Hassan Butt doesn't seem moved by the recent Muslim condemnations of the bombers: he is still convinced that they acted in accord with Islam. This may be in part because the condemnations did not even address the Islamic reasoning that people like Butt use to establish their positions. "Radical Muslim questions tactics of bombers," from The Telegraph, with thanks to Nicolei:
A Muslim who helped recruit young men to fight for the Taliban says that those willing to plant bombs in London were guilty of tactical errors but were not immoral.Hassan Butt, 25, earned notoriety in January 2002 when he told the BBC's Today programme that Britons who went to fight the West in Afghanistan would return home to launch terror attacks.
Three years on, in an interview given to Prospect magazine some months before the bombings and published this week, he predicted that "a lot of killing" is unavoidable if the world is to come under the banner of Islam.
Formerly the self-styled spokesman for al-Muhajiroun, an Islamic fundamentalist group, he split from the faction over the issue of the "covenant of security", which forbade Muslims living in Britain from engaging in military action within the country.
While al-Muhajiroun supported the concept, Butt said he did not. His opposition to committing acts of violence was, he said, a matter of tactics rather than principle. "Now, I am not in favour of military action in Britain but if somebody did do it who was British, I would not have any trouble with that either. . . It wouldn't necessarily be the wisest thing to do but it wouldn't be un-Islamic."
Anyone who was involved in such attacks would be a "completely and utterly loose cannon", said Butt, who now lives in the Leeds suburb of Beeston. Such "military action" would be unwise because "a bomb in London would be strategically damaging to Muslims here. Immigration is lax in Britain. . . London has more radical Muslims than anywhere in the Muslim world. A bomb would jeopardise everyone's position. There has to be a place we can come."
I suspect that Butt has also articulated one principle reason why we have not seen a similar bombing in the United States.
But he drew a distinction between Muslims who sought refuge in Britain - who would be bound by the covenant - and those who were born here, who would not."Most of our people, especially the youth, are British citizens," he said. "They owe nothing to the Government. They did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to be protected by Britain."
He is assuming that their primary loyalty will be to the Islamic umma, as is taught by traditional, mainstream Islam.
notice he is discussing tactical and strategic technicalities of war. he isn't wasting time denying the islamic quest for world domination, he just has issues about procedure.
of course, he thoughtfully included a ridiculous statement to reinforce the infantile nature of some islamic arguments;
"they(I) didn't ask to be born..." my son is 17 and i haven't heard that one for at least 10 years. he used to use that line when i would point out that as a member of our family, besides certain rights, he had certain responsibilities to his family, which were his Carved-In-Stone duties,non-neglectable, and therefore not negotiable.
Butt says "Immigration is lax in Britain. . . London has more radical Muslims than anywhere in the Muslim world. A bomb would jeopardise everyone's position. There has to be a place we can come."
What he is saying is that bombing London might make the government tighten up on Muslim immigration which he doesn't want because things are on course for Britain to be islamified by demographic methods.
It wouldn't surprise me if there was some sort of tacit agreement between the government and Muslim leaders such as there won't be any violent jihad as long as you continue to allow us to flood in anyway. Butt doesn't want this jeopardized.
Also what Butt rightly points out is that London is Londonstan, the centre of worldwide Islamic extremists, he is afraid in case the soft British government gets tough and kicks out some of the imans.
By the way, if it is the same Butt that I think it is, he was a school bully who attacked non-Muslims and was chucked out of university for trying to intimidate Christians. I think that he is from Lancashire, it seems clear why he moved across the Penines to be in Beeston where the first wave of islamikazes came from.
check it out;
http://victorhanson.com/articles/hanson072905.html
and
http://victorhanson.com/articles/thornton072605.html
1st one's better than the 2nd
From one idiot called Butt to another:
http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level.php?cat=Trends&loid=8.0.192043391&par=0
PAKISTAN-BRITAIN: NO CHANGE IN UK VISA POLICY FOR PAKISTANIS
'Speaking at a ceremony held to award Chevening scholarships to 10 successful Pakistani candidates, Butt said no Pakistani was involved in the July 7 London terror attacks..'
Further comment superfluous.
If Tony Blair really did wake up on 9/11 then isn't it time he actually got up?
In a perverse way, these atrocities in London have really motivated alot of people from mainstream society to become engaged, to pay attention. On balance, I think it is fair to say that the majority of UK citizens now look at all Muslims with a great deal of cynicism, scepticism & mistrust. I did not find one person at work on Friday who would agree woith the statement "Islam is a religion of peace". In fact, it was met with derision & bursts of laughter. I do believe, & sincerely hope, that this era & the events that have just transpired in London are the beginning of the end of the foothold they have achieved thus far in the UK.
When the trials of these "good British Muslims" start here in the UK, there will be no disguising the truth. I do not believe that Tony Bliar will be so quick & eager to repeat the obvious falsehood that Islam is a religion of peace. It will be recognised as the unreformable, pre-medieval suicide death cult that it is, in a British Court in full view of the general public & the wider world. Of course the revelations there will be no surprise to my friends, home & abroad at JW.
Mr Butt had better get ready for internment. The days of these Islamofascists using our freedom & our civilised nature against us to publicly spout their BS are rapidly coming to an end.
Even this soft, naive, utopianist, socialist, pro Eurabia UK Government will have to throw a bone or two to the inherent right wing nature of UK citizens. We still have an island mentality you know, but we are not used to be being hit from the inside, by what are supposed to be our own fellow citizens. Little did the majority know that Muslims belong to a higher nation than Britain - the Umma.
Immigration & Asylum & Nationality. These items are on every radar in every home in the UK now, & I for one, welcome that, if not the circumstances that have bought them into sharp refief.
Will someone please get the Prime Minister some strong coffee, I think he needs it.
Elephant
You are dead right. And I think, on reflection, only one of the Butts is truly an idiot.
If he is the son of immigrants, there's a good chance that he holds dual citizenship. In that case, revoke his British citizenship and deport him.
jay
http://www.salfordadvertiser.co.uk/news/s/136/136697_jihad_cry_prompts_condemnation.html
Is this the guy?
of course they were acting in accord with Islam...didn't you hear Robert on the radio show last night? Islam is not just a religion, it's an ideology...that is why THEY BELIEVE THIS B.S.!!
I had hoped that Osama and his killer weasels had fatally overplayed their hand on 9/11, and that their spectacular strike would have permanently awakened the West.
No such luck.
3,000 corpses- with no one really famous among the casualties- just wasn't impressive enough for the sleepwalking majority or the celebrity hungry Press. ("If only a 'big name' had been dining at the Windows on the World in the WTC that morning! Ah well, next story...").
I have little hope therefore that 60 -or so- dead in London will rouse the British Lion.
In a year or so, if the Muslim extremists play their cards right, the populace of the U.K. will doze off again, as the mainstream in the U.S. has, to the global, permanent threat.
The first (and last, if all goes well) WMD attack by jihadists on the West seems to be what is needed to be more than a temporarily disruptive snooze button for the average citizen of the slowly eroding Civiliation which is under assault by the 7th century patriarchal pinheads.
The enemies of freedom speak clearly.
The defenders of freedom are too busy worrying about interchangeable Supreme Court figureheads, comfortable little sex crimes, all-too-familiar child kidnappings and murders, pedestrian schizophrenic serial killers, and a vanished cheerleader in the Caribbean to sense the Imperialistic Islamic sword being raised over the neck of the West.
Until the majority get at least one eye open, this is all an excercise in prescient "told ya so".
It leaves a bitter taste, knowing what is coming.
Sadly, nothing else can be done but to keep yelling at the somnambulists. And hoping enough will hear a sufficiently startling cry of danger to prevent anything worse than a dirty bomb (which would be economically disruptive, but not leave a half a million dead, or more, in the streets) from hitting us.
9/11, instead of being a true Pearl Harbor, was turned into more of a cultural relativistic mud-puddle. (As the continued absence of a rebuilt WTC demonstrates, daily.)
"Most of our people, especially the youth, are British citizens," he said. "They owe nothing to the Government.
The arrogance of these Islamic bastards is evident in the above statement. They come from a land of nothing to live in a land of plenty and think they owe nothing for this privelege. As I did by taking away the car from my children for abusing their driving privelege, Britain needs to take away the home these bastards are abusing and send them back to their land of camel shit and sand. They have no allegiance but to their sick religion.
I send many of the articles from this site to my family and friends and ask them to forward them to their family and friends. We need to help educate America and the world of this threat, as this site helps to educate us. Mainly we need to awaken America as she is the one who will eventually carry the burden for the rest of the world to counter the scum of Islam.
Thankfully, more and more of the people of the world are reading this kind of crap being spit out by the Mooselum leaders. And they are starting to wake up. It's only a matter of time before the world begins another Crusade to face off exactly what the first Crusade faced. And the results will be the same. The whole bunch of perverted, backward, demented bastards deserve to live prehistoric lives in the desert cooking their food over dried camel dung. The sooner the better
Didn't Mohammed do something similar when he had a peace treaty with some group but broke it on some small pretext for his own convenience when he was more powerful? Isn't this tactic mentioned in the Koran or hadiths?
Door's not locked, you mindless zombies! If England doesnt want to go back to the 7th century, you can always find some 'stan to live in Islamic squalor in!
This seems the best current thread for this item from The Current Bun.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2004600000-2005350154,00.html
The would be bombers arrested yesterday were heard to protest that their human rights were not being respected. I don't think the PC thought police are going to be able to put the genie back in the bottle now from the things I have heard said this last 2 weeks.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali in the same edition of Prospect:
++++
After the carnage of the terrorist bombings in London, Tony Blair defined the situation as a battle of values. “Our values will long outlast theirs,” he said, to the silent acquiescence of the world leaders who stood alongside him. “Whatever [the terrorists] do, it is our determination that they will never succeed in destroying what we hold dear in this country and in other civilised nations throughout the world.”
But which values are we fighting for? Those who love freedom know that the open society relies on a few key shared concepts. They believe that all humans are born free, are endowed with reason and have inalienable rights. Governments are checked by the rule of law, so that civil liberties are protected. They ensure freedom of conscience and of expression, and ensure that men and women, homosexuals and heterosexuals, are treated equally under the law. People can trade freely, and may spend their recreational time as they wish.
The terrorists, and the Shari'a-based societies to which they aspire, have an entirely different philosophy. Humans are born to serve Allah through a series of obligations that are prescribed in an ancient body of writings. These edicts vary from rituals of birth and funeral rites to the most intimate details of human life; they descend to the point of absurdity in matters such as how to blow your nose, and with what foot to step into a toilet. Muslims, according to this philosophy, must kill those among them who leave the faith, and are required to be hostile to people of other religions and ways of life. This hostility requires them to murder innocent people and makes no distinction between civilians and the military. In Shari'a societies, women are made subordinate to men. They must be confined to their houses, beaten if found disobedient, forced into marriage and hidden behind the veil. The hands of thieves are cut off and capital punishment is performed in crowded public squares in front of cheering crowds. The terrorists seek to impose this way of life not only on Islamic countries, but, as Blair said, on western societies too.
At the core of this fundamental challenge to the west lies a pre-medieval figure to whom the London terrorists—along with all faithful Muslims in our modern world—look for guidance: Muhammad. All faithful Muslims believe that they must emulate this man, in principle and practical matters, under all circumstances. When trying to understand Islamic terrorism, most politicians and other commentators have avoided the core issue, which is Muhammad’s example. The west, before embarking on a battle of ideas, must attempt to understand this figure, and his presence in the daily lives and homes of faithful Muslims today.
It is apparent on reading the Koran and the traditional writings that Muhammad’s life not only provides rules for the daily lives of Muslims; it also demonstrates the means by which his values can be imposed. Muhammad himself constructed the House of Islam using military tactics that included mass killing, torture, targeted assassination, lying and the indiscriminate destruction of productive goods. This may be embarrassing to moderate Muslims, but the propaganda produced by modern terrorists constantly quotes Muhammad’s deeds and edicts to justify their actions and to call on other Muslims to support their cause.
Muslims in Europe and across the world may be divided into roughly three groups. Firstly, there are the terrorists, who resort to violence (and their allies, the fundamentalists, who do not kill or maim, but provide terrorists with material and immaterial assistance). The second group, the reformers, are the polar opposite of the terrorists and may one day provide an intellectual counterweight to them. This group of people—although tiny, it is growing—may be characterised by its questioning of the relevance and moral soundness of Muhammad’s example. I, who was born and bred a Muslim, count myself among them. We in this group have embraced the open society as a true alternative to a society based on the laws of Muhammad—a better way to build a framework for human life.
The terrorists have far more power and resources than the reformers, but both groups vie to influence the thinking of the third group—the vast majority of Muslims. The reformers use only non-violent means to draw attention to debates over core values and the example of Muhammad. The terrorists and fundamentalists, however, use force, the threat of force, appeals to pity (“look at what the west is doing to Islam and Muslims”) and ad hominem smears. Their unwitting allies in the west defend so-called victims of Islamophobia; meanwhile, the reformers are shunned by their families and communities, and may even live under the fear of assassination. In short, the core of the debate is made taboo, and the fundamentalists attain a near-monopoly on the hearts and minds of the largest group of Muslims, the undecided.
Who are these "undecided" Muslims? They are the group to which Tony Blair refers when he says “The vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims here and abroad are decent and law-abiding people.” They live in Edgware Road and Bradford, and in Amsterdam and Saint Denis; they are not fervent observers of every ritual of Islam but they count themselves as believers. They are immigrants and second-generation youths who have come to the west to enjoy the benefits of the open society, in which they have a vested interest. But they do not question the infallibility of Muhammad and the soundness of his moral example. They know that Muhammad calls for the slaughter of infidels; they know that the open society rightly condemns the slaughter of innocents. They are caught in a mental cramp of cognitive dissonance and it is up to the west to support the reformers in trying to ease them out of that painful contradiction. They must be engaged in a process of clear thinking on how to evaluate the moral guidance of the man whose compass they follow.
It should not be offensive, or hurtful, to Muslims to call for clear thought on such an important question. This process should provide an alternative to the utopia promised by terrorists—the open society, and it gives Muslims, like Christians and Jews, an opportunity to liberate themselves from the ever-present menace of hell, which is the single most effective threat the fundamentalists employ. And yet suggestions like this cause many people in the west to flinch. Many hold that questioning, or criticising, a holy figure is not polite behaviour, somehow not done. This cultural relativism betrays the basic values on which our open society is constructed. We should never self-censor.
The western cultural relativists, who flinch from criticising Muhammad for fear of offending Muslims, rob Muslims of an opportunity to review their own moral values. The first victims of Muhammad are the minds of Muslims themselves. Moreover, this attitude betrays Muslim reformers who desperately require the support—and even the physical protection—of their natural allies in the west.
Muslims must reform their approach to Muhammad’s teachings if we are all to coexist peacefully. Terrorists and fundamentalists should not be permitted to dictate to us the rules of the game. Core western values must be maintained, and proclaimed. Our struggle should focus on persuading the large middle group of Muslims that they need not give up their religious beliefs if they engage in a process of clear and honest thinking about the need for Islamic reform.
+++++
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=6994
"a lot of killing" is unavoidable if the world is to come under the banner of Islam.
Not 10 % as much as will be necesary to convince islam that God is not on their side and the rest of the world have no intention of ending up under the banner of islam.
What was the "covenant of security"? would someone expound on this.
it sounds to me like an act of unbelievable cowardly appeasement in which British islamists would be allowed to plot and execute trreor in forieng countries ( FRANCE GERMANY EGYPT) in echange for leaving England alone,
perfidious Albions indeed!
"Most of our people, especially the youth, are British citizens," he said. "They owe nothing to the Government. They did not ask to be born here; neither did they ask to be protected by Britain."
All Britons are subjects of Her Majesty, and for that loyalty, they have Her Majesty's protection. It seems to me that it would be right and proper that such muslims as this muslim braggart + his family, are deprived of Her Majesty's protection (Stripping of citizenship and immediate deportation). He will change his tune pretty quick.
DP
depriving this Englishman of his nationality will be like manna to the jihadists and their cohorts of left wing supporters in the Unis and British media like the Guardanista.
better to let him expose himself as an absolute idiot and extremist.
We always complain the the media give too much oxygen to these people but in fact the more Britons listen to his rhetoric the more they will understand the nature of Islam.
Celsius, you are referring to the Hudaibiya treaty. It is studied in Islam 'jihad science' and praised widely. A favorite friday sermon.
This extract from:
http://www.historyofjihad.org/
but available by google in many places with different analysis and discussion and probably a search here on JW will have some discussion of it as well.
extract start....
Mohammed 's guile in the Treaty of Hudaibiya
After the battle of the Trench in 5 A.H. (627 C.E.), the Quraish did not give battle to the murderous band of the first Muslims that surrounded Mohammed at Medina. So Mohammed decided that it was time for him to launch a Jihad against the Quriash. He cleverly disguised this as a Hajj (a pre-Muslim pilgrimage to Mecca) that he wanted to perform in the season in the year 6 A.H. (628 C.E.). When he and his band of one thousand followers arrived at Hudaibiya near Mecca after taking an out of the way route, so as to evade being spotted by the Quraish, the Quraish got the shock of their lives. Mohammed the accursed wanting to storm the holiest of hly site of the (pre-Muslim) Arabs, on the pretext of Hajj. They sent an emissary (Urwa ibn Masud, who was the son-in law of Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraish) to him, asking him to desist from entering Mecca. This emissary went back and reported to the Quraish that Mohammed and his followers were in a rage and would invade Mecca, if they were not allowed into the town. e reported that they were fanatically committed to him, such that they do not let the water in which he bathes fall on the ground. They collect that water and venerate it. When he cuts his hair they collect his hair and treasure it (in fact strands of Mohammed alleged hair are worshipped - one instance is the Hazratbal Masjid in Indian Administered Kashmir). So the emissary returned to Mecca with these tidings.
Meanwhile Mohammed sent into Mecca for reconnaissance, one of his henchmen named Othman to check the defenses of Mecca. Othman also met the Quraish leaders to negotiate an entry for the Muslims and their gang leader Mohammed into Mecca , but they adopted delaying tactics. When Othman took long to come, a rumor got current in the Muslim camp that Othman had been killed by the Quraish. Thereupon all the Muslims took the pledge that they would fight against the Quraish to seek revenge for the murder of Othman. When the Muslims were poised to take up arms and attack Mecca, Othman returned to the Muslim camp with Suhail ibn Amr, an eminent citizen of Mecca, whom the Quraish sent to negotiate a treaty with the Muslims. This was the Treaty of Hudaibiya.
Here Mohammed 's craftiness comes to the fore. The terms of this treaty included that if any Muslim from the Quraish clan renounced Islam and returned to Mecca, then Mohammed would not hold any grudge against him and not ask for his return, but if any Quraish embraced Islam and went to medina, Mohammed would immediately return him to the Quriash at Mecca. Mohammed told Amr and the Quraish, that he bears no malice towards the Quriash and so he has offered this clause. The Quriash were taken for a ride in this clause, as they also believed that because of this clause no Quriash would embrace Islam, but some of Mohammed 's followers would leave Islam and return to Mecca. Actually this clause was a clever ruse of Mohammed, to infiltrate his spies into Mecca, while not allowing any spies from the Quriash to enter Medina. Over the next two years, many of Mohammed 's followers pretended to leave Islam and came and settled in Mecca, thus preparing for the eventual invasion of Mecca that was to take place in * A.H. (630 C.E.), when on a frivolous pretext, Mohammed abrogated that treaty and invaded Mecca. The Treaty of Hudaibiya demonstrates in a very telling way, the evil genius that Mohammed was. And this character of his has been filtered down to the last Muslim, who uses it to cheat and trick non-Muslim in every small thing in day-to-day life. Pervez Musharraf the President of Pakistan, referred to this Treaty of Hudaibiya (and to the double-crossing that exists in it), when he announced after 9/11 that he was making a pact with America to fight the Taliban who then ruled Afghanistan and whose guest was that horror of all horrors Osama Bin Laden.
Mohammed’s pretext to abrogate the treaty of Hudaibiya
After signing the treaty, Mohammed started gathering allies for the final assault on Mecca. Alarmed at his moves, the Quraish also started building up their own alliances. In this scenario a tribe named Banu Bakr allied themselves with the Quraish and another named Banu Khuza'ah joined the camp of Mohammed. Incited by Mohammed the Banu Khuza'ah attacked a caravan of the Banu Bakr whereupon the Banu Bakr attacked the Banu Khuza'ah. This pretext was enough for Mohammed to send an ultimatum to the Quriash (whose allies were the Banu Bakr) giving the Quraish three alternatives. The first alternative was that the Banu Bakr and the Quraish should pay blood money for the victims of Banu Khuza'ah. The second alternative was that the Quraish should terminate their alliance with Banu Bakr. The third alternative was that the treaty of Hudaibiya should be considered to have been abrogated. In a fit of desperation, the Quraish replied that they would neither pay blood money, nor terminate their alliance with Banu Bakr. On this pretext, the wily Mohammed abrogated the Treaty of Hadaibiya and made preparations for a attack on Mecca.
The forced conversion of Abu Sufyan, the leader of the Quraish of Mecca and its implications for the division of Muslims into Sunnis and Shias
The Meccans realized that Mohammed had tricked them, by using the conflict between the Banu Bakr and Banu Khuza'ah to abrogate the treaty, as he wanted to attack Mecca, for which he now had adequate strength. Mohammed marched on Mecca and laid siege to the city. He had a large army and we are told that when at night fire was lit in the Muslim camp it appeared as if the whole of the desert was on fire The Meccans realized that they were in no position to beat Mohammed on the battlefield and their leader Abu Sufyan decided to go and meet Mohammed to mediate a peace. Mohammed had already captured the daughter of Abu Sufyan and had included her in his harem, so technically Abu Sufyan was his ‘father-in-law’ (sic), Mohammed detained Abu Sufyan and released him only after Abu had embraced Islam. Mohammed had kept Abu’s daughter as a concubine and he now held Abu captive. Mohammed threatened Abu Sufyan with death and his daughter with dishonor. This coercion was the last straw that broke Abu’s Sufyan’s resistance to Mohammed, and he converted to Islam.
Can we just cut to the chase and lance this boil right now?
I think the tale of "Menachem and the Great Glass Parkinglog" would make a fine bedtime story...
*sigh*
ParkingLOT, that is...