Guest post by Graeme Thompson (who comments as ‘hippiepooter’)
How do we combat Jihad?
We recognise it for the Act of Treason that it is. We recognise that the global counter-terrorist war we have (half) been engaged in is a war against the Jihad being waged against us. Whether Jihad is prosecuted against us by violence or by the black propaganda of internal enemy organisations like Cageprisoners, we deal with Treason accordingly, we deal with captured enemy accordingly.
Any Muslim who says the West is waging a war against Islam is committing Treason. Any non-Muslim who says the West is waging war against Islam is committing Treason. It is enemy black propaganda. At time of war, aiding and abetting the enemy should lead to immediate incarceration. We should have military tribunals to deal with these incarcerations according to the rules of war. We need to have our own Guantanamo’s. Not just for our domestic jihadists, but for those on the Marxist left and the Jew haters who make common cause with Jihad. After 12 years of being at war, it is time we got up to speed on what being at war means.
Unlike Melanie Phillips whom I hugely admire, I have a lot of time for the Prime Minister’s diplomatic hypocrisy over Islam in the wake of the Woolwich Jihad atrocity. There are a lot of British Muslims who practice their religion through the prism of the common humanity that binds us all. The last thing any decent human being wants to see is a violent backlash against innocent British Muslims at the hands of opportunist racists like the EDL. President George W Bush did of course set this great example of restraint and tolerance in the wake of 9/11.
However, too much diplomatic hypocrisy leaves us vulnerable. We encourage the enemy to think we are utterly stupid, we encourage ourselves to be utterly stupid.
One still marvels that most of the country thinks that when waging a counter-terrorist war there is something wrong with having TPOWs (Terrorist Prisoners of War) in Guantanamo or wheresoever.
Who has been at the forefront of fomenting this suicidal idiocy? The BBC.
The anti-western narrative of its predominantly left wing news and current affairs coverage of the Afghan and Iraq wars has played directly into the hands of jihad propaganda.
Possibly, the best example of the BBC’s complicity with the enemy, is that brainchild of former Guantanamo inmates Moazzem Begg and Binyam Mohamed, Cageprisoners. It could not be more patently obvious that Cageprisoners is a Jihadi propaganda organisation. The best argument in favour of Guantanamo is that Jihadists want to close it down. Moazzem Begg and Binyam Mohamed should be in a British Guantanamo yesterday. BBC journalists like Steve Evans and Angela Saini who do their propaganda work for them should enjoy a nice friendly chat with officers from MI5 on the meaning of Treason, and be left in no doubt that the next time they commit it they’ll be in a jail cell within 24 hours.
That’s how wars are fought. If we don’t fight this war we’re in, we’re going to lose it.
Had we heeded Churchill’s warnings about Hitler we could have avoided WWII, let’s hope we heed his warnings about Islam before we end up in WWIII.
Bravo hippiepooter. Are you allowed to say “black propaganda”? 😉
The word Islamophobia is more invented propaganda.
I disagree with one point: the EDL is not “opportunist racists”; it may well have a more than average share of racists tagging along and it may well have let itself become hijacked but if Islam were like Jehovah’s witnesses (pushy and a pain but tolerable) the EDL wouldn’t exist.
I posted on Saturday about how the Muslim voice needs to be heard. They need to heal themselves from within: if they do not want “a war on Islam” they need to start being more than vociferous in their condemnation of hate-preachers and young jihadists: they need to actively expose them and hand them in. David Cameron Boris et al are too scared to say this, they just mouth platitudes and say Islam isn’t the problem…well IT IS! And if the Muslims don’t sort it they will find more and more opposition.
I have to agree about the EDL bit. I visited their website the other day and I have to say that they don’t appear to be the raging racists and Islamophobes that they’re being painted as.
Their view of yer average Muslim who just wants to go about his daily life like the rest of us is fine.
They’re just completely against the more radical elements who want nothing more than to impose Shariah law upon the UK.
I’m not a member of the EDL and I don’t envisage ever becoming one but if Shariah law in the UK ever became a realistic possibility (I doubt it ever will) then I might reconsider.
I have no doubts that the EDL does attract outright racists and people who just want to see the back of Muslims but, overall, I think it is being painted with a very broad brush by most.
A bit like the Muslims who get tarred with the same brush that the likes of Choudary attracts.
You have no idea how much I’d love to take Tommy Robinson at face value, but that is not good reason to do so.
Ex-BNP, football hooligan, on a recent documentary hurling missiles at the police on a night out, the recent rucus with the Old Bill in Woolwich after the murder of Drummer Rigby.
It takes the credulity to believe that Moazzem Begg and Binyam Mohamed aren’t Al Qa’eda terrorists to believe that Tommy Robinson’s EDL isn’t a bunch of racist football hooligans.
Having said that, of course he represents nothing like the threat that the forementioned terrorists represent or their propaganda arm, the BBC. Give me Tommy Robinson over Jeremy Paxman any day.
As much as I dont trust Tommy Robinson or his organisation, one has to admire his tremendous guts.
Scuzballs like Paxman drive me to have sympathy with him on a personal level. He’s an ordinary working class guy in a media pool that he’s not a natural in swimming in, but he still puts his head above the parapet.
Not on your nelly though is he not a thug or credibly non-racist.
Anyone who uses phrases like “not on your nelly” is not qualified to identify a thug. 😛
:p
To reply in a less flippant way, I obviously visited their website as a result of their link with the aftermath of the recent Woowich murder.
I expected to see “Muslims/Blacks/Immigrants generally out of the UK!” messages on there but they weren’t.
Perhaps if I got into their “inner sanctum”, I would see a different side.
However, if you’re going to put yourself in the kind of position that Tommy Robinson has, why not just go the whole hog, if that is what you believe?
Why present a watered-down version on your website, attract people and then put them off when your true purpose becomes obvious?
I would tend to agree that Mr Robinson’s view may well be that the only good Muslim is a Muslim far away from where they can influence UK society – how many of tomorrow’s radicals are yesterday’s “nice guys who used to say ‘good morning’ when we crossed in the street”?
I support his right to bring things to public attention even though he may well be more radical than the radicals he opposes.
Rather than ostracising these people, bring them into the general debate.
Choudary vs Robinson would be PPV stuff.
The EDL, like their less plausible antecedents in the NF/BNP; are the symptom not the cause.
I am sure that Tommy Robinson would much prefer to walk the streets safely, get a job and have his family back.
But things are that skewered and corrupt, so bovine and mad that HE is seen as a threat. Not Islam. If only eh?
When the EDL begin to behead British people in broad daylight in the capital of our country…THEN I`ll see them as the same problem as Islam.
Until then, I`ll worry about Sura 9 and its quotation by the Nigerian fanatics…that`s set in stone, not some Twitter trash from racist ignoramuses-and Tommy Robinson is neither ignorant nor racist.
Which is why the BBC hate him. So he`s alright with me!
ChrisH, I’m with you on that point. I don’t see the EDL as being a racist organisation; repeating that only serves to reinforce the bbc misinformation about them and why they have come into existence.
Self-hating white troll, hippiepooter, has excelled himself with this post. He condemns the EDL as racist, even though it has black members and a Jewish section. And he praises Bush for his “restraint”, ie doing next to nothing about moslem fanatics after 9/11. Give him a job with the BBC as the “safe” voice of anti-islamism.
Pamela Geller (who happens to be Jewish) of ‘Atlas Shrugs,’ would not associate herself with EDL if she thought it were ‘racist’.
“IN WAKE OF LONDON BEHEADING, EDL MARCHES FOR FREEDOM;
MEDIA, LEFTISTS AND ISLAMIC SUPREMACISTS ATTACK”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/05/in-wake-of-london-beheading-edl-marches-for-freedom-media-leftists-and-islamic-supremacists-attack.html
Supplementary.
http://www.jihadwatch.org/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/br0nc0s/managed-mt/mt-srch.cgi?search=tommy+robinson+pamela+geller&IncludeBlogs=1&limit=20
Oh well Mr Hills, if the EDL isn’t racist, I guess you wont be supporting it then?
Miaow.
You forgot to click “Like”.
the majority of muslims are indeed moderate people … of that there is no doubt, sadly that is inspite of islam not because of it.
Islam, is inherrently fascist and totalitarian, the issue is by excusing it, even may i say pandering to it, will Islam, by its adherrents change? … we know those adherrents are brainwashed into this perfect religion/perfect example of conduct nonsense … so unfortunately we should know the answer.
For too long the “money extraction” machine has been pandered to, there is always another obfuscation, another straw man argument, another so called grievance … muslims are not victims, unless of course of Islam, such a mentality is not condusive to moving forward … for the harsh and simple reason, there is far too much profit made
by them by not changing, just look at the way Islam has wormed its way into politics here, local government, the police, this absurd play at racism, this bloody nonsense of religious, “hatred”, (shakes head) blasphemy law!
Firstly I disagree with your statement that the West is at war with Islam, and that statement is highly provocative and dangerous.
It makes the religious justification for Jihad a valid one, and even if you bring in what ever laws you choose there are nearly 3 million official Muslims in the UK plus an untold number of illegals. How do you propose to fight them all?
Currently without a Caliphate offensive Jihad is illegal – this is why Muslims want to re establish the Caliphate and why they need always to establish that they are under attack to justify their actions as ‘defensive Jihad’. What you are proposing hands the Jihadists that justification on a plate.
Back in the reign of Edward VI the promulgation of the Christian faith in England had to be in the vernacular. This is the origin of the Book of Common Prayer & 1662 Communion services.
Gone was the old Sarum Latin rite and the reading from the bible in Latin, but it meant that everyone knew what was written and no longer had to rely on a priest to tell them.
No more ‘turbulent priests’ who could mischievously manipulate the people by telling them only what they wanted them to know. This is an equality which should be shared with Islam.
An end to teaching the Qur’an in the dead language of classical Arabic, where no one knows what it contains and the hate preachers are allowed to manipulate the people who in their ignorance rely on them for their beliefs.
A registered list of those responsible for Madrassas and a £1 million pound fine levied on every one found to be teaching in language other than the vernacular.
This would have the effect of bankrupting the madrassa and all the officials supporting it. A man of straw would not be eligible to be a registered person of the madrassa.
Of course there’s no chance of it becoming law, because that would involve politicians actually doing something the Muslims didn’t like – and that’s never going to happen in the UK !
Erm, read again. I said the exact opposite. It is a Jihadist lie to say we’re at war with Islam.
Good article here from Quentin Letts about the BBC, who are more than willing to give an open mike to Islamic extremist radicalisers, yet consider it appropriate to effectively ‘no-platform’ other proponents of views that are far less ‘controversial’, or even mainstream…
Defenders of the BBC will say it is important that we know such violent sympathies bubble under society’s facade. Society has, in its darkest pockets, men and women who believe in all sorts of Satanic misdeeds.
But liberals, rightly, would never contemplate giving them a platform on prime-time network television.
…
Indeed, I find it more difficult to feel disquiet about Channel 4, whose news reporting has long been testing and rigorous, even if it often dresses to the Left. It is harder to give the BBC the benefit of the doubt. This is a Corporation which for years has promoted political correctness at the expense of journalistic truth.
This is a Corporation whose news editors have been bullied into silencing criticism of working-class views about multiculturalism and immigration.
You agreed with Enoch? Your voice went unheard. The middle-class snoots of the BBC hierarchy would not hear of such intolerance.
You support the death penalty, English nationalism, a flat tax rate, an end to the welfare system? No airtime for you.
Would Anjem Choudary have been given such a comfortable ride on primetime telly if he had been attacking wind farms; if he had been calling for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union; if he had been questioning the MMR vaccine?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2331382/I-hate-censorship-BBCs-wrong-pander-enemies.html
Yes. Well said, Mr Letts.
Some explanation as to how the BBC is complicit would help me better understand why this was posted here and not elsewhere. Linking to something doesn’t demonstrate how it’s propaganda. Further elaboration would be helpful.
It’s just a rant, like the author’s homosexual conspiracy blog – which is only of interest to gays in denial, like the late Ernst Rohm.
http://www.hippiepooter.blogspot.co.uk/
DP, click on the links.
INBBC refuses to use the appropriate phrase ‘Islamic jihad’ (below).
And INBBC now permanently uses the wrong word ‘militants’ as substitute for word ‘Muslims’.
“Somali militants launch deadly Kenya raid”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-22675799
Perhaps INBBC wants us to believe that Woolwich Islamic jihad murderer, who was active in Kenya-Somalia area, is a mere ‘militant’ too, and not an Islamic jihadist and Muslim?
“This week’s utterly disturbing Leftists.
Much of the reaction on British Left has been to search for apologies to make and excuses to give.
It’s a devastating and destructive philosophy.”
By Alexander Wickham.
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/3629/this_week_s_utterly_disturbing_leftists
PARIS.
For Islamophilic INBBC:-
“Paris police search for ‘bearded man seen praying’ before soldier attack.
“Police in Paris have obtained video footage of a bearded man ‘[praying’ shortly before he stabbed a French soldier in the neck, fuelling suspicions it was an Islamist terror attack.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/10082482/Paris-police-search-for-bearded-man-seen-praying-before-soldier-attack.html
I blame French foreign policy.
Could be Amish. I’m pretty sure they were the ones burning cars the last few years.
Supplementary.
“Stabber of French Soldier Prayed Before He Stabbed.”
By Daniel Greenfield.
http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfield/stabber-of-french-soldier-prayed-before-he-stabbed/
One of the most glaring examples of BBC treason goes at least as far back as 1998, following the US embassy bombings.
In this article we are told:
UK scorned as ‘soft’ on extremists
Islamic radicals have a strong presence in the UK
The terrorist acts, in which more than 200 people were killed, were welcomed by at least one militant group, al-Muhajiroun.
Speaking on BBC Radio, Omar Bakri Mohamed, who heads the London-based organisation, vented his anger at America for its retaliatory air strikes against suspected terrorist targets in Afghanistan and Sudan.
“It was the action of gangsters,” said Mr Mohamed. His group has been linked to Osama bin Laden, the man blamed for the embassy bombings.
While he regretted the civilian casualties in the Africa bombings, Mr Mohamed said the attacks were justified.
Moderates angered
The comments of fellow al-Muhajiroun organiser, Anjem Choudray, are just as likely to enrage Britain’s political moderates.
“One day the black flag of Islam will be flying over Downing Street,” said Mr Choudray.
I highlighted the final sentence to show that this is the aim of the same man that the BBC had on Newsnight recently discussing the Woolwich murder.
Numerous articles follow the above for a variety of Islamic terrorist sponsorships by Bakri, including a fatwa on the writer of gay Jesus play, then Chechnya, then when the Palestinians launched their second intifada, the BBC uses Bakri to run an advertisement
UK Muslims urged to fight Israel
“A Syrian-born activist has called for Muslims in Britain to join a holy war against Israel following the outbreak of violence between Palestinians and Israelis in the Middle East.
Sheik Omar Bakri Mohammed said it was the duty of all Muslims to give support to the Palestinians.
“They are obliged to support their Muslim brothers in Palestine by raising funds, giving them complete moral support and even some of them going abroad to be joined with their Muslim brothers fighting against Israel,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme. “
More articles following 9/11, naturally with open support by Bakri, though a denial that a ‘spokesman’ for his organisation had called for Blair to be assassinated, although it was supposedly taped,
Then we get to Jan 2002.
UK ‘terror target’ claim dismissed
Where this al-Muhajiroun ‘spokesman’ is claimed to have said this
Downing Street and sceptical British Muslim groups have dismissed claims that Britons recruited for the Taleban will return to the UK and launch terror attacks.
Hassan Butt, 22, from Manchester, told the BBC’s Today programme that many would return home to launch terrorist attacks that “strike at the heart” of the UK.
The Lahore-based activist, who claims to be a “spokesman” for Islamic fundamentalist group al-Muhajiroun, says he has recruited 200 British volunteers to fight for the ousted Afghan regime.
The Metropolitan Police are investigating whether a prosecution can be launched against Mr Butt.
Mr Butt told the Radio 4 programme he would now personally encourage attacks on political and military targets in the UK.
He said that although many British Muslims had been “martyred”, others could be bringing the war home from Afghanistan.
“If they do return I do believe that they will take military action within Britain,” he told the BBC.
“One thing I’ve always tried to stress is the point that the mujahideen that are coming in from Britain should strike at the heart of the enemy which is within its own country, within Britain.
“Those mujahideen that are coming from America should strike, again, at the heart of America and I have always been in favour of this.”
Does any statement so far appear to contradict any others that the mindset of Bakri has already uttered? So what now do the BBC allow Bakri to claim?
‘….But Mr Bakri Mohammed, a spokesman for the al-Muhajiroun group, said …”We are an ideological, political party. We do not recruit people to go and fight on behalf of anybody or to indulge in any military activities.”
IN TOTAL CONTRADICTION to his previous quotes above, AND NO-ONE at the BBC picks up on it.
If you read all of the articles, you will see that this is not the only time he contradicts himself, as the prevailing political wind demands, without seemingly any BBC ears pricking up or pointing out the real story behind this man.
At best this is the shoddiest kind of reporting that one can imagine. To allow such an individual with dubious and possible harmful intent to make any kind of assertions he likes without any attempt to research the facts. The very fact that the laziest of reporters could simply have obtained previous statements he made on prior interviews with the BBC with as much ease as I did, simply typing his name into the BBC search engine – but none apparently did so.
Begs the question, is it really laziness by the BBC that made this disgusting excuse for journalism, or the desire to assist even the most radical of Muslim ‘leaders’ in their fervent desire to be accepted by the Muslim world as their friend and increase their media reach?
Personally I think the latter – What scum they are.
This is treason by any other name.
“The very fact that the laziest of reporters could simply have obtained previous statements he made on prior interviews with the BBC with as much ease as I did, simply typing his name into the BBC search engine – but none apparently did so.”
To busy trying to subvert western democracy. Islamists and Correctnicks see each other as useful idiots in that cause.
I’ve lost counts and being open mouthed at the number of times Moazzen Begg and Binyam Mohamed have been on the BBC and their utterly outlandish claims that they are not Al Qa’eda beings accepted with complete credulity.
They’re either on the same page as the Islamists trying to subvert democracy or they’re scared of getting their heads chopped off!
No wonder Islamists think they’re going to beat us!
For sure, they know Dhimmi when they see it.
Considering that Osama bin Laden featured on the first article along with Bakri, even before he became a household name following 9/11, then one has to think the BBC were very aware of Bakri’s mindset and purpose.
When I think about those at the BBC prepared to sacrifice anybody and everybody else for their own self protection and egotism, at least in the short term, I’m filled with complete loathing for these beings.
There’s dumb and dumber – and there’s dim and dhimmi – all with pretensions.
That’s the BBC
A non-INBBC report:
‘Express’:-
“Time to lock up hate preachers”
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/402900/Time-to-lock-up-hate-preachers
Whilst I hate to see anyone in this country criticising the country and the overall way of life, I still believe that freedom of speech should rule.
One day YOUR views may become distasteful for the majority – would YOU like to be imprisoned for them?
However, what I hate about these people is that they use the better parts of Western life in order to attack it.
For example, the freedom of speech.
How long do you think I would last in a Shariah law society if I stood on a street corner and shouted it down?
For example, the welfare state. Choudary believes it is every Muslims duty to claim benefits (or, more accurately, not fund the “evil” regime by paying tax to it).
I think that working on this second is more effective and reasonable than the first.
Benefits can only be paid as the result of taxes paid. If you do not believe in paying taxes then you shouldn’t believe in receiving the benefits of those taxes (the words “hypocritical bastard” should be superfluous at this point).
So… stop his benefits.
“But benefits for all are what we democratically voted on!”, I hear you cry.
OK. Be more specific in the manifesto next time.
I’m sure the wording can be made in such a way that traitorous toerags can be excluded from a share of the bounty.
For INBBC, to build up a profile of Woolwich Islamic jihad murderer, and to make clear which political side he is on:-
‘Atlas Shrugs’:-
“LONDON BEHEADER PROTESTED PLANNED SIOE (STOP ISLAMIZATION OF EUROPE) RALLY”
[Opening excerpt]:-
“The jihad murderer was protesting our group. I love that. Which side are you on? We know what side the media is on.”
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2013/05/london-beheader-protested-sioe-planned-rally.html
Breaking news:
– latest INBBC propaganda to censor Islamic jihad:-
Compare 1.)INBBC ‘report,’ and that of 2.)’Yorkshire Post’-
1.)INBBC:
“Full Sutton Prison warders injured in prison attack”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-22685382
2.) ‘Yorkshire Post’:
“Muslim extremist holds Yorkshire prison officer hostage in Woolwich copycat attack”
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/at-a-glance/general-news/muslim-extremist-holds-yorkshire-prison-officer-hostage-in-woolwich-copycat-attack-1-5714949
Afghanistan.
Is INBBC defending critics of British troops, and not supporting British troops?
INBBC:-
“UK confirms extended detentions of up to 90 Afghans.”
INBBC report, critical of British troops, contains these words:-
“Lawyers for the men, whom the BBC has chosen not to name over fears for their safety”…
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22699473
“Taliban kill 7 Afghan policemen in green-on-green attack”
By BILL ROGGIO
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2013/05/taliban_killed_seven_afghan_po.php
‘We need to have our own Guantanamo’s. Not just for our domestic jihadists, but for those on the Marxist left ‘
You want to introduce POW camps for everyone you disagree with, run by military tribunals? I don’t think you’ve really thought that through have you?
The WWWIII finish really says it all, paranoid hysteria.
Yeah, people were saying the same to Churchill over his warnings about Hitler. By the time reality bit their arse WWII was unavoidable.
In a sane world 9/11 and 7/7 should have taken a big enough chunks out of all our arses to have won the war against Jihad by now. Unfortunately we’re ‘far too sophisticated’ and ‘educated’ to face up to reality.
I really do hope the security services manage to avert the major atrocity that may be the tipping point to WWIII, and that you’ll still be able to feel self-satisfied and morally superior.
If not, many people like you will be whizzing past people like me towards the Right at the speed of light, and maybe even making guys like Tommy Robinson look soft on Islam.
Oh, and the rest of that sentence you chose to discontinue (for the most honourable of motives I’m sure):-
” … and the Jew haters who make common cause with Jihad.”