are like a flame of fire, and on his head are many diadems, and he has a name written that no one knows but himself. He is clothed in a robe dipped in blood, and the name by which he is called is The Word of God. And the armies of heaven, arrayed in fine linen, white and pure, were following him on white horses. From his mouth comes a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations, and he will rule them with a rod of iron. He will tread the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God the Almighty. On his robe and on his thigh he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords." Revelation 19:11-16

1 August 2011 at 07:57  
Blogger len said...

There seems to be attempts here and elsewhere to make the God of the Bible Politically acceptable,to tone down some of the 'Judgemental'side of God and to promote the love side of God.
God has both attributes, but not one to the exclusion of the other.

Gods grace and mercy came through the atonement of Jesus Christ but outside of that lies only judgement.

1 August 2011 at 08:14  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Len recent prophesies indicate that the World is heading for a great chastisement which will be worse than the flood. Read the Third Secret of Fatima and the prophesies of Our Lady at Akita in Japan. Here's a link: http://www.theworkofgod.org/Aparitns/Akita.htm

1 August 2011 at 10:18  
Blogger The Minister for Public Enlightenment said...

Shacklefree@10:18

When prophets speak we do well to heed the apostle Paul's instruction in 1 Corinthians 14:29 about weighing carefully what is said.

The problem with apocalyptic prophesy is that some Christians never look into it and others that do get stuck in it to the detriment of their spiritual growth.

1 August 2011 at 13:16  
Anonymous Shacklefree said...

Yes, It is a difficult area for sure. I think the only proper course is to take the advice in the Old Testament i.e. when a prophet predicts things which come true especially things which are totally unexpected then you know he is a true prophet. That counts Mohammed out and Isiaih in especially when we consider the prophecy in Is 53 which describes the crucifixion of Jesus. We have the prophecy of Jesus in Luke 23 i.e. "weep not for me women of Jerusalem, for the time will surely come when they say blessed are the wombs that are barren". He goes on to say in verse 31 "For if this is what is done to green wood, what will be done when the wood is dry?" Clearly Jesus had something to say about abortion and euthanasia 2000 years ago.

1 August 2011 at 13:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

It was a metaphor.

I am not perfect, and my language strays now and then, but then again, I'm not God, only a mere man, so what do you expect.

Christ did not speak crudities, though he was regularly outspoken enough to get Himself described by some on here as a 'bigot', no doubt. He showed zero toleration for alien religions, regularly called people 'liars, fools, thieves, adulterers' etc. There is no recorded incident of him addressing a homosexual, so I have to take me lead on that matter from other scriptures, and God will judge me for it.

The Lords speaks of treading his enemies as one would tread grapes. He breaks the teeth of the wicked. He will condemn huge numbers to the eternal fire for perpetual torment.

Luke 19:27 is also interesting. Christ was not and is not, IMO, a pacifist.

1 August 2011 at 14:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ English Viking (19:51)—Apologies for being late in replying; Googlemail suddenly decided that my Blogger comment notifications were spam. If some Christians see the rise of Islam as a test of their love and forbearance, that’s their business and I wish them well as long as they keep it to themselves. But when they start selling their churches to Islam, calling for shari’ah law and siding with Muslims against their own people, they become collaborators working for the victory of Islam. Britain has myriad reasons to be grateful to Christianity but, at this stage in our history, it’s looking like more of a curse than a blessing.

1 August 2011 at 17:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Rottenborough said ...
"Googlemail suddenly decided that my Blogger comment notifications were spam."

Got all the ole tech gear then? Pity the problem got resolved!

1 August 2011 at 22:46  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (22:46)—I’m pleased the problem was resolved because, otherwise, I wouldn’t have been aware of your comment.

2 August 2011 at 00:06  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2 August 2011 at 01:22  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr English Viking,

If you advocate or exhort to murder again, you will be barred. This is a place for intelligent and erudite debate.

2 August 2011 at 07:14  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

English Viking—Yes, ‘culturally Christian’ is a good description. It is heartening that you reject the ‘wet’ Christianity (as Mrs Thatcher would have termed it) that has taken over the Church. When one of the few decent bishops the Church has produced in decades, Michael Nazir-Ali, is such an embarrassment that he has to be removed from office, the Church has clearly gone badly wrong. It is extraordinary that I, on the outermost fringe of Christian belief, am more concerned about the growth of Islam and the concomitant survival of Christianity in Britain than some professing Christians. What an upside-down world.

2 August 2011 at 14:08  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Your Grace,

Its the hateful, spiteful embittered hyperbole of the faux Christians like EV and Oswin who created that Norwegian nutjob, brown folk are not leaving EVER!!!! get over it!

EV got it right in one way, he F`d off to live in a wood far away...;)

God bless!

2 August 2011 at 14:45  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Stan: again, someone else who fails in basic comprehension-skills.

''It's the hateful, spiteful embittered hyperbole of the faux Christians like ... and Oswin who created that Norwegian nutjob, brown folk are not leaving EVER!!!''

Well ta very much old Stan, nice of you to say so. Although, you'll doubtless not be surprised that I am altogether unconvinced by your assertions, your logic, your judgement, or by your protestations.

You seem a tad overly-excitable to me. Tsk, and the man talks of hyperbole!

2 August 2011 at 17:37  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

I agree with Stan's sentiments if not his style of presentation.

3 August 2011 at 00:51  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dodo the Dude:

Oh, a frontal attack eh? Nice of you to drop by.

3 August 2011 at 01:59  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dodo!

I've just read that Anders Breivik was 'influenced' by a Nicole Kidman film ... she's stolen my thunder, just as I was about to confess all! I hope you wont be too disappointed Dodo; perhaps you'll be able to get me on a technicality?

3 August 2011 at 03:02  
Blogger len said...

Dodo will support anything which attacks Christians.Carrying on the Catholic tradition.

3 August 2011 at 08:03  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Oswin said, "Well ta very much old Stan, nice of you to say so."


Glad to help......;)

3 August 2011 at 08:38  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Stan: that's very Christian of you; you make me feel all warm and cuddly inside.

3 August 2011 at 13:24  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

Christian is as a Christian does! Surely you're not supporting the hatefilled and murderous outpourings of extremists and counting them as legitimate Christian positions?

(Still waiting to hear if St Paul's writing carry the same authority as other books of Scripture and you're views on the Trinity)

3 August 2011 at 14:21  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin said...
"I've just read that Anders Breivik was 'influenced' by a Nicole Kidman film ... she's stolen my thunder, just as I was about to confess all! I hope you wont be too disappointed Dodo; perhaps you'll be able to get me on a technicality?"

That wouldn't rule out him being influenced by the lunatic fringe of fundamentalism or their rampant paranoia and scare mongering, now would it?

3 August 2011 at 14:23  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,How many times???

Don`t you ever look through the posts?.

Or are are you too busy blowing that ridiculous trumpet of yours.?

3 August 2011 at 22:57  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Thanks Len, I appreciate your comments, but I fear that you are wasting your breath. Dodo is so far up his own anatomy that he no longer sees, hears or thinks, beyond his own parameters.

3 August 2011 at 23:39  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len and Oswin

I do read read the posts and can spot your quietly malicious presentation and undermining of the Christian message.

One disputes the validity of accepted Holy Scripture and sees little else but sin the world; the other smug and narrow minded.

Is 'protestism' by it's nature negative about man capacity for morality and love before he is 'born again' by'faith alone'?

4 August 2011 at 00:55  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

You dishonour the Body of Christ by your remarks.Whether that is your intention or not I can only assume.

If you are such an advocate of Paul you must have realised by reading Galatians that Catholicism cannot possibly equate with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.Yet you still promote Catholicism, do you not think your Catholicism undermines the Gospel?

4 August 2011 at 08:08  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

len

My reading of Galatians demonstates no such thing! Let's agree to differ on Roman Catholicism.

To my mind, it is hard, individualistic Christianity, such as yours, that wounds the Body of Christ.

4 August 2011 at 11:39  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, We are never going to agree, so I withdraw and hope you take my remarks in the spirit they were given.

Bless You.

4 August 2011 at 13:27  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Dodo :

''...your quietly malicious presentation and undermining of the Christian message.''

Sanctimonious and self-embracing Jesuit clap-trap!

I don't much mind your risible absurdities, but I strongly object to you insulting Len in such a vile manner. If you were half the Christian than he, you'd be on your knees, asking for forgiveness.

Behold a whited sepulchre!

''dead mens bone's ...'' Dodo.

4 August 2011 at 16:20  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

The comment was addressed at you too.

'Jesuit'?

4 August 2011 at 21:21  
Blogger Dodo the Dude said...

Is being called a Jesuit an insult or a compliment?

5 August 2011 at 00:33  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I am Stan : hey Stan, it's early Sunday morning and I'm watching lots of your ''brown folk'' (2nd, August 14:45) rioting, burning, and looting in Tottenham. Who would ever have thought it?!?!?

I believe it began with a 'peaceful protest' outside a police station in North London...apparently 'innocent' people were holding a vigil for ''Gangsta'' Mark Duggan, shot dead by police on Thursday, after shooting at a policeman.

Don't it make you proud to be British eh?

Hang about, do you think it might be MY fault???

7 August 2011 at 02:54  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older