The BBC ran their main item today on the situation in Pakistan/Afghanistan. David Miliband was on to waffle about how developments here are putting British lives at risk, but he omitted to share with us that some British muslims are travelling to that region to ensure British lives are put at risk! Miliband seems to think this is an economic and welfare issue – what a dhimmi!
EXTREMISTS?
Bookmark the permalink.
The BBC, and other sections of the political ‘liberal/left’ are inclined to be intellectually weak at understanding the nature, motivation and history of Islam.
LAWRENCE AUSTER nails it here:
“Non-Islam theories of Islamic Extremism”
[Opening extract]:
“Islam in its concrete particulars is too alien and threatening to liberal Westerners for them to acknowledge its existence as it really is. So they keep putting Islam into this or that Western-centric conceptual box in order to make Islam seem familiar and assimilable. But because these non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism are all false or inadequate, new theories, or new variations on old theories, must keep being invented. The never-ending compulsion of Western intellectuals to explain uniquely Islamic beliefs and institutions in non-Islamic terms expresses the very essence of liberalism, which is to deny the existence of human differences that really matter. Listed below are the blog articles I’ve written on this subject.” [See link for continuation.]
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009044.html
I wouldn’t call you a racist for your views martin, just an idiot thats all.
”I’d intern all Muslims living in the UK.”
So, because a small minority of the pop support terrorism, you’d arrest all of them? which would achieve what? it would make more people terrorists – terrorism is often a response to an action of some kind. Al Qaeda are a response to US bases in saudi arabia. All you’re plan would do is turn 2% of the Muslim population that are extremists into 90%. Great plan that.
David, you write about the British men joining the taleban over there as fact, which it is not.
Gus Haynes | 06.03.09 – 11:24 am |
I can tell you quite categorically that it is a fact that a large number of Muslims who are resident in the UK (Pakistani or others, many who have unfortunately been given British citizenship) have attended terrorist training courses in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Many of them have gone on to attack UK forces in Afghanistan. Your shite about the ‘ulterior motives’ about statements from the UK military or Intelligence Services is just that, shite.
You are either completely stupid or have your own ulterior motives.
If I was running this site you wouldn’t be here. Now stop wasting everyone’s time and fuck off.
George R | 06.03.09 – 5:39 pm
Some excellent stuff in there George –
will take some digesting.
The liberal mindset is one built on unconscious guilt. This guilt is the residue of the denial of God in western society – both personal and public.
In what can only be described as a “perfect storm” the rise of the fundamental islamic death cult is exposing the weakness decadence and denial in us all and will ulitmately lead to the destruction of the west unless the spiritual source of our truth is renewed in us and God becomes the focus of our lives once more.
‘Jihadwatch'(Oct 2008):
“UK: Poll reveals a significant number of Muslims support suicide bombings”
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/023153.php
But the typical BBC response about the Islamic jihad suicide bombings in Britain:
(from Lawrence Auster site)
“BBC blames suicide terrorism on being in the wrong ‘context'”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004935.html
-and that relates back to Lawrence Auster’s broader critique of the failure of liberal intellectuals to understand the nature of Islam:
“Non-Islam theories of Islamic extremism”
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/009044.html
Gus Haynes | 03.03.09 – 6:23 pm
its not cos they are jewish – its cos they carry out an insane foreign policy which isnt working ,and is the root cause of all islamic fundamentalism today.
There was me thinking Islam was the ‘root cause of all islamic fundamentalism today’.
The Prophet said: “Judgment Day will not come until you fight the Jews and kill them. The Jews will hide behind stones and trees, and the stones and tree will call: Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him • except for the Gharqad tree, which is the tree of the Jews.” I have heard that they are planting many of these trees now. […]
As for you Jews • the curse of Allah upon you. The curse of Allah upon you, whose ancestors were apes and pigs. You Jews have sown hatred in our hearts, and we have bequeathed it to our children and grandchildren. You will not survive as long as a single one of us remains.
http://mickhartley.typepad.com/blog/2009/03/our-fighting-with-the-jews-is-eternal.html
But of course, ‘its not cos they are jewish’.
George R | 06.03.09 – 6:14 pm
“The liberal mind cannot admit that there is evil and that people can choose it, because to choose good over evil, or even just to refrain from evil, presupposes some higher good than self-interest or acting out one’s impulses. And that opens the floodgates to belief in a spiritual realm < something most liberals view with alarm." Excellent stuff George!
“MI5 has estimated that up to 4,000 British Muslims had travelled to Pakistan and, before the fall of the Taliban, to Afghanistan for military training. The main concern until now has been about the jihadists being able to get their Job Seekers Allowance and Incapacity Benefit paid into their bank accounts”,
A Government spokesperson said “It is unreasonable to expect those on computer course,studying drug addiction or attending weddings should have to sign on on Monday mornings.”
“Al Qaeda are a response to US bases in saudi arabia.”
Are they? This would fit in well with your agenda Gus but its not true.
“Al-Qaeda has its origins in the uprising against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Thousands of volunteers from around the Middle East came to Afghanistan as mujahideen, warriors fighting to defend fellow Muslims.”
“After the Soviets withdrew from Afghanistan, bin Laden returned to his native Saudi Arabia. He founded an organization to help veterans of the Afghan war, many of whom went on to fight elsewhere (including Bosnia) and comprise the basis of al-Qaeda.”
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/al-qaeda-terrorism.html
Gus Haynes: Please explain WHERE you get your facts from on Muslim terrorists in the UK? I just take the view that all Mulsims are suspects.
You have no evidence on the figures you quote.
Muslims don’t believe in democracy, they believe in Sharia law above man made law. Do you agree with that Gus?
Where do you get 2% of the population from Gus?
This Government fiddles the immigration figures. They only count the head of house (the male) so you can double or treble the numbers of Muslims living here.
Muslims are dangerous. All of them are radicalised. Please explain Gus why the bushy bearded loons are allowed to rant in Mosques but the Police never get tipped off? It’s only when the likes of Channel 4 go undercover we see and hear the truth.
Until all Muslims are removed from western Countries we will have to suffer Muslim terrorism.
And remember Gus. If Sharia law comes in your trips to meet your friends on Hampstead Heath will be outlawed.
Well, i’ll just go somewhere other than Hampstead Heath won’t I? Plenty of places around…
Muslims are dangerous. All of them are radicalised.
Now that just silly, silly Martin getting paranoid again. Wheres your evidence for this? The 2% thing I said was a generalisation, I don’t literally mean 2% are terrorists – my point is that your plan would turn the radical no. of Muslims from a tiny proportion to a very large proportion very quickly.
You’re more than welcome to join me at the Heath if you wish. We welcome all sorts, even conservatives. George Osbourne often joins in.
I think the security services should encourage this ‘small’ ‘minority’ of extremists to go and try their luck with our fighting men and women.
One-way ticket to Pakistan: £160;
GBU-38: £28,000;
The look on the a proponent of a vile, evil, totalitarian, racist, misogynistic, pedophilic, Arabian-moon-fairy-centric deathcult which has brought nothing but violence, hatred, human suffering and mayhem’s face milliseconds before he gets turned into red mist: priceless.
“Their agenda? To draw more attention to their struggle, to try and get more govt support, better weapons, body armour etc. Not to mention to keep their sacrifice in the public eye”
Why would relatively junior officers use the fact that there has been Bradford and Birmingham accent in the radio intercepts in Afghanistan.With this government,that is more likely to get troops pulled out.
Why would that get the army “better weapons,body armour etc”. Do bullets from an AK47 fired by a Bradfordian have greater penetration?
Gus Haynes: Gus you really don’t get it do you? Have you read the shite in the Koran? Muslims really do believe it. The teachings of the Koran are anti democratic anti gay (I thought you’d get that one) and anti woman.
There is nothing in the Koran that teaches tolerance. Muslims take the teachings of the Koran above that of man made law.
Tell me Gus baby. Do you think Sharia law should be introduced into the UK?
Some Muslims take it above British law – not all. I have many Muslim friends who are religious but do not treat Sharia as above British law.
No i don’t think Sharia should be introduced – think you’ve asked me that before, memory going is it darling? Just cos we disagree on some things here it doesn’t make me an Islamist – surely you know better than that?
And you didn’t take up my offer for the heath….
“…my point is that your plan would turn the radical no. of Muslims from a tiny proportion to a very large proportion very quickly.”
There you go again – where the hell do you get your figures from – the Lib Dems or the BBC?
Gus:
Remember the scenes recently of British police shuffling backwards en masse in the face of an increasingly confident crowd of young Muslim men? Running away, because their jobs on the line if trouble is challenged – they know there will be no support from politicians masquerading as their Chief Constables.
Lord Ahmed and the Fitna screening – his threat to besiege Parliment with 10,000 muslim radicals.
Not long since Dutch politician Theo van Gogh whad his his throat cut by a vengeful muslim ( our press pretended the murderer was an animal rights activist)
No British media have reprinted the Danish Cartoons, for fear of violent “reprisals”
The “liquid bombers” currently on trial, including the laughably double-barrel surnamed British “convert”
The BBC is already infested with fifth-columnists.
Does none of this suggest any form of a pattern?
Every time its muslims who threaten us with violence, not the other way around. The peaceloving ones keep their heads down for the same reason – fear.
Its our freedom of speech under attack. Martin’s language may be a bit rough sometimes but his aim is true. And yours I’m afraid Gus, is not.
why is that addressed to me? I’ve never claimed there is no threat from Islamic radicals. Some people here misunderstand and hype up the threat, but I never argued that there is no threat. Don’t try to paint me with that brush squire.
it isn’t just Martin’s language thats rough, if you know what I mean….
Gus Haynes | 06.03.09 – 7:47 pm |
Well at least admit that you have quoted two untruths and don’t just try and hide behind martins colourful language.
Martin
25% of ‘British’ muslims said that the Security Service (MI5) were behind the 7/7 atrocities.
Over 50% said that the evidence against those convicted of terrorist plots was made up.
I can’t recall the exact percentage but I beleiev some 60% of ‘British’ muslims thought that Mossad planned 9/11.
Having lived and worked in Arab/Muslim countries for most of the seventies I know their mindset. It is quite acceptable for them to lie to, steal from and to kill Kuffars.
From the mid 90s to when I retired in 2005 I was involved in work that ran alongside terrorist investigations.
From the inception of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre (JTAC) in 2003 I had access to their output and weekly briefing sheets which I used to read when time permitted.
I can state that the numbers being given to the public have been downplayed. I suspect by design.
The situation is worse than the current government would have you believe.
Prior to retiring I was aware of the US invovlement in intellegence gathering against the muslim terrorists resident in the UK (This in itself is unprecedented as there were specific protocols concerning this. For the CIA to conduct these intelligence gathering operations would require HMG approval, which they have, and a recognition that the problem is now running out of control of UK resources), but the scale of their operation surprised me when it came into the public domain recently.
The sources quoting it are genuine.
For the life of me I can’t understand why you are indulging that moron Haynes.
Gus, you suffer from a serious case of equalititis. The British army officer represents a modern, democratic and highly-accomplished society. The British Jihadist represents a “religion” that would enslave society and drag it back to medieval ignorance and barbarism.
Yes, they both have an agenda. That of the former is to protect civilisation. That of the latter is to destroy it.
I’d take the word of a British army officer over a jihadist any day.
It’s ridiculous that anyone has to point that out.
Shying away (out of a real fear) from recognising and describing the ‘extremism’ of Islam: the BBC does it routinely, and in comparison, the ‘Daily Mail’ does it infrequently, but here…
‘Jihadwatch’
“Daily Mail removes reference to Muslim husband telling his wife to read the Qur’an as he strangled her”
‘Jihadwatch’ comment:
“Why would the Daily Mail remove its reference to Malik Mannan telling his wife to read the Qur’an as he strangled her? Because if it had left it in, Muslims would have been angered? Shouldn’t they instead be angered, if what the mainstream media endlessly tells us about the Religion of Peace were true, at Malik Mannan and all the others who find justification for horrific acts of violence in the Qur’an? Shouldn’t non-Muslim authorities in the UK and elsewhere in the West take note of this use of the Qur’an by Muslims, and reevaluate their immigration policies and other policies accordingly? Shouldn’t they be calling upon Muslims in the UK and elsewhere in the West to institute — immediately — honest, transparent, and inspectable programs that teach against the Islamic attitudes and beliefs that lead to honor killing? Shouldn’t a well informed public call upon their elected officials to do all this? Is that what the Daily Mail is trying to prevent?”
(Of course, the same questions are relevant for the BBC, which doesn’t report such cases anything like as frequently as they occur.)
http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/025128.php
George R | 06.03.09 – 8:06 pm |
Its that “book of peace” again – everyone in this country is absolutely petrified to show it in a bad light. As Geert Wilders showed not long ago.
Some good comments on poor Binyam’s enforced holiday in Dorset:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23658444-details/Guantanamo%20Londoner%20'is%20emaciated%20and%20living%20in%20fear'/article.do?expand=true#StartComments
‘New English Review’
Hugh Fitzgerald(2006):
“Almost one hundred things which fuel Muslim Extremism”
http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm?frm=4196&sec_id=4196
jon, what untruths?
”I’d take the word of a British army officer over a jihadist any day.”
so would I, but that doesn’t mean I would unconditionally accept everything the army say as fact. no-one answered me earlier when i raised the issue of why everyone finds it ok to distrust everything the beeb or labour say, and yet would unconditionaly trust the army or intelligence services.
the army has an agenda, don’t be stupid of course it does. its agenda is to justify its precense fighting a war that often feels pointless. its agenda is to publically hype up the problems so it’s struggle recieves more media attention back home, and therefore forces government into properly funding the wars it launches. it is trying to protect civilization is it? really? no its trying to defeat the taleban – protecting civilization is something of an exaggeration isnt it??
Jon:
the mujahadeen and al qaeda are two distinct bodies; dont confuse them. al qaedas decision to attack america, as stated by bin laden, was because of US bases in the holy land. was he being 100% honest? who knows, but thats what he said.
Ethan:
‘…we should not be catching them we should be shooting them dead as quickly and painfully as possible.’
Dead right – and any we do catch should be hanged for treason.
Gus Haynes | 06.03.09 – 8:41 pm |
1. Al Quada
2. “tiny proportion”
“..as stated by bin laden”
Come off it.
“1989 Osama bin Laden founds an international group known as al-Qaeda, which in Arabic means “the base.” It is formed primarily of mujahedeen, meaning holy warriors, and others fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan.”
http://www.francesfarmersrevenge.com/stuff/archive/oldnews3/alqaeda.htm
“..the army has an agenda, don’t be stupid of course it does. its agenda is to justify its precense fighting a war that often feels pointless.”
The British Army fights on behalf of the country – it is the politicians who decide when they go in and when they come out. The army does not make those decisions.
What’s Gus’s agenda? He appears on here as a diverison to take attention from the BBC’s anti-British bias, but why?
Allan@Aberdeen | 06.03.09 – 9:25 pm |
God knows – maybe its time to ignore him
“the army has an agenda, don’t be stupid of course it does. its agenda is to justify its precense fighting a war that often feels pointless. its agenda is to publically hype up the problems so it’s struggle recieves more media attention back home, and therefore forces government into properly funding the wars it launches. it is trying to protect civilization is it? really? no its trying to defeat the taleban – protecting civilization is something of an exaggeration isnt it??”
None of that illiterate tripe actually gives a reason why reporting that good loyal citizens from Bradford and Birmingham are out there trying to kill their fellow Brits would earn the Army brownie points. The Nu Labor trash would pull out for “Social Cohesion”.
I’m not trying to divert attention, nor to waste time. I just think a little debate is good for us all. democracy in action right? My view is this – I disagree with a lot of the stuff written here, and I say my opinion, same way you say yours. we disagree thats fair enough. lets all be grateful we’re not in Saudi or Afghanistan where debate like this rarely if ever happens. aside from the occasion when I’m accused of supporting terrorism (which is a smear if I’ve ever heard one) I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate.
Gus Haynes | 06.03.09 – 10:30 pm |
This blog is not for open debate, it is about the BBC and their bias. So please don’t keep diverting from the reason for this site.
Out of 90 comments some 28 are by Gus Haynes.That isn’t debate it is SPAM.
To coin the American phrase Gus Haynes is “Astroturfing” the thread.
Gus Haynes: Rubbish. All you do is whine when people don’t agree with your leftist views then spit your dummy out demanding people are ‘banned’
Cripes, Draper must be paying Gus at so much per word.
Gus Haynes:
aside from the occasion when I’m accused of supporting terrorism (which is a smear if I’ve ever heard one) Gus Haynes | 06.03.09 – 10:30 pm | #
—————————–
And what is your comment about George Osborne?
AndrewSouthLondon:
Not long since Dutch politician Theo van Gogh whad his his throat cut by a vengeful muslim ( our press pretended the murderer was an animal rights activist)
Well just to put the record straight (feeling a touch pedantic this morning) – the Dutch politician was Pim Fortuyn not van Gogh – he was the film producer.
Otherwise, spot on!
Correction gratefully acknowledged. (Reminder: more homework before posting Andrew!)
AndrewSouthLondon | 07.03.09 – 8:24 am
a vengeful muslim ( our press pretended the murderer was an animal rights activist)….
… and just to be clear, Fortyn was murdered by an animal rights activist (who was not a Muslim); while Theo van Gogh was murdered by a Muslim (who didn’t give a shit about animal rights, particularly goats).
The fog of advancing age…
Anonymous:
Wikipedia:
Wilhelmus Simon Petrus “Pim” Fortuyn ….. He was assassinated during the 2002 Dutch national election campaign by militant animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaf, who claimed in court he had murdered Fortuyn to stop him from exploiting Muslims as “scapegoats” and targeting “the weak parts of society to score points” in seeking political power.[2][3][4]
Fortuyn was the centre of several controversies for his views about immigrants and Islam. He called Islam “a backward culture” and said that if it were legally possible he would close the borders for Muslim immigrants”
I knew there was a muslim connection somewhere. The “animal rights activist” claims he did it in behalf of muslims. Shame Pim wasn’t deserving of his rights— to life.
Gus Haynes | 06.03.09 – 10:30 pm |
I just think a little debate is good for us all. democracy in action right?
You’re debating will o’ the wisp side issues to escape the fact that you are a proven liar and are ignorant of facts and history. Aside from your three most recent busts, on this thread you have repeatedly denied that there were British Muslims fighting and supporting the Taliban, and you even pretended some of the proof I presented didn’t exist. You’ve since been shown more facts which prove you’re either lying or totally ignorant.
My view is this – I disagree with a lot of the stuff written here, and I say my opinion, same way you say yours. we disagree thats fair enough. lets all be grateful we’re not in Saudi or Afghanistan where debate like this rarely if ever happens. aside from the occasion when I’m accused of supporting terrorism (which is a smear if I’ve ever heard one) I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate.
Like nearly every other defender of the indefensible, you came here not to engage in honest debate, but just to fight people you don’t like. You’re not interested in honest debate, otherwise you wouldn’t have behaved as you have on this thread, and you wouldn’t have told DV on the other thread that he shouldn’t take an “anti-Labour, pro-Israel” stance with the B-BBC book.
As soon as you come out with a pathetic cliché like “I enjoy the cut and thrust of debate”, you expose your true motives.
You are a troll, nothing more. You used to serve a similar purpose to other defenders of the indefensible: pointing out the occasional time when the BBC reported something we said they didn’t. Other than that, you’re just looking for a fight, and not interested in honest debate. A troll.