Tuesday, June 17, 2014

Short-sighted Hague downplays ISIS threat to UK


Foreign Secretary William Hague informed Parliament this week: "..we estimate the number of UK-linked individuals fighting in Syria to include approximately 400 British nationals and other UK-linked individuals who could present a particular risk should they return to the UK. Some of these are, inevitably, fighting with ISIL" (Hansard, Column 852).

So, 400 British citizens (presumably Sunni Muslims, though he didn't specify) are contending for their faith (ie Jihad) in Syria, against the infidel (ie Shia Muslims and the West). Mr Hague says of Iraq's extremists:
ISIL is the most violent and brutal militant group in the middle east. It has a long record of atrocities, including use of improvised explosive devices, abductions, torture and killings. The reported massacre of 1,700 Shi’a air force recruits is more evidence of its brutality. ISIL’s aim is to establish a sharia Islamic state in the region, and it is pursuing these goals by attacking the Government of Iraq, gaining control of territory, and inciting sectarian violence between Sunni and Shi’a Muslims.
Surely the 400 British citizens who are fighting with/for ISIS are now themselves terrorists?

And surely they will pose something of a threat to the UK when they return freely on their EU passports to live amongst us once again?

According to Dr Osman Hassan, Assistant Professor in the University of Warwick's Department of Politics and International Studies, it is currently estimated that nearly 20% of foreign fighters in Syria come Western Europe; predominantly France, Britain, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. As such, he says, it is not just the UK’s 400 citizens that will need to be closely monitored, but rather an additional 1600 EU citizens who have the ability to cross the UK’s borders (free movement of peoples, and all that).

So, that's 2000 foreign-trained, war-hardened, blood-thirsty jihadis free to return to Europe and commit terrorists acts across the borderless EU. Dr Hassan warns: "The nightmare scenario for the UK, however, is that the planning and preparation for an attack on UK soil is conducted abroad and missed by foreign security services. This is not unprecedented; for example members of the Hamburg Cell in Germany later went on to plan the September 11, 2001 attacks on New York and Washington D.C."

To those who say Iraq is theologically tribal, politically primitive, geographically distant and so 'nothing to do with us', His Grace urges you to heed the words of Tony Blair:
At its simplest, the jihadist groups are never going to leave us alone. 9/11 happened for a reason. That reason and the ideology behind it have not disappeared.

However more than that, in this struggle will be decided many things: the fate of individual countries, the future of the Middle East, and the direction of the relationship between politics and the religion of Islam. This last point will affect us in a large number of ways. It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations. And it will affect how Islam develops across the world. If the extremism is defeated in the Middle East it will eventually be defeated the world over, because this region is its spiritual home and from this region has been spread the extremist message.

There is no sensible policy for the West based on indifference. This is, in part, our struggle, whether we like it or not.
Dr Hassan agrees and warns:
What was resounding in the Foreign Secretary’s address to parliament, however, was that the government understands the causes of the conflict in a very limited way. It is the case that leaving a security vacuum in Iraq following the UK and US withdrawal has provided ISIS with space for the occupation of towns and cities. It is also the case that the Iraqi government has helped stoke sectarian tensions between the Sunni and Shia populations, which is equally spilling over the border from Syria. However, Secretary Hague failed to mention how wealthy individuals from ally states in the Gulf, namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Kuwait have helped fund extremist organisations in Syria such as ISIS. He also failed to mention the growth of satellite TV stations broadcasting from across the region, but also from the UK having taken advantage of free speech legislation, are contributing to a growing sectarian conflict. The wider regional context needs to be understood if the threat is to be reduced and allies need to be called to task for their part in spreading sectarian conflict and extremism. For example, stoking sectarianism across the region has been a fundamental part of the Saudi Royal families survival strategy following the uprisings it faced in its own Eastern Province and in Bahrain in 2011. The success of ISIS is a result of the Arab Spring giving way to larger sectarian divides and a regional cold war taking place between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Iraq is just another battlefield in this regional cold war. As the conflict spreads across the region from Lebanon, through Syria and Iraq, the opportunities for fighters from Western Europe to gain expertise and training is growing. In this context, the UK government’s willingness to neglect the nature and scale of the threat, and instead rely on domestic security services in the future, is deeply short sighted.
The Islamists are coming.
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us (1Jn 2:19).

171 Comments:

Blogger seanrobsville said...

"His Grace urges you to heed the words of Tony Blair:

...This last point will affect us in a large number of ways. It will affect the radicalism within our own societies which now have significant Muslim populations..."

But wasn't it Blair who decided to 'rub our noses in diversity' by importing all these jihadists?

17 June 2014 at 10:07  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mustn't frighten the horses now must we.

17 June 2014 at 10:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

It is in the hope that this post of Cranmer's is read, circulated and re-read by those of this nation who can actually command the degree influence necessary to receive a far hearing at the top table.

Multicultural blindness has delivered us in to the street-fights of the global village whether we accept it or not. The warning of what is possible when technology, wealth an weaponry are available to like minded Jihadis, even if today they the are still in nappies, has to be addressed.

Enough of the legislation and public attitude that stifles criticism of incompatible elements amongst us. Pointing the finger directly at the adherents of Islam is not racial profiling but first degree self
defence.

No more Mosques.

No more immigration from Muslim countries.

No more foreign aid until the Muslims clean their shit off our doorstep.

17 June 2014 at 10:27  
Blogger Ivan said...

Only a few months ago Hague and Cameron were all pretty gung-ho about bombing Assad for what effectively is the cause these 'who were not of us' were fighting for. Now no doubt Her Majesty's Government requests and requires all Syrians including the powerful ophthalmologist, to do all they can to detain these who by their actions are manifestly not continuing with us. What kind of morons are these people?

17 June 2014 at 10:40  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

There is another and far graver danger than free movement of jihadists caused by open frontiers within Europe, and that is the movement of whole Islamic populations.

Sooner or later some of the continental countries are going to lose patience with their Muslims (eg National Front in France) and make life so unpleasant for them that they'll be forced to emigrate. And guess where they'll emigrate to...

17 June 2014 at 10:48  
Blogger Roy said...

How many, if any, British citizens have been charged with treason in the last couple of decades? The answer is none. Nobody has been put on trial for that offence since William Joyce, "Lord Haw-Haw" who was executed in 1946. The death penalty was retained for treason for many years after it was abolished for murder but when Tony Blair became prime minister the punishment was changed to life imprisonment.

We know that "British" citizens were supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan long before the civil war in Syria started but would any be prosecuted for treason if they were captured?

If the Jihadis are not traitors then they are not British, whatever their passports say. Immigrants who have been given British passports should be stripped of their nationality immediately if they engage in or give assistance to jihadis. Those who were born here should be charged with treason when they return.

Some people may say "what about the British volunteers in the Spanish Civil War?" However there was never any doubt about their nationality and they had no intention of waging war back in Britain. The two situations were completely different.

17 June 2014 at 10:50  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

ISIS are already exporting radicalisation into the UK via You Tube and Social Media. We want no returning Jihadists.

The Government must ignore the EU and take emergency powers to render them stateless on the grounds of national security. They have relinquished not only their nationality but also their humanity. These devils must not be let back in at any price. To do so would be sheer folly.

17 June 2014 at 10:52  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

An update from Debka File on the U.S.-Iran alliance:

US and British sources report that Washington and Tehran are in practical talks on their respective roles: One proposal is for the US to provide air cover for Iranian ground troops and support in the form of air strikes against Al Qaeda targets.

On the earlier report about a 275-strong detachment being sent to protect the U.S. embassy in Baghdad, Debka says:

That is only the first step, to be followed by more. US naval, air and Marine forces are assembling in the Persian Gulf ready to go in. Ahead of them, Iran sent at least 2,000 troops and the Al Qods chief Gen. Qassem Soleimeni to Baghdad.

17 June 2014 at 10:52  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

JB

To do so would be sheer folly

No: It would be national suicide - but don't hold your breath; we have self identifying Muslims down at passport control.

17 June 2014 at 11:00  
Blogger bluedog said...

Roy @ 10.50 says, ' Immigrants who have been given British passports should be stripped of their nationality immediately if they engage in or give assistance to jihadis.'

From the Immigration Act 2014:

• allow the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised British citizen of their citizenship in cases where they have conducted themselves in a way which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, where the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds for believing the person is able to become a national of another country;

Where there's a will, there's a way.

But where is the will?

17 June 2014 at 11:10  
Blogger John Thomas said...

No, Bluedog, there is no will. No, Jay Bee, the (UK) Government will not "ignore" the EU, only do what the EU tells it. "What kind of morons are these people?" (Ivan) - self-serving ones (as well as moronic ones - politicians, that is).


17 June 2014 at 11:41  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

‘If the extremism is defeated in the Middle East it will eventually be defeated the world over, because this region is its spiritual home and from this region has been spread the extremist message.’—Blair

Could be the biggest ‘If’ in history. The extremism stems directly from the extremist message, the Qur’an. A permanent defeat of Islamic extremism is impossible without rewriting the Qur’an. The Qur’an cannot be rewritten.

As the world is, thus, stuck with Islam and its bumper catalogue of extremism, Islam needs to be pushed back to those countries it has traditionally occupied and left to stew in its own juice. The West must bid farewell to its Muslim populations and then have as little contact with the Islamic world as possible. Stop trading with them, extract oil from coal if need be, deny them our technology, our inventiveness and our learning. They’ll do fine without us, anyway. They’ve got Allah to cosset them.

17 June 2014 at 12:22  
Blogger IanCad said...

True, YG:

"The government understands the causes of the conflict in a very limited way."

Yes! Hague should be fired.

Gung Ho! for invading Iraq in 2003.

Tried his best to get us into Libya.

Never had a proper job in his life.

Star struck.

Good voice and a veneer of gravitas.

We need aged men who are sober, grave and temperate.

Where are they?

But, to think that four hundred or so UK Muslim soldiers of fortune can't be handled by our domestic security services is deeply overreacting.

Come On! We're British.

A few bombs here or there, however distressing, do not warrant any more restrictions on civil liberties than which we have already lost.

17 June 2014 at 12:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

Apologies to Mr. Hague.

He was wavering on Libya.

Hot to trot on Syria.

17 June 2014 at 13:02  
Blogger Len said...

The fact that the UK allows Muslims to go to areas of conflict to be trained in all aspects of terrorism brutalized radicalized then allowed to return home is almost beyond belief..

I don`t know if anyone in the Foreign Office has noticed but radical Islam is spreading...

17 June 2014 at 13:07  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Len@13:07

When heads are in the sand it is a trifle difficult to notice anything.

Seriously though. They really must take these terrorists out of circulation. Mumbai or Kenyan shopping mall incidents repeated here would have disastrous ramifications.

17 June 2014 at 13:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

IanCad said without thinking it over first?...

"But, to think that four hundred or so UK Muslim soldiers of fortune can't be handled by our domestic security services is deeply overreacting." Dear fellow..WHY THE BLEED'N HECK SHOULD WE?

"Come On! We're British." WE indeed are, THEY are NOT!!!

"A few bombs here or there, however distressing, do not warrant any more restrictions on civil liberties than which we have already lost."

This is not a civil liberty..To leave our shores and involve ourselves in terrorism and murder of and within another sovereign land, whatever the provocation or reason, as a CIVILIAN!!!

The first British value should be unequivocal...and that is that True Britains do not go abroad looking to fight others, merely for a religious/ideological whim.

Revoking of passports and stranding these pathetic excuses for human beings in the S*%t holes they have found themselves stranded in should be the first priority of this Government on behalf of it's peoples.

That these monsters are called Brits is a national disgrace to us and the MSM should desist with immediate effect, especially the BBC.

They are economic migrants who have not 'bought into being British' whether from descendants legal or illegal a generation ago or on arriving here to Blighty recently.

Brirish values are NOT

Forced marriage especially under aged children

Beheading, Limb amputation, stoning.

Death for apostasy to another Religion or None.

Death for blaspheming a religious/prohet/icon's name.

Can't drink or smoke

Forced/compulsion to religious buildings/meetings and gatherings to pray.

We Christians know that according to the Bible, which has developed our British values and even the secularist/atheists here could not deny, the state deserves respect and basic compliance from its citizens. Jesus Christ clearly stated, "Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew:22:21).

Two of Christ's apostles elaborated on this basic principle. Paul wrote, "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities" (Romans:13:1). Peter wrote: "Therefore submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's [Christ's] sake, whether to the king as supreme, or to governors . . . Honor all people. Love the brotherhood [members of the Church]. Fear God. Honor the king" (1 Peter:2:13-14, 17).

In sharp contrast, Ian lad, the ultimate goal of Islam is to bring ALL nations under its Islamic religious law (Sharia) now during this age of man..even if it means bringing down existing governments externally or from within.

Radical Islamic fundamentalists use suicide bombing and other gruesome forms of terrorism to accomplish this goal. WE who are British and hold onto and cherish our values, DO NOT!!!

By contrast, true Christians await their soon-to-return King of Kings to supernaturally usher in the divine Kingdom of God to rule all nations—at last bringing peace and prosperity to this chaotic world (Revelation:11:15; 20:4-6).

Trust this is NOT what the SDA are promoting, that you argue for from us non SDA's?

Blofeld

17 June 2014 at 13:35  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

A proclamation about Israel that is as relevant today for our nation as it was in Jeremiah's time.

God laments: "Has a nation [ever] changed its gods, which are not [even] gods? But My people have changed their Glory [the true God] for what does not profit" (Jeremiah:2:11).

Lord forgive our foolishness as a people and may the flame of truth in our nation still flicker but never extinguish itself, for your Great Names Sake.

Amen

Blofeld

17 June 2014 at 13:47  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

With His Nibs permission, may I provide a link to an outstanding free PDF book on Islam that is very scholarly and balanced by Robert Spencer - Islam Unveiled.

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fdownload.iranville.com%2Fbooks%2Findex.php%3Fdir%3D%25DA%25A9%25D8%25AA%25D8%25A7%25D8%25A8%25E2%2580%258C%25D9%2587%25D8%25A7%25DB%258C%2B%25D8%25A7%25D9%2586%25DA%25AF%25D9%2584%25DB%258C%25D8%25B3%25DB%258C%252F%26download%3DRobert%2BSpencer%2B-%2BIslam%2BUnveiled.pdf&ei=TTugU7GRKeuu7AbiuYCIDw&usg=AFQjCNGDbcfilT3TGAnxV3iLvdwMMnCLNg&sig2=u87_WsJkMBemsAPOhQHtDw&bvm=bv.68911936,d.ZGU

Read and discover and enjoy and learn.

E S Blofeld

17 June 2014 at 14:15  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ernst

I know a cracked rib can really make a chap grouchy and irritable.
Makes one want to lash out at the slightest provocation.

You must be feeling better now. At least, I hope so.

Now what exactly I have stated that is at odds with your post, I am at a loss to understand.

Are you suggesting that British subjects should be denied the right of a hearing?
That they should be summarily deported in defiance of the laws of the land?
We are a civilized nation of laws. We have come a long way.

It was that we were also a sturdy folk and did not get spooked when others wished us harm. Fear and paranoia is a German trait. We British go off and have a nice cup of tea and try not to get overly concerned when blood begins to flow.

Yes! Your observations on what are not British values are in agreement with my own.

So, I am not too sure as to what our differences are.

Thomas Pettifer's Green oils may offer you some relief from your aching ribs.
Plain old horse linament is also efficacious, but, only try a little at first, it can burn.
Don't discount Vicks. It will open up those airways.

I hope you didn't get reported to HSE for improper use of a ladder. Plenty of snitches out there. Another British value?

What does the fact that I am an SDA have to do with the thread? That is, unless you wish to debate the merits of worshipping on the day that Our Creator God sanctified or the day held sacred by the Pagans and those who promoted anti-semitism.

Ian.

17 June 2014 at 15:11  
Blogger gasbilly said...

Maybe its simple: our government and Obama have agreed to let the Sunnis have all of the Levant with Iraq, this keeps the Arabs happy.

17 June 2014 at 15:15  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Blofeld

Thanks for the book, Ernsty. A first quick glance suggests it is a good bit more robust than another one that came out at the same time, in 2006: Knowing the Enemy: Jihadist Ideology and the War on Terror by Mary Habeck. She tends to bend over backwards in her concern to avoid blaming all Muslims indiscriminately: “Not all Muslims deliberately murdered three thousand innocents” in the 9/11 attacks. But she does go on to point out, for example, that “a Pakistani jihadi justified intentionally targeting all Indians because their population growth is a strategic threat to the Muslim community.”

Another interesting book, but a few years older, is A Satanic Affair: Salman Rushdie and the Rage of Islam, by Malise Ruthven, published in 1990.

I’ve been reading about your seemingly endless conflict with civil servants who refuse to accept your broken ribs, not to mention your more serious ailments, as an excuse for disobeying their commands to stand in this queue today and that other queue tomorrow. Do they have any excuse? Are there any attenuating circumstances? Can they claim that “they know not what they do”? I don’t think so.

17 June 2014 at 15:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I don't see why our government can't refuse re-entry to the UK to those who have left to fight with the Islamists. For those who were born here too, they can all go and live in an Islamic state. They make their bed they can lie in it!

17 June 2014 at 15:56  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

More British citizens joined the jihad in Syria and Iraq than signed up for the Army Reserves over the last twelve months, according to the MailOnline. Whilst "several hundred" have gone to fight for militants in the Middle East, only 170 have enlisted for the British Army Reserves despite a major recruitment campaign.

News that the jihadists are recruiting more British people than the Army will once again raise concerns that the strategy of bringing in part time soldiers is a risk to national security. Ministers are accused of undermining the military by starving it of funds and downplaying the important role of full time personnel.

17 June 2014 at 16:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Ian

"Now what exactly I have stated that is at odds with your post, I am at a loss to understand."Let old Ernsty assist lad.

"But, to think that four hundred or so UK Muslim soldiers of fortune can't be handled by our domestic security services is deeply overreacting."

Why should we pay for the monitoring of declared terrorists of intent, especially supposedly 'British' citizens.? They have made their bed by their choices..what's the beef in removing the privilege of British citizenship for murderers....Hardly off assisting the red crescent, now are they..Just adding to their heavy workloads of carting off the injured and blood soaked corpses? Ernst would have thought this would be obvious in contrast with British law abiding citizens of goodwill towards the Nation and others within it!

"Are you suggesting that British subjects should be denied the right of a hearing?" What will they state...More grievances about their terrible free education, benefit handout, NHS healthcare, free housing and freedom to despise and hate lives here, like the murderers of Lee Rigby and being forced to fly to assist by armed struggle their poor suffering 'brothers' in blighted lands of Muslim Ummah's poisoned by western influence..Depending on their sect and their hatred for their heretical fellow Islamists, natch?

"That they should be summarily deported in defiance of the laws of the land?" INDEED!!! and the Home Office should amend the laws to allow this with immediate effect, that they are stranded in the terrorised land they have traveled to destroy by their actions.

"We are a civilized nation of laws. We have come a long way." A very poor excuse for a civilised response...Not asking them to be stoned, hung, shot as is the Muslim way, now are we. Merely for them to be left to contemplate their predicament and the eventual revenge of the terrorised inhabitants of the land they are left in. Simples!

"It was that we were also a sturdy folk and did not get spooked when others wished us harm." The IRA were hardly British born or British citizens now were they? " Fear and paranoia is a German trait. We British go off and have a nice cup of tea and try not to get overly concerned when blood begins to flow." Em, NO. We British used to deal with traitors in our lands, deal them the justice and punishment they deserved..and ONLY THEN went off and had a nice cuppa Cha!!

"So, I am not too sure as to what our differences are." It's all about handling situations, lad. You run away from them with stoicism tinged with optimistic fervour. The firm hand on the shoulder and the removal of privileges is ye old British way of doing things properly and sending out the right message.

"I know a cracked rib can really make a chap grouchy and irritable. Makes one want to lash out at the slightest provocation." Never!!!

*Snorts and Sniggers*

Blowers

17 June 2014 at 16:30  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Uncle Brian

I’ve been reading about your seemingly endless conflict with civil servants who refuse to accept your broken ribs, not to mention your more serious ailments, as an excuse for disobeying their commands to stand in this queue today and that other queue tomorrow. Do they have any excuse? Are there any attenuating circumstances? Can they claim that “they know not what they do”? I don’t think so."

They promised me 3 hours ago they would call back and explain by 4.30 pm. Look at time at bottom right of your PC. NADA!!!

They are a bunch of lying, highly paid chancers.

Hoping Ernst is not infected with their dis-ease when joining the civil service, when the checks are finally done.

You would think me name was Mustafa Leaki, with the length of time it takes to clear MOD investigations into me and family?

Blowers

17 June 2014 at 16:37  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Blofeld at 16:37

If your name was Mustafa, they wouldn’t be giving you all that hassle. It would be “Yes sir, right away sir, anything you say, sir,” for fear of getting hauled before a magistrate’s court on a charge of islamophobic behaviour. Have you thought of legally changing your name, Ernsty? It might set you back a few bob, I suppose, but think of it in terms of the return on investment.

17 June 2014 at 17:14  
Blogger Manfarang said...

SIS send infiltrators to the Middle East and all you can do is moan.

17 June 2014 at 17:26  
Blogger Anglican said...

Let's look on the bright side. Now that we are the bestest of friends with Iran, that will enable Iran to do what they have always wanted to do - defeat the Sunnis in Iraq and produce nuclear weapons to wipe out the Saudis. What could possibly go wrong with that scenario?

17 June 2014 at 19:09  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

JR
"The extremism stems directly from the extremist message, the Qur’an. A permanent defeat of Islamic extremism is impossible without rewriting the Qur’an. The Qur’an cannot be rewritten."

This may or may not be an accurate assessment of the current state of Islam. Jack is not as Islamic scholar but knows there is division on this thesis.

Practically speaking, the problem it generates is that it signals victory for the Islamists who claim theirs is the only "true" path. It potentially isolates every Muslim in the West from those who are attempting to revise Islam and reform it from within - and this is taking place.

Agreed, any adult who has joined the Jihadist cause should be identified and all legal means taken to prevent them returning to Europe, re-joining civic society only to wage war here.

17 June 2014 at 19:13  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

On the question of 'British Values' and all that. Desperate conditions require desperate remedies and you cannot defend yourself against an utterly ruthless and determined foe with what Richard Littlejohn calls 'elf 'n safety and yuman rights restraining you.

Pardon me for quoting Hilaire Belloc's 'The Pacifist' again

'Pale Ebenezer thought it wrong to fight.
But Roaring Bill (who killed him) thought it right.'

If we haven't 'got it' yet, then what will it take?

17 June 2014 at 21:25  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

If these men are going out to fight as jihadists, then we can’t afford to let them back in, is all.

They will, or at least they should, have ‘emigrated’ for all intents and purposes. They have put themselves in exile. They are permanently exported, if you will. Need the Inspector go on, or is this new pragmatic necessity beginning to solidify.

If they came back, then what ? The inevitable recruiting, the terrorist cells, the planning, the atrocities, the dead. The resulting resentment against law abiding muslims living in the UK. The racism breaking the surface and going mainstream. The EDL marches, another Fusilier Rigby, the arms shipments paid for by muslim countries abroad being shipped in secretly. The suicide bombers on English streets.

The calls for muslim ‘homelands’ in the UK. The Sharia law within them. The campaign for independence from Western influence by the homelands. The security fence going up around the homelands to stop muslim raiders sneaking out at night to attack the nearby kaffir.

All happens elsewhere. Wherever Islam thrives it can happen. Coming here one day, one day soon. At least let’s try and stop it for now.

If we have to bleed, here, in England, at least we can say we did our best to stop it with what we had at our disposal.





17 June 2014 at 21:28  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Jack at 19.13

You fall into a common trap here. I have read the Quran and encourage others to do so. Muslims may (most do) live decent lives but Islam can't be reformed like to suggest.

The terrible thing is that it is the Wahhabist Sunnis of ISIS that are the reformers. They are the ones who,analagouscto Protestant Christian Reformers, want to sweep away the accretions, mixture and compromise and get back to old time primitive religion of The Book.

You really do need to understand thst the 'moderate' westetnised Muslims are compromiding. The killers are authentic. Read jihadwatch and thereligionofpeace.

I think the West's only rational policy for self preservation and indeed to charitably help Muslims is to understand, recognise, criticise, isolate and contain the poisonous creed of Muhammed. It would havexbeenbbetterxif wechad done this long ago, but ascthe Chinese provetb says

'The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago. The second best time is now.'

And

'When you're in a hole, stop digging.'

17 June 2014 at 21:41  
Blogger IanCad said...

Let me get this straight.
Four hundred or so treasonous murderers have gone off to fight with ISIS.
The prospect of no more than a few returning is quite bright.
Why the panic?
It seems that anticipatory neurosis has overcome this blog.
We British are noted for leaving everything until it is almost too late.
That attitude has served us well.

Steady there chaps.

Remember Calvin Coolidge:

"If you see ten troubles coming down the road, you can be sure that nine will run into the ditch before they reach you."

17 June 2014 at 21:55  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Rambling Steve, Happy Jack has been reading Robert Spencer and acknowledges your points. However, declaring the Quran evil and Islam incapable of reform is tantamount to declaring war on every Muslim.

Isn't this precisely what Osama Bin Laden wanted?

17 June 2014 at 21:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

HJ @ 21.58 says, 'Happy Jack has been reading Robert Spencer and acknowledges your points. However, declaring the Quran evil and Islam incapable of reform is tantamount to declaring war on every Muslim.

Isn't this precisely what Osama Bin Laden wanted?'

Appeasement didn't work in 1938 either.

17 June 2014 at 22:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

bluedog, understand Jack is just thinking aloud about the seemingly intractable nature of this situation.

Is it appeasement to try to avoid declaring a Western war on all Muslims worldwide because their holy text in the hands of fundamentalists is suitable material to justify carnage and a whole range of brutalities? Imagine the consequences. Terrorism depends on the support of communities and there are an awful lot of Muslims in Europe and they do take their beliefs seriously.

Isn't multiculturalism the real problem? By stressing "integration" (meaning special treatment and privileges for all different races and creeds), rather than "assimilation" (where new people are encouraged to adopt our values and lifestyles), we permit and encourage Muslims to stay separate. They are not exposed to the positive aspects of our culture - just witness its worst aspects.

According to one analysis Jack read, Islam has been locked down in the 12th century since the defeat of the First Crusade. When it suffers defeat it retreats in on itself. Add to this the geo-political struggle between Iran and Saudi Arabia, between Arabs and Persians, and its one whole big mess.

Jack accepts Islam is a pestilence. What to do about it is the question.

What's that acronym - SMART.

Specific
Measurable
Achievable
Realistic
Timed

17 June 2014 at 23:33  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Happy Jack (19:13)—In this article, Toby Lester quotes the Encyclopædia of Islam: ‘the closest analogue in Christian belief to the role of the Kur’an in Muslim belief is not the Bible, but Christ.’ In explanation, he says: ‘If Christ is the Word of God made flesh, the Koran is the Word of God made text, and questioning its sanctity or authority is thus considered an outright attack on Islam—as Salman Rushdie knows all too well.’

The article mentions several scholars who have attempted a more enlightened approach to the study of the Qur’an and the fates that have befallen them.

18 June 2014 at 00:15  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

JR, but it's just not realistic to attempt to crush the faith of millions of Muslim believers, is it?

18 June 2014 at 02:20  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You pontificate on Catholicism from the moral high ground ad nauseam on this blog Jack, and yet you balk at the idea of crushing a religion which is anti Christian and incites violence and the destruction of anyone who is not a Muslim. How does this equate with your own particular brand of Catholicism?

18 June 2014 at 04:29  
Blogger Patrick Cox said...

Your Grace, surely there is some irony in your declaration that we should 'heed the words of A. Blair' on the Fundamentalist threat to our nation, culture, lifestyle and ancient (and hard won) freedoms of speech and religion (or lack of)? This, after all is the same man, who threw open our borders to unlimited immigration from the very countries now generating the threat. The one who espoused the false doctrine of 'Multi-Culti' and told us assimilation was evil? Now we reap the c rop of his ignorance, hubris and arrogant posturing.

History, since the 7th Century shows that Islam can never be simply "another religion among others" in a host country. It's Holy Book requires subjugation of all others. Ask the ancient Byzantines, or Zoroastarian Persians. The Arabs infiltrated both empires with thier religion, then began agitating for their 'right' to have their own laws, governors and so on - creating the excuse for the invasions that followed under the Prophet's brothers. I doubt those invasions would have succeeded had it not been for the substantial 'fifth columns' already present in both empires, and the willingness of some of the aristocracies (as we see today in our own societies) to throw in their lot with the invaders on the promises of 'favours' and 'power'.

ISIL/ISIS is a threat to the West and Europe, a foretaste of things to come. We certainly cannot declare "war" on every Muslim, nor can we impose a check on those who wish to convert to it. What we can do, and must do, is stamp out the support, the recruiting and the membership of such organisations. We can and must remove these psychopathic radicals from the streets, from society and from all contact with the young and impressionable. There are pages on FaceBook and other 'social media' in which these organisations are lauded and openly declare their intention to 'win' all the world for their version of 'faith' which is a travesty of everything we, in the West, have fought for centuries to win or preserve.

Mr Blair may well be right - but he and his Party are also the reason we now have a hard core of dangerous fifth columnist embedded in our societies - a fifth column that will stop at nothing to bring about their vision of a Sharia State.

18 June 2014 at 07:38  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Jack

Whether you think that you have declared war on Muslims or not is irrelevant. The point is that their ideology declares war on you. Christian hegemony has kept a lid on this for a while. Normal service is now being resumed in the vacuum of secular liberalism.

18 June 2014 at 08:11  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

RSA

On the question of 'British Values'

Not you personally but I would say -

If you have to ask - you can't really be British if you don't want to be British - why are you here?

18 June 2014 at 08:13  
Blogger Ivan said...


As the old time Catholics would say one has to have a hierarchy of values and then everything will fall in place. In the East, no matter bad how things get, they have a political class that is essentially committed to the well-being of their own kind. This is not the case with the modern breed of politician in the West, where love of the patria and all it represents is very low in the scale of values. Hence they do not care, if by mass immigration, the natives are displaced or alienated, since they do not have the instinctive love of their own kind, and instead substitute one form of external activism or other.

Islam is merely an opportunistic infection, the rot is due to another disease.

18 June 2014 at 08:41  
Blogger Ivan said...


As the old time Catholics would say one has to have a hierarchy of values and then everything will fall in place. In the East, no matter bad how things get, they have a political class that is essentially committed to the well-being of their own kind. This is not the case with the modern breed of politician in the West, where love of the patria and all it represents is very low in the scale of values. Hence they do not care, if by mass immigration, the natives are displaced or alienated, since they do not have the instinctive love of their own kind, and instead substitute one form of external activism or other.

Islam is merely an opportunistic infection, the rot is due to another disease.

18 June 2014 at 08:42  
Blogger Ivan said...


Now that I have left the neocon plantation for good, it is seems like a good idea to remind nobody in particular that men such as Robert Fisk and Prof Juan Cole

http://www.juancole.com/2014/06/myths-radical-advance.html

were right all along.

18 June 2014 at 08:52  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Happy Jack said...

JR, but it's just not realistic to attempt to crush the faith of millions of Muslim believers, is it?


No need to crush it. Ridicule and satire will do the job. Isn't that the way that the BBC dechristianised Britain from the 1960's onwards?

18 June 2014 at 09:03  
Blogger Ivan said...


seanrobsville, excellent and practical idea.

18 June 2014 at 09:05  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

seanrobsville@9:03

Ridicule Christians and we turn the other cheek. Try it on Muslims and it is your cheek that will soon be turning and not by the force of an argument.

18 June 2014 at 09:19  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

@ seanrobinsville

Yes, I know view most of the output from supposedly right-on comedians, such as Python and Mel Smith, with contempt.

It is mostly sneering and nasty about British values and beliefs.

The fact that these cowards wouldn't dare do such a thing about Islam says much about them, and sadly, much about us for not robustly confronting them.

Drawing from Psalm 1 v 1, we sat in the seat of the scornful and have suffered its curse.

18 June 2014 at 09:31  
Blogger William Lewis said...

JayBee

Quite. The suggestion is ridiculous.

18 June 2014 at 09:31  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

@ Jay Bee

The fact that Muslims go ballistic at the slightest satire of their child-molesting 'prophet' and his psychopathic rantings, ramblings and ravings known as 'Mein Korampf', shows their Achilles heel.

Islam is such an inflated balloon of pompous flatus that the pin prick of ridicule is a fatal threat.

Remember the Satanic Verses and the Motoons.

18 June 2014 at 09:32  
Blogger Len said...

If anyone doubts the ability of 400 Muslim fundamentalists to cause any (or much of a )problem then consider how many fundamentalists it took to bring down the Twin Towers?.(conspiracy theories notwithstanding)

18 June 2014 at 09:42  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

seanrobesville@9:32

Unfortunately it doesn't reveal their Achilles heel, ridicule only ignites their destructive fanaticism in response to perceived blasphemy. If you really believe that the pinprick of ridicule is a fatal threat to Islam you are seriously deluded. But don't take my word for it draw a cartoon of Mo, stir up the hornets nest, earn yourself a Fatwa and spend the next decade looking over your shoulder.

Meanwhile the rest of us will try to find a smarter way of dealing with Islamism.

18 June 2014 at 10:12  
Blogger bluedog said...

HJ @ 23.33 says, 'Jack accepts Islam is a pestilence. What to do about it is the question.'

The problem is very deep-rooted and represents the collapse of the post-WW2 liberal and law-based international order with the UN at the centre for dispute resolution. US power was the guarantor of this order. The attack on this order comes from two directions; top-down as shown by China and Russia with their territorial claims and acquisitions, and bottom up from the myriad of terrorist groups that are attacking and under-mining nation states; Hamas, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, Al-Quaeda, ISIS - all Islamic. This complete disregard for process leaves the post-modern liberal elite completely perplexed; they neither understand the motivation of the active parties nor do they understand the methods used. The basic response of the Western elites is to say, in so many words, 'But that's not fair'. And then do nothing. By doing nothing the West gives a free option to aggressors whose actions become highly profitable.

Through occupying islands in the South China Sea using relatively cheap coastguard vessels, China seizes the right to drill for petro-carbons and potentially win hugely valuable oil and gas reserves east of the Malacca Strait. The US reaction? We don't get involved in territorial disputes.

Russia seized Crimea with a couple of hundred Spetznaz and can now exercise greater control over the resources of the Black Sea basin. Several thousand ISIS fighters have just seized thousand of square miles of territory in Syria and Iraq, together with a billion dollars of military equipment and substantial bank deposits. The message is clear, an armoured division, a fleet of Toyota pick-ups with machine guns on the back, or a competent navy, are highly profitable investments under the right leadership.

Cameron has clearly been taken to one side by some defence and security adults and given some very explicit advice. Hence Cameron's sudden epiphany on Islamic terrorism, and comments that completely over-ride the dulcet cooing of the noble Baroness. A dreadful vision of Prince Harry's Apache helicopter gunship unloading its ordinance on the mujahideen of Bradford or Tower Hamlets has suddenly swum into focus for Dave. The British state faces an acute internal security problem and finally its current leader has noticed.

What to do? Prepare public opinion for the end of multi-culturalism and impose severe controls on the Muslim population, including repatriation.

In the meantime we should welcome all those Poles, Europeans of devout Christian belief whose King, Jan Sobieski, unified Europe to drive out the Turks and whose inspired leadership saved Vienna as recently as 1683.

There may be a lesson there.

18 June 2014 at 10:20  
Blogger Gnostic said...

This serves to further strengthen my resolve to vote for None Of The Above.

This disgusting show of naivety and stupidity from the Westminster village idiots should be a warning to us all. These cretins are unfit to serve us. You wouldn't hire a blind chauffeur would you.

18 June 2014 at 10:36  
Blogger Ivan said...


The jihadis use terror porn as a recruiting tool. They propagate it through the social media. No amount of censorship or fatwas can prevent the transmission of images and ideas. One can always use the same channels in reverse as indeed they are.

But the idea that simply someone is a Muslim, he has no legitimate grievance is ridiculous. It is in conflating the two, that much of the problems with Muslims begin with in the first place. They mostly keep to themselves, all the ghost stories about al-Queda and the rest notwithstanding. If you want to avoid problems with Muslims, simply avoid mollycoddling the petulant among them and they'll come around. But this doesn't suit the needs of those who wish to invade and teach them your ways.

18 June 2014 at 10:42  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Happy Jack (02:20)—I agree; as I said earlier, we’re stuck with Islam. The question then is how does the West manage the problem. Our politicians have unquestionably made the problem worse by allowing Muslims to live here, a policy that will have to be unpicked one way or another. Thereafter, isolate the Islamic world. The good news is that when the oil and gas run out and Arabia sinks back into its accustomed poverty, the problem will recede very considerably.

@ bluedog (10:20)—You know things are bad when Prince Harry, attending the Mandela memorial service in Westminster Abbey, has to be escorted to his seat by protection officers.

18 June 2014 at 10:56  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

If any in Government has any sense of power they will consult with Rory Stewart MP and all defence chiefs.

This matter is less to do with political rhetoric and niceties of diplomacy. The Government need to be shaken by the throat by the Military, MI5 MI6 and the Black Ops Teams.

This country is facing a crisis of major proportion and beyond the capabilities of the usual talking heads - it is of the gravest public concern for the future of this nation.

I think we should seriously be considering emergency powers if not Martial Law at ports of entry and overt observational concentration on likely 'communities', their gathering places, leadership movements, propaganda output.

18 June 2014 at 11:07  
Blogger Preacher said...

Until we leave the E.U & return to being a self governing & independent country, making our own laws with no interference from outside, we will suffer from the crippling, effect of the so called 'European Parliament', we will be hamstrung by the red tape & rules of this donkey in a lion's skin & unable to introduce policies to protect the nation.

18 June 2014 at 11:20  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Johnny Rottenborough

The good news is that when the oil and gas run out and Arabia sinks back into its accustomed poverty, the problem will recede very considerably.

With any luck we won’t even have to wait for the oil wells to run dry. Before that happens, something else may have superseded the internal combustion engine.

18 June 2014 at 11:55  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Cressida
"You pontificate on Catholicism from the moral high ground ad nauseam on this blog Jack"

You must be thinking of another person.

"... and yet you balk at the idea of crushing a religion which is anti Christian and incites violence and the destruction of anyone who is not a Muslim."

Jack bulks at the idea of the mayhem that would be unleashed by an ill-considered strategy.

"How does this equate with your own particular brand of Catholicism?"

Back in the day, the 'Two Swords' policy would have been put into effect. An internal and external Crusade would be launched if there was perceived to be a threat to Christian society.

There would be book burnings and pogroms. Muslims would be chased down, isolated, their armies defeated and their lands ruled by Christian Kings. Their religion would be stamped upon and their secular values outlawed.

2014 presents a different set of challenges. You only trigger the above response if you are confident of success - it wouldn't work. And, before doing so, try every other means available - we haven't.

18 June 2014 at 11:57  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

No one is suggesting pogroms or book burnings. Islam is a threat to Christian society.The contents of the Koran incite followers to violence This is illegal.Any religion or cult inciting violence and the subjugation of those who are not followers should be banned.The Freedom of religion Act has to be changed to exclude religions who pose a danger to citizens by incitement to violence , the vilification of other races thus breaking the law of the land.

18 June 2014 at 12:20  
Blogger Father David said...

With all this attention being given to to Iraq, have we forgotten about the horrors currently taking place in South Sudan?

18 June 2014 at 12:36  
Blogger bluedog said...

Exactly Cressida, if Islam wasn't a religion it would be deemed a serial breach of the criminal code and an injunction to serial breaches of human rights legislation. Time to apply the law in full before the law is sharia.

18 June 2014 at 12:38  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

A brief update from Debka File on troop movements involving Iran, Syria, Iraqi Shiite forces, and Hezbollah.

18 June 2014 at 12:49  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

The Metropolitan Opera has backed out of a live transmission, scheduled for November 15, of John Adams’s opera The Death of Klinghoffer, because it might 'fan global anti-Semitism'. The play – in no one's view anti-Semitic – is about the terrorists attack on the Achille Lauro in 1985.

So why would New York's Met pull it?

Simply because they fear that even its even-handed treatment of the attack (for example showing an understanding of the Palestinian argument from the terrorists' point of view) would not be enough to prevent an escalation in Muslim attacks on Jews, crimes which have been increasing, especially in Europe.

It is extraordinary that the Met has been cowed in this way – more extraordinary that its statement lacks the courage to say out loud that the problem is not 'anti-Semitism', but Islam's ongoing hatred of the Jews, which is becoming more manifest every day.

18 June 2014 at 12:52  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Father David

You're right, it's several days since I last saw any news about Meriam Ibrahim. And that official statement about an imminent release -- was it just dropped in the memory hole?

18 June 2014 at 13:04  
Blogger IanCad said...

There seems to be growing sentiment on this blog for a revival of the Test Acts.

We have many and plenty of laws on the books to deal with treason, incitement to violence, child abuse etc.

No need for any more.

Lord only knows how we would handle a real problem with so many here getting all bent out of shape over a few muslim fanatics.

18 June 2014 at 13:16  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

IanCad @ 13:16

But it isn't just a few fanatics - that would be a gross understatement of the problem.

We are talking about an international movement that has seen off our best armies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and which has street level support in every country in the West. Around 500 fighters will shortly be returning from Syria, not, we imagine, to simply resume British life.

18 June 2014 at 13:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

If its not happening to IanCad then its not happening anywhere - Dope!

18 June 2014 at 13:32  
Blogger Ivan said...


Ars Hendrik, maybe if the Met were to stage a parallel play on the death of Alex Odeh, it might diffuse the tension? How some suspects high tailed to Israel? That would be evenhanded, just sayin'.

18 June 2014 at 13:42  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Ivan

It would certainly be an interesting double-bill!

Not sure I would risk attending though...

18 June 2014 at 13:57  
Blogger Ivan said...


The Met may have pulled it as there was no money in it, they could be making a big drama out of it, which is understandable given their remit. Hardly anybody in their 30s or younger can be expected to recall those incidents.

18 June 2014 at 14:14  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Ian Cad (13:16)—I admit to getting bent out of shape but it’s not so much our current problems that concern me as the problems future generations are likely to encounter as the Muslim population grows. There are not many Muslim countries that treat their non-Muslim communities decently, and for us to adopt a policy of hoping things will turn out well if Britain becomes Muslim strikes me as too much of a gamble.

18 June 2014 at 14:15  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Hi Ivan,

They are still putting the opera on, just not doing a live broadcast.

The costs of putting on a performance are astronomical - broadcasting rights bring the company much needed revenue, not the other way around. Pulling the broadcast will cost money.

18 June 2014 at 15:20  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Thank you Fareem.

Anyone else got anything to flog?

18 June 2014 at 15:48  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Cressida
"Any religion or cult inciting violence and the subjugation of those who are not followers should be banned.The Freedom of religion Act has to be changed to exclude religions who pose a danger to citizens by incitement to violence , the vilification of other races thus breaking the law of the land."

But that goes against the commandments of god of multiculturalism and diversity.

Practically speaking, how do you ban Islam? The first time you cease a copy of the Koran or close a Mosque, all hell will break loose - literally.

bluedog
"Exactly Cressida, if Islam wasn't a religion it would be deemed a serial breach of the criminal code and an injunction to serial breaches of human rights legislation. Time to apply the law in full before the law is sharia."

Big "if" there and let's remember the difficulties in fighting terrorism when they are supported by their communities.

18 June 2014 at 16:22  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

"terrorists" ....

18 June 2014 at 16:23  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Just returned from 24 hours away to read this interesting article and loads of good responses.

"....Hague downplays ISIS threat to UK", as the heading of the article says, because he isn't able to do anything about it, in practical terms. Moreover, maybe he is not so sure as he was, that he should "do " something about it. The confidence of the political elite has finally been dented regarding adventures in the ME, which is probably a very good thing, as it may lead to greater wisdom, which is certainly needed. I see this as a simple political response from a Foreign Secretary who finds himself with almost no cards in his hand to play.

Almost all of the people that I have met within the last few days, admittedly not a statistically valid cross section of the British public or a particularly well informed bunch politically, but all middle class middle of the road people politically, both right and left of centre, lend to the opinion that in some way, the involvement of the west, has destabilised the situation in a broad swathe of the ME thus making unsatisfactory places led by unpleasant people, far, far, far worse than they were, especially for the minorities. That is I believe now the settled view of much of the great British public. In a sense the results of the poor leadership of our top politicians have been clearly and tragically displayed, finally becoming obvious to the electorate, which is no bad thing as it will act as a restraining influence on further foolish foreign adventures. We have plenty of thorny issues to confront at home regarding security and the cohesion of the nation.

We should keep away from Islamic counties except to trade with them, , as understanding their complex internal and regional tensions is exceedingly difficult. Again I see it that simply.

Naturalised British jihadis should be rendered not British. Jihadis of other EU countries, naturalised or born there should be returned to their EU country immediately to be dealt with by them. I hope that plans are quietly being put into place behind the scenes, to deal with the possible surge of returning war hardened jihadis. The alternative does not bear thinking about. I am glad that I do not live in London especially or one of our major cities.

One thing is certain. Photos of these atrocities being committed in these beleaguered ME countries will influence British public opinion significantly, regarding Islam.

18 June 2014 at 17:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The problem is that you can't criminalize people based upon association with a religion. Dreadnaught's "It's a political movement, and not a religion" is a convenient solution to the dilemma but also a convenient fiction. Its patently not true for every individual Muslim. So unless you are willing to criminalize every single Muslim (and destroy your Liberal credentials in the process) it isn't going to lead anywhere productive.

Plus, you would have to face the difficulty of defining an "at risk" Muslim. Does he have to be religious? How religious? What if he is only culturally Muslim? Do we define it by race - say if his ancestry is Pakistani? Unless he is a Christian Pakistani? Or an atheist Pakistani? What if he is an atheist man of Pakistani descent who would prefer an atheism shaped by Islamic culture? The boundaries aren't so clean that you can say "Crush Islam" and be sure you are only affecting the guilty.

There are convenient stereotypes built into this "Let's crush Islam" idea. If you want to go that route, then join the BNP and criminalize the non-white races and say "England for the (white) English." You might as well admit your final destination now, and avoid the pretense.

carl

18 June 2014 at 18:37  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Carl

Thanks for the offer of convenient stereotypes and the concomitant racism, but for me this has absolutely nothing to do with the colour of someone's skin or the country they or their parents originated from. This is about how to deal with Islam in this country! Well done for identifying it as a thorny issue. I would suggest that being able to talk about Islam and the Koran in particular in the main stream media would be a good place to start.

18 June 2014 at 19:02  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

carl jacobs said...

The problem is that you can't criminalize people based upon association with a religion. Dreadnaught's "It's a political movement, and not a religion" is a convenient solution to the dilemma but also a convenient fiction. Its patently not true for every individual Muslim. So unless you are willing to criminalize every single Muslim (and destroy your Liberal credentials in the process) it isn't going to lead anywhere productive....


Our grandfathers' generation faced a similar problem and solved in in a rough and ready way (without losing their liberal credentials). I refer to the Allied initiative to rid German and Austrian society, culture, press, economy, judiciary, and politics of any remnants of the Nazi ideology. It was carried out specifically by removing those involved from positions of influence and by disbanding or rendering impotent the organizations associated with it. The program of denazification was launched after the end of the Second World War and was solidified by the Potsdam Agreement... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denazification

18 June 2014 at 19:07  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

carl jacobs

The boundaries aren't so clean that you can say "Crush Islam" and be sure you are only affecting the guilty.

Exactly, Carl. I would guess that not a single one of His Grace's communicants would want to make the slightest gesture of hostility -- or even to seem to be making a gesture of hostility -- towards individuals who are wholly integrated into Western culture and at the same time have a family background in the Muslim religion. I'm thinking of people like Salman Rushdie and others in Britain, or Rajida Dati in France. There are many, many others.


18 June 2014 at 19:09  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Rachida Dati. Spelling mistake, sorry.

18 June 2014 at 19:12  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

seanrobsville

Denazification started off, I believe, as a wide-ranging plan, but the Americans in particular began to see it as an obstacle to the functioning of political and economic life in occupied West Germany, simply because there were too many potentially useful citizens of the new Federal Republic whose wartime background would have excluded them under a strict denazification programme.

18 June 2014 at 19:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

William Lewis

The problem is that you can't "deal with Islam" in the UK. You have to deal with the citizens of your country who together compose Islam in the UK, and those citizens have rights. Ultimately, you are skirting with the idea of stripping those citizens of their rights based upon their putative membership in religious group. That means a judgment based upon collective guilt and not individual guilt. I understand the attraction. It's too difficult to parse the guilty from the innocent. So the obvious solution is to dispense with the whole group and let the innocent suffer. The implicit justification being "They aren't part of us."

No, the reflection in the mirror is uncomfortably reminiscent of the BNP.

catl

18 June 2014 at 19:22  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Carl

Actually we are starting to recognise and "deal with Islam" from the ground zero of multiculturalism. Unfortunately we don't have the advantage of the US melting pot of cultural backgrounds where people ultimately commit to the ideals of the USA, but we are starting to talk about what it means to be British. And guess what? You don't have to join the BNP to do it!

18 June 2014 at 19:38  
Blogger IanCad said...

Ars Hendrik @ 13:22

To say that our armies were beaten off in Iraq and Afghanistan is to insult our servicemen.

The rules under which they were operating made it impossible for them to fight an offensive war. Let them take the gloves off, let them take casualties. let them up and at 'em and both countries would be under our control right now.

As to the 500 or so fighters returning from Syria? Well, you can bet your bottom dollar that they will join ISIS. Hopefully, few will return.
Regardless, we are a nation of 60 million souls. If we are to be intimidated by a handful of Muslims then we don't deserve the liberties we have. Certainly it would seem that few would hazard pelf to maintain them.

Dreadnaught @ 13:32.

And your point exactly?

Johnny R. @ 14:15.

You raise a completely valid issue.

Last night a Muslim woman was interviewed on Radio 4. Sadly, her husband was killed recently in a bomb attack.
She has 9, NINE, children. That is not unusual. In the breeding stakes we're toast.

Currently the Muslim population is around 3%. Our girls are trained to screw but not to breed.
It will be a huge problem down the road.

Our social engineers have a lot to answer.

Truly Johnny, I have no idea as to how this will be resolved.

Ian.

18 June 2014 at 21:20  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 June 2014 at 21:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Car Jacobs

Dreadnaught's "It's a political movement, and not a religion" is a convenient solution to the dilemma but also a convenient fiction.

Look - you can believe in any god you like and call it a religion if you must, but nothing has yet been comparable in recent times as the impact Islam has on purely social and political matters.

You live in a big country your perception is minimalised. We live on a small island with a population density per sq km 10 times higher than anything you will experience.

We have large urban areas populated and politically controlled by Muslims for Muslims - that had bugger all to do with religion and purely political.

18 June 2014 at 21:29  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

IanCad

Dreadnaught @ 13:32.

And your point exactly?


You are a fool in a fools paradise.

18 June 2014 at 21:32  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl (19:22)—So the obvious solution is to dispense with the whole group and let the innocent suffer

Sad that innocent Muslims suffer, but, if we do nothing, the innocent British suffer under Islam. Maintenance of one’s liberal credentials (your comment of 18:37) is little compensation for loss of freedom.

the reflection in the mirror is uncomfortably reminiscent of the BNP

Actually, it’s reminiscent of Churchill: ‘Keep England White’. Knowing his opinion of Islam, he certainly meant ‘White and Christian’.

@ Ian (21:20)—The Muslim population was 3 per cent in 2001. By 2011 it was 4·8 per cent, a 60 per cent increase in ten years. At 6 per cent a year, the doubling time (70÷6) is approximately 12 years.

18 June 2014 at 21:55  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 19.22 says, 'The problem is that you can't "deal with Islam" in the UK.'

Wrong, it can and will be done.

As posted @ 12.38 in support of comments by Cressida, 'if Islam wasn't a religion it would be deemed a serial breach of the criminal code and an injunction to serial breaches of human rights legislation. Time to apply the law in full before the law is sharia.'

Why should a liberal and democratic society accept the propagation of ideas which are criminal offences in terms of the existing criminal code?

There is nothing racist in this objection and you diminish your own arguments by continually belittling and mocking constructive debate in racist terms. Try to understand that a number of His Grace's communicants, large sections of the British electorate and a handful of British leaders have identified an unparalleled existential threat to the nation. We are trying to think of a survival plan.

Next year we celebrate the 800th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta; important to us as well as to the US and other English-speaking nations. At the present rate of progress, a 900th anniversary is beginning to appear a forlorn hope.

We fully intend that our descendants will celebrate the 1000th anniversary.

18 June 2014 at 22:09  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Bluedog

I'm in favour of repatriation of as many Muslims as possible before it gets to a Gates of Vienna situation. We don't have long, but our dim witted government are moaning instead of acting.

“Through occupying islands in the South China Sea using relatively cheap coastguard vessels, China seizes the right to drill for petro-carbons and potentially win hugely valuable oil and gas reserves east of the Malacca Strait. The US reaction? We don't get involved in territorial disputes.”

The Yanks are already meddling in the South China sea. Chuck Hegel and the media have ignored China's subtle and mutually beneficial ideas and visions for security and agreement in favour of Hegel's speech. Bombastic as usual the Yanks.

http://www.corbettreport.com/us-menaces-the-asia-pacific-james-corbett-on-in-the-now/

Re: getting out of the EU, I think we should be aiming to be like the Isle of Mann. They are a tiny self governing island sensible enough not to have joined the EU that are doing well. Mr Farage should be paying them a visit for some ideas for the next round of battles.





18 June 2014 at 22:10  
Blogger IanCad said...

Johnny.

Yes, I now see that I was using the 2001 figures to quote the 3% number.
But, going on your updated 2011 percentage (4.8%) that would make the annual increase nearer 4% than 6%.
Applying the Rule of 72 that would mean a doubling every 18 years. Still very high but provides more breathing room than your 12 year shocker.
I would like to know by what means the increase was accounted.
Bluntly, how many were immigrants?

18 June 2014 at 22:24  
Blogger Hannah said...

Well here is an atheist I can agree with :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuVx_7ER09Y


18 June 2014 at 22:25  
Blogger bluedog said...

Marie @ 22.10 says, 'The Yanks are already meddling in the South China sea. Chuck Hegel and the media have ignored China's subtle and mutually beneficial ideas and visions for security and agreement in favour of Hegel's speech. Bombastic as usual the Yanks.'

Your anti-Americanism has clouded your capacity for objective analysis. China claims large areas of the South China Sea that are specifically part of the exclusive economic zones of Vietnam, the Phillipines and to some extent, Indonesia. China is therefore ignoring the UN international law of the sea, to which it is a signatory. Ironically the US is not signed. China has a vastly more powerful navy than Vietnam and the Phillipines and acts with impunity, taking what it wants.

If you think Chuck Hagel is wrong in standing up to the Chinese (finally) you could not be more wrong. There is nothing mutually beneficial in what China proposes. Before the demise of the Qing dynasty, China operated a tributary state system in East and South-East Asia, and now seeks to replicate that. The current Chinese leadership manifests all the ethno-snobbery of the old Middle Kingdom, something else Cameron does not begin to understand.

18 June 2014 at 22:44  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

The best brains in the government appear to be getting on top of the Islamic threat:

Baroness Neville-Jones, a former chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee, said the UK needed to ensure that young Muslim men were fully integrated into their communities and felt that they had a stake in society. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-27898724

There we are, problem solved!

18 June 2014 at 23:05  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

So

We all want shot of the Muslims?

The Muslims are not the problem. You are treating the symptoms not the cause. If we enforced our laws and they were based on the Bible do you think we would have the same problems with the Muslims?

Their problem with our liberal godless society is actually our problem also if we open our eyes.

There are huge dangers in this even in the unlikely event that you are successful in turning pubic opinion against them, enough to persecute or repatriate.

Remember Martin Niemöller?

Phil

18 June 2014 at 23:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Thanks, Johnny Rottenborough, for every word of that post at 18 June 2014 21:55. I knew you would come through for me. I was counting on you, in fact.

carl

18 June 2014 at 23:36  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

IanCad @ 21:20

Hello,

I said 'seen off our best armies in Afghanistan and Iraq' not 'beaten'.

Our forces were deployed unsuccessfully insomuch as the threat that we sought to destroy or neutralise is still abundantly present.

It's no insult to anyone to say that only an idiot would describe either sortie as a victory.

But hang on to the idea that only a few fanatics are the problem, that no Muslim members of ISIS, etc, will return to these shores, that we happy band of 60m have nothing to worry about.

18 June 2014 at 23:43  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Bluedog

I'm not anti American, there are good and bad everywhere, but I think you'll find that China is trying to create an international East Asian trading area that would include Vietnam and the Philippines thereby halting arguments over who gets what. The Yanks want them to have a much bigger area that includes South Korea, Malaysia and others, why? (There are many Muslims in Malaysia who are disruptive and wont get along. )The Chinese don't want a bigger area, now whether you call it ethno-snobery or not, surely they can make trade deals with whom ever they want?
I think Chuck Hegel is going about things the wrong way in dictating to the Chinese. Surely the Yanks have done enough damage in that area in the past? And why are the Yanks arming the region if war is not on their minds?
They see China as a threat that as to be brought in line with the Yanks way Especially since Putin has done his mutually beneficial super deal using the Ruble not the Dollar. He's be for it next, watch the unrest in Ukraine

18 June 2014 at 23:54  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

They'll start to push him into invading Ukraine next. The Yanks kill for the Dollar.





18 June 2014 at 23:58  
Blogger Martin Marprelate said...

'The fault, dear Brutus, is in ourselves' not in the Muslims.

This country is given over by God because of its wickedness, and the chief fault lies with the churches who do not preach the Gospel and do not believe the Bible.

In Iran and elsewhere Moslems are becoming Christians in huge numbers in the teeth of the most vicious persecution, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the faithfulness of existing Christians. 'And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and the word of their testimony and they did not love their lives to the death' (Rev. 12:11). In Britain the Moslems despise Christians, and rightly so, because they don't believe or obey their own holy book, and because their spokesmen (read Archbishop of Canterbury) are much more at home talking politics than preaching the Gospel.

What is needed is not persecution of Moslems, but a new reformation in the churches. Get out of your church if it does not preach the truth and find a church that does. They can still be found! The Christian message of the love and mercy of God revealed in Jesus Christ is far more powerful and attractive than that of Islam; it just needs to be preached. 'For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God' (2 Cor. 10:4-5).

19 June 2014 at 00:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

We have large urban areas populated and politically controlled by Muslims for Muslims - that had bugger all to do with religion and purely political.

The reader will notice the problem you have identified. Muslims are exercising their franchise as citizens of the UK and electing representatives who (GASP!) are DOING THINGS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE. Are these Muslims doing anything illegal? No. Are they seeking to change things by due process of law? Yes. So how is this different from any other political faction from the perspective of the law? It isn't any different. But they are DOING THINGS THAT YOU DON'T LIKE. And people wonder why I keep pointing out that this is moving inevitably in the direction of abrogating rights.

Welcome to the system you created, Dreadnaught. You secularists created a system based upon the primacy of freedom, where freedom is defined as autonomy, and now you are frightened by people who are exercising their autonomy. You wanted to get rid of Christianity while maintaining all those principles that depended upon Christianity for their justification. You destroyed moral authority and now you are Shocked, SHOCKED when another faction refuses to bend the knee to your now rootless principles. What did you expect? You set the rules for the culture war. You can't blame the Muslims for playing by them.

The problem is rooted in divorce and cohabitation and abortion and willful childlessness and all the other self-centered selfish pathologies that have come along like parasites attached to our sainted secular culture. It's that demographic decline I keep mentioning. Secularists just don't have time and money for children. But we don't want to blame that. We want to blame the Muslims for refusing to buy into the secular vision of the good. We want to blame them for exercising their franchise and committing the heinous crime of having children.

carl

19 June 2014 at 00:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

Wrong, it can and will be done.

You completely ignored my point. You want to talk about Islam in the abstract. I am pointing out that you must deal with Muslims in the particular. That translation from abstract to particular is where your argument collapses into dust. You haven't a clue how to address this in the particular. The few possibilities you have offered are fantasy.

Dreadnaught is afraid of the growing political strength of Muslims. So what are you going to do about it that doesn't impinge on their rights as citizens? The unspoken answer is "Well, we probably will have to impinge on their rights." And that's when race comes in. It won't be said out loud but it will be understood that this is justified because the targeted group is non-white. No one would consider doing this to a white population. But the Pakistanis? They're screwed.

carl

19 June 2014 at 00:38  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

If Carl is correct, then Happy Jack says we need to dispense with liberal-democracy and the rule of law and install a strong dictatorship until Islam is defeated and removed from our shores. Democracy, free speech and human rights is just getting in the way.

It's coming anyway if the situation continues unchecked, so best do it sooner rather than later.

Sadly, Martin M's proposal is unlikely to bear fruit given the doctrinal disarray of the Christian Churches. And people are just not receptive to the Gospel. Their comfort and their pleasure gets in the way. So does the stresses and strains on our economic system which promotes mass consumption and debt.

19 June 2014 at 00:50  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Oh and Happy Jack forgot to mention we'd better find an alternative to oil before we go upsetting the Arab and Muslim world.

19 June 2014 at 00:55  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

You're right Happy Jack.

19 June 2014 at 00:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Jack

we need to dispense with liberal-democracy and the rule of law and install a strong dictatorship until Islam is defeated and removed from our shores

That is what is going to happen - except for everything after the word 'dictatorship.'

carl

19 June 2014 at 01:07  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack is contemplating converting to the Russian Orthodox faith and applying for political asylum in Russia. Its all getting just too much here.

At least there they imprison people for "hooliganism" when they offend and challenge the cultural traditions and norms of their society. Terribly unjust and illiberal, Jack knows, but desperate times and all that.

It's unlikely Muslims will ever march on the streets of Moscow (and other assorted anti-Christian groups) with banners saying: "To hell with free speech."

19 June 2014 at 01:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

we need to dispense with liberal-democracy and the rule of law and install a strong dictatorship

It could even be called "The Enabling Act." And the first act of the new dictator could be to prohibit Muslins from working. That'll fix them good.

Do you people really not see where this is going?

carl

19 June 2014 at 01:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack was being ironic .....

19 June 2014 at 01:22  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl
"And the first act of the new dictator could be to prohibit Muslins from working. That'll fix them good."

Excellent start.

Then remove their children and ensure they are raised without the psychological abuse of their nasty religious system.

The problem will be solved in no time.

19 June 2014 at 01:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Happy Jack was being ironic .....

Yes ... Well...I knew that. See, I was told recently that Americans aren't supposed to get irony so ... I had to re-affirm the stereotype lest I cause great distress.

Yes, that's it exactly.

carl

19 June 2014 at 01:44  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Mwrtin @00.01 'if your church does not preach the truth get out of and find one that does.'

Done it. Loving Above Bar Church Southampton and in fact have an interview today about my membership application. On the application form I had to sign to say that I would endeavor to live my life according to the teaching of God's Word in the Bible. Scary but right to sign see Malachi 3:16.

Incidentally, I'm attending a C S Lewis and Christianity in Oxford next week taught largely by a former Anglican minister and C S Lewis scholar Michael Ward who like me quit the C of E over the last straw that was the Pilling report. Only where I went to a Sola Scriptura Evangelical church, he went to Rome....some interesting conversations may be in store.

19 June 2014 at 06:31  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

....omitted the words 'summer school at Wycliffe college Oxford'

19 June 2014 at 06:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "And that's when race comes in. It won't be said out loud but it will be understood that this is justified because the targeted group is non-white. No one would consider doing this to a white population."

I think that's largely true but it cuts both ways too. At the moment, people in the UK tend to have a finely tuned ear to language which could be construed as racist and like to be seen to tiptoe around it in public. I think our Muslim population get an easier ride than Christians because, in the UK, Muslim roughly translates to Pakistani [1] so criticising Islam or the behaviour of someone who is Muslim is like criticising someone for being Pakistani.

We have a debate programme on our main State-funded TV channel on Sunday mornings when religious programmes are typically aired, called The Big Questions. It has a small TV audience and a set of guests. The guests are almost always from a small pool, and tend to either conform to stereotypes or challenge stereotypes. So, there is often an urbane Muslim from the Quilliam Foundation together with a gobby Muslim fanatic.

One of the regulars is Myriam Francois-Cerrah, who is a white Muslim convert from Roman Catholicism. The programme loves her because she's cocky and in-your-face, challenging a female Muslim stereotype, and she's white and articulate, challenging a Muslim fundamentalist stereotype. I'm sure the reason the programme uses her for those attributes rather than for her religious views.

19 June 2014 at 07:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

[1] Discounting the fact that we also have Bangladeshi, Sudanese, Nigerian, and Indonesian Muslims in smaller numbers. Still non-white, of course.

19 June 2014 at 07:11  
Blogger Ivan said...


Marie1797 don't get carried away by the supposed role that China is playing in stabilising my part of the world. The Chicoms have from the very beginning played a dastardly game of destabilising the region by supporting one or the other of the nations against each other and revolutionary movements within each. This has been their prefered approach when the they were comparatively weak.

They triangulated for decades against India by supporting Pakistan, in ways more significant than the Americans ever did. Their approach is to use the naked enmity of protagonists against each other. Now that they are getting some of own medicine back through the Islamic rebellion in Xinjiang, they are suddenly discovering that supporting Islamic terror comes with a cost. They have the distinction of having been the most significant proliferator of nuclear and ballistic weapons technology to rougue states. They are masters at filling in the technology gaps while pretending to tie their shoelaces. When the Indians tested their nuclear devices in 1998 (directed explicitly at the Chinese), suddenly there was no end of bathos from the deacons in Peking deploring the end of nuclear non-proliferation. I had always been of the opinion that the reason God made India and Pakistan was to provide a baseline for hypocrisy, but I wasn't counting on the Chinese. And this but part of the story from the Indian angle.

Older people will recall, that the single largest, and perhaps sole sponsor of Cambodia during the horrific reign of the Khmer Rouge were the Chicoms, and it was put to end only by the Vietnamese when they invaded in 1978. The unhappy Chicoms in turn sought to punish the Vietnamese by invading them, and were taught a lesson of their own. There is no love for the mainland China in any country in SEA and this includes the native Chinese themselves. We saw numerous examples of their arrogance (and incompetence) during the search for the missing MH370. The Philippines had in an access of nationalism, (and in protest against rampant prostitution) told the Americans to leave, which the Americans were glad to comply with since Clark's Air Force Base was blanketed over by the Mt Pinatubo eruption and was unusable, and the USN did not consider Subic Bay to be of extreme importance. The Filipinos are asking the Yankees to come back, which the sentimental John Kerry and Chuck Hagel, war veterans and avuncular men would likely oblige. The Chinese are not here to share something, they are effectively laying claim to the entire South China Sea and their entire littoral upto the Sea of Japan. Claims which have no standing in history or geography.

And this brings us to Japan, favorite whipping boy, of the Chicoms when they need some distraction. The Japanese, at onetime running the Imperial Japanese Navy are not going to sit idly by while the Chinese put the squeeze on all their sea lanes.

The US has every right, more so than any other country to call herself a Far Eastern power, since it is under her benign direction and numerous sacrifices, that much of the prosperity and peace in the Far East was achieved.

19 June 2014 at 08:06  
Blogger Len said...

What do we do with a problem like sharia?.
It seems everyone' has a take' on what to do with radical Muslims.But until the real problem is identified no solution will be found.Phil Roberts is partly right in this respect when he alludes that the rise of Islam is our fault.We have not known who our real enemy is. Islam is the physical manifestation of a malignant spiritual power which has worked through many different people nations religions in fact it finds outlets through anyone available to be used by it.
As true Christianity is beaten back ridiculed and rendered ineffectual by intellectual 'elitists' and our state churches are led by those false shepherds who are only concerned with their own positions this power that opposes the God of the bible has risen and and intends to take position of this Earth and all upon it.
We cannot fight spiritual powers with physical means.Unfortunately(for all of us) we have thrown our most valuable[spiritual] weapons away.

'For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.'(Ephesians 6:12)

19 June 2014 at 08:55  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

CJ

Dreadnaught is afraid of the growing political strength of Muslims

Not afraid of - but alert to.

Politics in the UK is still notionally democratic. The major flaw of democracy can be used to eat itself as in the case of Morsi's Egypt or Hitler's.

The 57 member states of Organisation of Islamic Cooperation is barely recognised outside it's own sphere and is a major Political force of world stature based on an exclusively shared 'religious foundation.

30 years ago it was Saudi Arabia who gathered most public attention - since then the world changed and the West went to sleep.

America under GWB conned us into a second Crusading 'War on Terror' in true Hollywood style, while ignoring the involvement of the sons of its rich friends in Saudi Arabia in 9/11.

FFS you even spirited Bin Laden's family out of t way before the bloody dust had settled on Manhattan.

Your own dog-eared secular conspiracy theory crap, is a product of your own imagination, designed to cover the nakedly obvious weakness of your own creationist myth mentality.

I suggest you carry on taking care of your afterlife arrangements and wish you well.

19 June 2014 at 08:57  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Carl

"And that's when race comes in. It won't be said out loud but it will be understood that this is justified because the targeted group is non-white. No one would consider doing this to a white population."

Yes they would if that white population adhered to the aggressive and violent precepts of Islam and intended to propagate Sharia in the UK. You can say that this is about covert racism and no doubt for a minority that's true, but by tarring everyone with that brush you are doing the work of the multiculturalists who tell us that all cultures must be treated equally (with some being more equal than others). They are not equal. The UK has a culture based on Judeo-Christian principles that have, for sometime now, been denied, ridiculed or abandoned. It's our own fault, but by conflating opposition to Islam in this country with attacks on ethnicity you aren't helping much.

19 June 2014 at 10:13  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 00.38 said, 'You completely ignored my point. You want to talk about Islam in the abstract. I am pointing out that you must deal with Muslims in the particular.'

Well in the past I have particularly suggested population exchanges which you reject. However it is encouraging to see the idea gaining traction in some quarters.

You say, 'But the Pakistanis? They're screwed.'

Correct, and it's all their own work. Using terminology offered by HJ, they have neither integrated or assimilated, and their never will. As you say, they are Pakistanis. So what are they doing in Britain?

Look at the map of Europe and what do you see? The answer is ethnically defined nations, a development that followed WW1 when multi-ethnic empires such as the Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and the Russian were defeated and broke up. New nations were created around ethnicities, some failing violently in due course like Yugoslavia. After WW2, 6 million Germans were evicted from Pomerania, Silesia, Konigsberg, Hungary and other places. Of course there was also the shocking murder of the Jews, at the instigation of the Germans, but also with local support in many parts of Europe including France.

Say what you like about the relative racial homogenity of Europe in say, 1945, but it did ensure a peaceful and generally harmonious set of nations with a marked lack of intercommunal violence. At that point in time nobody was embarrassed by the idea that the white French or the white British should live in France and Britain respectively. It was an indubitable fact and accepted as sound policy. But the Euro-elites were transfixed by the success of the multi-racial United States and they wanted a United States of their own.

Add 25 million Muslims to Christian Europe and you get the inevitable result of a low level civil war that can only get worse. Other migrants such as the Carribean peoples share Christian belief and have been much more successful in integration and assimilation. Hindus and Chinese are also successful migrants. It astounded this writer that larger numbers of Hong Kong Chinese were not allowed to settle in Britain after the Handover.

It requires minimal integrity and perception to admit and recognise that Muslim settlement in Europe has been a social catastrophe. If the numbers grow, as they will, Muslim settlement in the USA will be equally problematic. Don't kid yourself that it won't be.

So which is the greater civil right? Freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, equality of opportunity, or the right to live in peace without being in mortal fear of your neighbour(s)? The Northern Irish could give you the right answer.

19 June 2014 at 11:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught said...

to CJ

"Your own dog-eared secular conspiracy theory crap, is a product of your own imagination, designed to cover the nakedly obvious weakness of your own creationist myth mentality. "

Your ilk have brought that imagination to fruition.

You and yours state that Christians are a lovers and unabashed supporters of secularism but this is a fallacy.

Christians here believe that all men are equal under the law but NOT all religions. A crucial difference.

No Christian can challenge another and expect supremacy under the law for his challenge against another who is non christian! unlike Islam, Hinduism, sikhism etc in their lands where they dominate the culture, simply because he is a Christian.

Atheists have long infiltrated positions of authority to alter this balanced 'God has no favourites among sinners' approach from Christianity as the Muslims here intend to do also to achieve their aims by twisting this 'The law is blind to your status' as Medhi Hassan has encouraged them to do rather than use only weapons to succeed...the pen is mightier etc etc and far sneakier.

It is you plonkers that have brought this situation upon us with your undermining of our Judeo/Christian laws and heritage and you have the nerve to blame us?!

"I suggest you carry on taking care of your afterlife arrangements and wish you well." Well you lot will have nothing to look forward to when Islam shuts down your biological existence, will you?

You conflate all religions as being identical yet fail to spot the myriad of differences such as something so simple as.. What is a Christian Martyr and what is a Muslim martyr. You may soon find out?

That you atheists think you are intellectually superior is the supreme joke of the universe and keeps on bringing uncontrollable chuckles from we 'inferior' intelligent Christians. Think the old saying goes.."Thinking themselves wise they became prats" or something like that *Chuckles*

Blofeld

19 June 2014 at 11:42  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Ian (22:24)—The numerator 70 isn’t correct either (it’s just under 70) but it gives a good idea of the speed of exponential growth.

@ carl (23:36)—Glad you’ve come round to my way of thinking.

@ carl (00:26)—So how is this different from any other political faction from the perspective of the law? It isn’t any different

Why consider only one perspective when there are so many to choose from? For example, the perspective that Muslim-ruled countries are pretty crummy places and we’d be mad to allow England to descend to Islamic crumminess. Looks like you haven’t come round to my way of thinking after all. For a few moments I had such high hopes for you…

19 June 2014 at 11:48  
Blogger Len said...

'Political Correctness' is' a weapon' that has been taken up and used against those who would warn us against the dangers our society is facing..
Our Judeo /christian foundations have been undermined and those in authority may[just 'may'] be beginning to realize the disastrous course they have set us on.
If Churchill had been bound by 'Political Correctness' about the threat we faced in the run up to the conflict with Germany in the 1930`s he would probably have faced the same fate as Pastor James McConnell.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-27732156

19 June 2014 at 11:56  
Blogger IanCad said...

Johnny R.,

I believe all true-blooded Brits should use 72.
70 is too close to the EU decimal system for my liking.

19 June 2014 at 13:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

JR

Why consider only one perspective when there are so many to choose from?

Because the law is supposed to govern how the state treats its citizens. There is that word again - "citizen." I realize that's an inconvenience to protecting England from existential threat, but you are talking about citizens who are protected by law. You may not like the fact that they were granted citizenship but your dislike isn't grounds for stripping them of it.

carl

19 June 2014 at 13:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dreadnaught

Not afraid of - but alert to.

"Alert." Yes, that's the first word that leaps to mind after reading your posts about Islam on this and other threads.

Your own dog-eared secular conspiracy theory crap [etc etc etc] ...

Which conspiracy theory would that be? Because I don't remember positing one on the thread. I actually can't think of any conspiracy theory I have ever posted. So you will have to help me out here.

Unless you are labeling the relationship between demographic decline and secularism as the product of conspiracy. It is transparently obvious that the growing Islamic population relative to the rest of the nation is the source of the naked fear - sorry, 'alertness' - behind this thread. Is it a conspiracy theory now to point out the obvious?

carl

19 June 2014 at 13:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

William Lewis

They are not equal.

I grant you that Christian culture must he defended. But citizens of whatever race or religion are supposed to be equal before the law. So if you are going to defend it, you must defend it within the law. And that precludes options like "population transfer."

Here, let's put this in plain language. What are people afraid of? They are afraid of waking up one morning and finding themselves a racial minority. They are afraid that new racial majority will impose law based upon its Islamic religion. Don't kid yourself. At the most basic level, this reduces to "Not enough white children."

So we have people who are afraid of a future law that would be based upon Islam saying the present law must be suspended now for Muslins lest Muslins use their demographic strength to remake the law to our disadvantage at some later date. Simply put "We must destroy the law to save it."

But it's only a bunch of Pakistanis. They aren't really English after all. They can't really be citizens. The rights of Englishmen will still be secure.

Or at least that's the theory.
carl

19 June 2014 at 14:13  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ carl (13:36)—the law is supposed to govern how the state treats its citizens

In a free country, the law will ultimately say whatever the people wish it to say, and if the majority decides it is fed up to the back teeth with Islam, the law would eventually reflect that view. All the English have to do is get their act together before Muslims become the majority.

19 June 2014 at 14:26  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

C
It would moot to address the complicit involvement of the Bush Administration's cosy relationship with Saudi Arabia; the swift exit they provided for Bin Laden's family and friends and the lack of prosecution of that State in the growth and export Wahabbism.

19 of the perpetrators of 9/11 were Saudi's - yet the US prosecuted a war in another direction, costing Trillions and Thousands of lives and effectively prepared a seed-bed for Islamist propagation.

The all powerful USA, is still not prepared to address its own shortcomings in understanding of Islamism and international diplomacy. How blatantly ludicrous is it to treat with Iran in one country and fight it in another next door.

It's a Schismatic Theo-Political dog-fight for outright control of the Middle East. Next stop Israel then the House of Saud and on to Mecca: pick your dog and place your bet.

You guys just don't get it!

19 June 2014 at 14:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

Correct, and it's all their own work.

So here you are admitting what I am saying while William Lewis berates ne for saying it. And you are allies in the argument. This thread is surreal.

Citizenship was not granted upon condition of some specified level of assimilation. That's the implicit assumption in your argument.

carl

19 June 2014 at 14:41  
Blogger IanCad said...

Given that our Bill of Rights predates that of the Americans by a century, it would seem that we would reverence ours the more.

But; No! Judging from the howls of the, supposedy, fair-minded of this blog, our Muslim fellow-subjects are in grave danger of being summararily stripped of the rights attendant to citizenship.

The US Bill Of Rights is needed over here. Posted, plastered, painted everywhere for all to read.

Particularly noting the Fifth Ammendment. Part of which reads:

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

Those pesky Muslims. Let's kick them out before they take over, invade us, corrupt us, behead us ---.

I cited Calvin Coolidge a post or two back.

Here's another one of his, apropos to the thread:

"When people are bewildered they tend to become credulous."

19 June 2014 at 15:04  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl
"This thread is surreal."

This world is surreal.

*chuckle*

Are you a citizen of the USofA by any chance?

Jack has still to arrange an interview with a Russian Orthodox minister and thereafter with the Russian Embassy.

19 June 2014 at 16:42  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Carl

FWIW I am not advocating "population transfer". I also do not consider I particularly have allies on this thread. I am advocating keeping the focus on Islam as an ideology that is not compatible with the culture of this country. The main exponents of this ideology in this country are Pakistani as bluedog has pointed out, but this is not about their race or the colour of their skin but it is about the religion that informs their culture. There are other brown people or yellow people (to keep with your particular theme) who want to embrace our culture as Bluedog has also indicated. We are no longer multicultural. Islam has seen to that.

19 June 2014 at 17:36  
Blogger Manfarang said...

IanCad
"When people are bewildered they tend to become credulous."
Good one
Please don't tell anyone that Pakistanis have very little in common with Iraqi Sunnis.
I lived in a student house years ago with a Pakistani student and an Iraqi student.They were not friends.I often wonder what became of the Iraqi.

19 June 2014 at 18:02  
Blogger IanCad said...

Manfarang

Therein lie the roots of so many conspiracy theories.
Astonishing that so many still think the WTC destruction was an inside job.

19 June 2014 at 19:08  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

The best place to hide a pebble is on a beach. The best way to divert attention from the REAL conspiracy is with lots of fake ones. Consider the tragi-comic Diana conspiracy.

PS I hope Dreadnaught won't be offended but I agree with nearly everything he's posted lately.

19 June 2014 at 21:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Hahahaha

19 June 2014 at 21:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 14.41 say, 'Citizenship was not granted upon condition of some specified level of assimilation.'

Again, correct.

But it really does help if a discrete demographic within the multicultural Shangri-la does not decide to replace the existing legal code and societal structure and replace it with their own, in this case Sharia.

You'll appreciate this argument. By removing the Muslims and their attendant threat to our civil rights we are in effect defending our civil rights.

Virtue is on our side.

You may have missed this encouraging clause in the UK Immigration Act 2014:

• allow the Home Secretary to deprive a naturalised British citizen of their citizenship in cases where they have conducted themselves in a way which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK, where the Home Secretary has reasonable grounds for believing the person is able to become a national of another country;

The beginning of wisdom.

19 June 2014 at 22:17  
Blogger Len said...

One of the problems with 'the law' here in little old England is that we don`t make our laws any more we get them handed to us by big brother in the EU..whether we like them or not ...mostly not..
But in a democracy (which we once were) laws were made according to the Judeo /Christian tradition(whoops that has gone as well)so we have a bunch of laws which the population hasn`t even signed up to and even our Government hasn`t agreed in Parliament..
So who exactly is running our Country and where are our laws coming from?.

Just asking.

19 June 2014 at 22:32  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 14.13 says, 'At the most basic level, this reduces to "Not enough white children."

Apols, should have read through more of the post before replying, so missed this gem of incomprehension.

With respect, you still don't get it. Muslim societal structure reduces women to the status of breeding cows, and also permits under-age marriage. Take the typical situation in which a Muslim lass is pledged in marriage by her parents to an older cousin. Assume consummation at 15, the first calf drops before age 16. Allow a brief period of recovery and with a calf every two years until say, age 35, that's 10 offspring. If she's not a great grand-mother by 52 there's been a systems failure.

What American, or British, woman is going to submit to that? And submit is the operative word. On this basis, there can never be enough White children.

19 June 2014 at 22:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

bluedog

You'll appreciate this argument. By removing the Muslims and their attendant threat to our civil rights we are in effect defending our civil rights

Two question about this statement.

1. Is a Muslim a threat by virtue if the fact that he is a Muslim?

2. Why do you separate the Muslim from the category "our" when he is just as much a citizen as you are?

Let's assume he wants to "replace the existing legal code and societal structure." If he attempts to do this within the legal framework, why do you fault him? He is simply exercising his franchise. If he can carry the majority, why shouldn't he do as he wishes? "Because you don't want him to do that" is not an acceptable answer.

You are acting like there is some divine decree that life in England should be founded upon a particular culture and religion. That's nonsense. You will keep only what you have the power to keep. You aren't going to keep England Christian without Christians and (to get the heart of it) you aren't going to keep it white without white children. That's the problem. The people whom you brlieve should dominate the land are too self-absorbed to have kids. So to maintain dominance, you are looking to punish those who are willing to have kids. You are punishing them for your own failure.

the UK Immigration Act 2014

Well, yes, but that proves my point. This would apply to individuals who have been proven guilty by due process of law. It is the collective aspect of this argument that I am addressing - the idea that the group as a whole is a threat and not individuals in the group. But that due process makes your hoped-for solutions intractable. To deal with Islam in anything like an efficient manner, you would have to deal with it as a group. That's the issue you wont address. Because you don't know how to address it without sounding like people you would prefer not to sound like.

carl

19 June 2014 at 22:53  
Blogger Len said...

So we just hope that all our Muslims are of 'the right sort' and not the wrong sort of Muslims fighting with ISIS.?.

Simples...

19 June 2014 at 23:16  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Carl, Happy Jack agrees. There are only three broad objectives to be pursued.

First, monitor the Muslims in Britain and the teaching they receive. Deal harshly with breaches of our security laws when breeched.

Second, defeat the ideology of multiculturalism and diversity by narrowing its boundaries through the democratic process and restore law to British Courts.

And the most difficult one and on which the first two will ultimately depend:

Third, through social, economic and political action, founded on and informed by Christianity, restore family life to its true purpose.

Not so simples ......

19 June 2014 at 23:57  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl

Absolutely agree with the tenor and measure of your posts here.

Bluedog

I don't know how you personally feel about Enoch Powell, and I'm not intending to imply a particular connection between you and he, but I have found an increasing sense of irony in the fact that many of the same people who would hail Powell as a prophet have conveniently ignored his refusal to countenance a two-tier citizenship and a resolute insistence on the absolute parity of citizens before the law - both in terms of resisting "positive discrimination" and also negative discrimination of the kind that regularly gets bandied about down here.

20 June 2014 at 03:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Len

So we just hope that all our Muslims are of 'the right sort' and not the wrong sort

Well, I suppose you could assume they are all the wrong sort and just shoot them.

OK, that was flippant. But it does seem to me that people are looking for a way to do what the Germans did - yet humanely. They want a final solution to the Muslim Question that is safe for westernized consumption. And what is so distressing is that it all so plainly proceeds from weakness. You have no confidence in your own culture to assimilate them.

If you want to oppose Islam, you have to oppose it with something, and secularism just doesn't fit the bill. It is too obviously weak and shallow and declining. If you don't recover a Christian message soon, you are going to get something else with which to oppose it. But it won't be secular it Christian.

carl

20 June 2014 at 03:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

AiB

Thank you for that statement if support. It means alot to me.

Jack

Happy Jack agrees

You should save that line for when we talk about justification.

carl

20 June 2014 at 03:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl:"1. Is a Muslim a threat by virtue if the fact that he is a Muslim?"

That is general consensus down here. It has been openly stated often enough.

20 June 2014 at 05:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "Allow a brief period of recovery and with a calf every two years until say, age 35, that's 10 offspring."

I've just read a recent article in the Mail which has a TFR table by country. Women have a TFR of 3.84 in Pakistan, 1.84 in the UK, and 1.83 in the USA, according to that table.

20 June 2014 at 05:52  
Blogger IanCad said...

Thanks, bluedog @ 22:17

"You may have missed this encouraging clause in the UK Immigration Act 2014:"


Indeed I did.

This policy, if enforced, and due process observed, offers a remedy that is long overdue.

20 June 2014 at 08:24  
Blogger Len said...

Carl
The majority our Muslims do not want to be assimilated.
I worked not long ago in Blackburn Lancashire and wanting some food I went to the local supermarket as I looked around I realized I was the only non Muslim in the extremely large supermarket..In fact in parts of the UK there are whole Muslim communities who have their own culture their own law and do not seem to value any British values other than our tolerance and liberalism towards them...
And the rising Muslim population in the UK?. Figures from the 2011 census show that the Muslim population in the UK has substantially risen between 2001 and 2011 from 1.5 million to almost 3 million. This now takes the proportion of Muslims from 2% of the population to 5%. In some towns, Muslims make up almost 50% of the population.
I think we Brits will be the ones to be 'assimilated' in the future?.






20 June 2014 at 09:05  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Carl

"But it does seem to me that people are looking for a way to do what the Germans did - yet humanely. They want a final solution to the Muslim Question that is safe for westernized consumption."

You appear to have upped the ante again. Given that your country and mine think that Islamist ideology is dangerous enough to warrant going to war over and given that (homegrown) Islamists have attacked and killed people in our countries in the name of their ideology, wouldn't a better analogy have been about what to do with local foreign nationals when fighting a war against their country? Apparently the Americans put the Japanese in internment camps during WWII, but no one here has suggested that we should do that to the Muslims.

"And what is so distressing is that it all so plainly proceeds from weakness. You have no confidence in your own culture to assimilate them."

Correct. Our culture has been sacrificed on the alter of multiculturalism. It's time to claim it back. It's interesting that if you talk to people from other cultures living here they tend to be alarmed at how much we kowtow to Islamist demands and threats.

"Is a Muslim a threat by virtue of the fact that he is a Muslim?"

A Muslim is a threat by virtue of how closely he adheres to the Koran. Just as a German would have been a threat during WWII by virtue of how closely he adhered to the orchestrations of the Third Reich.

20 June 2014 at 09:21  
Blogger Ivan said...


Ars Hendrik 18/6 15:20, it seems that the opera was facing pressure from the ADL as it appeared too sympathetic to the Palestinians. In which case the Islamic bogeyman can be safely set aside.

20 June 2014 at 09:43  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

As I was working in my orchard the other day and musing on all this a thought came to me about evolution and the pseudoscience of memes/ memetics.

In the world view of a Dawkinist

-humans evolved from lower animals snd before that ultimately from Big Bang derived particles

-evolution has no plan or goal

-evolution progressesby natural selection acting on genes

-the genes arrive by a mindless process

- memes are the intellectual equivalent of genes and are selected for in a similar way

-religion is a meme or 'mind virus"



Now if all this is so as Dawkins says, can anyone explain to why Islam should not 'ruthlessly exterminate' (a term Darwin used) both Christianity and liberal secularism?

I know what rational grounds I have for opposing such a survival of the fittest outcome, not sure what grounds a materialist would have other than emotional.

20 June 2014 at 10:32  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

RSA

Sure your not confusing Dawkins with Daleks?

20 June 2014 at 11:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

That is general consensus down here.

Yes, but ... "Is a Jew a threat by virtue of the fact that he is a Jew?" This is the exact logic the Germans used to justify killing Jewish children. To the last syllable. I can't understand how people do not comprehend the pedigree of this attitude. Just one thread previous, and people where horrified that Islamists would shoot people of other religions to create religious homogeneity. And the response is to find some way to force...a form of religious homogeneity. What are we really angry about? That they shot people, or that they shot people like us?

carl

20 June 2014 at 12:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

William Lewis

What I am defending is the principle that gov'ts must deal with people as individuals and not as a group. It shouldn't just label someone a 'kulak' and have him deported or criminalized or shot. That is the way of tyranny. I trust I don't have to explain my use of kulak in thus discussion. It seems very applicable.

You say a Muslim is a threat by virtue of how closely he conforms to the Koran. I am not sure I accept that, but let's stipulate it for the sake of argument. What are the policy implications of that? What do you want the gov't to do to specifically address that threat? I am nor asking for abstracts that apply to the group. I want to know specific measures that may be imposed on threatening people.

carl

20 June 2014 at 12:29  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 22.53 asks:

1. Is a Muslim a threat by virtue if the fact that he is a Muslim?

Potentially.

2. Why do you separate the Muslim from the category "our" when he is just as much a citizen as you are?

Within the law the Muslims have identical rights. However we know, because they say so, that they intend to dominate. In this event the non-Muslim population will enjoy diminished rights. For those of a masochistic inclination who enjoy being victims, fine. For others who try to pre-empt catastrophe, less enticing.

'Because you don't want him to do that" is not an acceptable answer.' see para above.

We know, because we can draw conclusions from the experience of other nations, that Islam does not wait for democratic victory. Look at the Christians in the Lebanon, once a majority, now in dhimmitude after a civil war. No thanks.

'You are acting like there is some divine decree that life in England should be founded upon a particular culture and religion. That's nonsense.' It isn't. Change enough of what makes England what it is and there is no longer England.

'So to maintain dominance, you are looking to punish those who are willing to have kids. You are punishing them for your own failure.'

Bizarre. The problem with the Muslims is that they seek to takeover the UK. Again, we know that because they say so. Yes they have very large families and British have fewer children. I have tried, clearly without success, to explain why the Muslims have larger families - by virtue of marriages that in many cases are criminal.

'Well, yes, but that proves my point. This would apply to individuals who have been proven guilty by due process of law.'

Wrong, read the clause again. It empowers the Home Secretary to cancel the passports of jihadis when they are out of the country so that they cannot return.

'To deal with Islam in anything like an efficient manner, you would have to deal with it as a group.' Correct. An analysis of the Koran in the context of the UK criminal codes and human rights legislation is long overdue. Discrediting an opposing ideology is always an important step towards mandating other measures.

20 June 2014 at 12:50  
Blogger bluedog said...

AIB @ 03.23 says, 'Bluedog

I don't know how you personally feel about Enoch Powell, and I'm not intending to imply a particular connection between you and he, but I have found an increasing sense of irony in the fact that many of the same people who would hail Powell as a prophet have conveniently ignored his refusal to countenance a two-tier citizenship and a resolute insistence on the absolute parity of citizens before the law - both in terms of resisting "positive discrimination" and also negative discrimination of the kind that regularly gets bandied about down here.'

Gawd. The member for County Down, eh? Near enough to Belfast, one supposes, to be close to home. With increasing age Powell gave his hunting wardrobe to the libertarian philosopher Roger Scruton. Somewhat off topic perhaps, but of global import nonetheless. Was Powell mad? Hard to say, the pitiless intellect, the staring blue eyes, the undertakers suits, all combined to project a slightly unhinged demeanour. His 'Rivers of Blood' was undoubtedly prescient and well ahead of its time, but alas the vocabulary used was too exciteable which greatly diminished its impact, consequently the speech ended his career.

Do I associate myself with Powell? Only in terms of the pitiless intellect.

Powell was correct in demanding a single citizenship, no democracy can survive as a cohesive polity if some citizens have the odds perpetually stacked against them. Indeed, they may then be persuaded to leave for greener pastures...

20 June 2014 at 13:10  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

We’ve strayed from the OP a little but it may help our American cousin appreciate what its like living a pressure-cooker environment of high density housing in an island country not much bigger than Texas but with three times the population (64 million).

If he could take on board a little of the tension with which we live daily, it may aid his appreciation of our views.

Len has already given a prime example from his experience of Blackburn.

Take the current row over Islamic influence in state schools in almost exclusively Muslim dominated areas of many towns.

Minister for Education Michael Gove announced that all schools will in future be required to promote "British values", including equality between genders and tolerance of other faiths.

His department later added that this was "aimed at persons undermining the fundamental British values of democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs".

A spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain said, the new clause was dangerous because it allowed the education secretary to decide who was or was not an extremist based on his own views, and would penalise law-abiding Muslims who wanted to take part in public life.

Talha Ahmad, a senior member of the MCB, said: "As a matter of principle, to have so much power vested in one hand is wrong. But then to have powers over an area over which there is no consensus is, frankly speaking, quite dangerous.
"

Can you feel the sinister implications in that last paragraph CJ?

20 June 2014 at 14:36  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Carl

"What I am defending is the principle that gov'ts must deal with people as individuals and not as a group. It shouldn't just label someone a 'kulak' and have him deported or criminalized or shot."

That sounds reasonable, but then what do we make of the Jihadi returning home from the field of battle with his new found skills of terror and murder used in promoting the Islamic cause. You are saying that we cannot simply label him a 'Jihadi' and deport him in principle. Yet it sounds like we already have legislation in place to do just that.

"You say a Muslim is a threat by virtue of how closely he conforms to the Koran. I am not sure I accept that, but let's stipulate it for the sake of argument. What are the policy implications of that? What do you want the gov't to do to specifically address that threat? I am nor asking for abstracts that apply to the group. I want to know specific measures that may be imposed on threatening people."

These are difficult questions Carl and I don't have any answers that satisfy your constraints. Let me say further that I am not unsympathetic to your warnings in this thread and I understand why you are making them.

20 June 2014 at 14:38  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Some foreigners think Burma is a paradise. It would be for some commenting here.Maybe you could all write to the Burmese Embassy to congratulate them on the way Burma treats Muslims.
IanCad
"Astonishing that so many still think the WTC destruction was an inside job."
Well the Saudis did it not the Iraqis.

20 June 2014 at 15:36  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Bluedog

So let's cut to the chase. What would be wrong with the following law?

The citizenship of every Muslim is revoked. A Muslim is defined as an individual who has at least one grandparent from a predominately Muslim nation unless he can present credible proof that he was never or is no longer a Muslim. The defendant would have to establish this lack of connection with Islam beyond reasonable doubt. His citizenship will be considered revoked until he makes his case.

Because that kind of law would work. Is that what you want?

carl

20 June 2014 at 18:45  
Blogger bluedog said...

Carl @ 18.45, you have earlier asked, Is a Muslim a threat by virtue if the fact that he is a Muslim?'

There are two ways of dealing with Islam. The first is to defeat the ideology of Islam and persuade the Muslims that their beliefs are wrong. No attempt at this exercise has yet been made in any coherent sense by any non-Muslim state. However, all Muslims are commanded to live their lives according to Sharia and to ensure the implementation of Sharia as the basis of society. Sharia, to this communicant at least, seems to be a criminal code, an assertion that requires verification. Certainly at a simplistic level, Sharia and the Koran offer injunctions that are the antithesis of the Judeo-Christian morality that I assume our nations still share: don't kill, don't lie, don't steal.

The second option for dealing with Islam in Britain is to seize a secure base in North Africa, round up the Muslims and fly them out. A flying time of two hours allows for an efficient shuttle service in A380s. Sierra Leone would be another option, but the flying time is much longer.

Moving on from there, it is possible that one could, within the frame of the UK's existing criminal code, proscribe Sharia as an criminal manifesto. Clearly this would have an explosive outcome, literally. But at some point it may have to be done. If freedom of conscience leads to a criminal ideology, what are the priorities of a liberal democracy?

Your position is predicated on a moral relativism and an assumption of cultural equality which this communicant utterly rejects. As His Grace frequently avers, it a matter of the hierarchy of rights. What of the rights of the non-Muslim British?

When awakened to the risks of Muslim domination, and it is happening, cutting to the chase, we will fight.

So yes, something along the lines of your post at 18.45 is possible if you want to go down that path. Frankly it seems superfluous. Specifically the definition of a Muslim seems inaccurate and redundant and it is not obvious why you included it. Your definition does not allow for converts. Criminalising Islam, which seems easy enough in principle, may be a better option. Salami tactics may be preferable to an immediate clash of civilisations.

Quite apart from the implications for the Queen's Peace of expelling the Muslims and/or criminalising Islam, there are also very considerable economic risks. The OIC now has 53 members, and an immediate trade embargo can be expected if the envelope is pushed too far and too fast. The economic effects of such a trade embargo would be extremely serious.

However, by way of repetition, dhimmitude is not an option.

20 June 2014 at 22:15  
Blogger bluedog said...

Dreadnaught @ 14.36. Great post. You would never know that the US allegedly shares the same values, customs and traditions as ourselves from some of what one reads. Any word on how CJ is going with his Spanish lessons?

20 June 2014 at 22:22  
Blogger Ivan said...


Manfarang @1536, the conspirators have some grounds :

a) The apparent free fall collapse of Building 7

b) Some questions regarding the insurance coverage of the WTC complex. There seems to have been a rider that increases the payout in the event of a terrorist attack. Which if true is weird to say the least, as that complex was the target of an earlier attack in the 90s by a blind Sheikh. But I would not put anything past the AIG types, that could not protect my money, but instead underwrote the whole housing bubble in the US.

c) Then there is the speed and dispatch with which Saudi citizens were sent back. Bandar or Abdullah were to seen be holding George Bush's hand a little too tightly.

If anyone is providing answers to these questions, I have to make it clear that I know basic physics, a little of the properties of steel at high temperatures, and have no doubt whatsoever that it was Mohammed Atta and his men that brought down the twin towers with the satanic device of using planeloads of screaming children as guided missiles. May he rot in hell.

But as always there are (perhaps wholly imaginary) wheels within wheels.

21 June 2014 at 02:26  
Blogger Manfarang said...

bluedog
The UK is staking its claim as the western centre for Islamic finance by becoming the first non-Muslim country to sell a government bond, expected in the next few weeks, that complies with the religion’s ban on interest, selling £200m in a five year investment.

21 June 2014 at 12:24  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older