Bakri freed in Lebanon

He had caused fury by saying he would not inform on British Muslims if he knew they were planning terror attacks.

Program on late night TV called Sharia TV (BBC I think) some months back had a panel of Scholars who were all asked the same question, and they all gave the same answer,a woman said "We have to be careful and consider the Inquisition, we dont want to allow Muslims to become victims of islamaphobic hate, another stated that it was incumbent upon all Muslims to establish Sharia law in this country.

Getting their messages across.

After less than 24 hours, Omar Bakri has been freed in Lebanon?

I forgot that in Islamic nations the jails have revolving doors, at least for jihadists.

The End of Tolerance

a speech by Winston Peters of the New Zealand First Party

http://www.nzfirst.org.nz/content/display_item.php?t=1&i=2040

28 Jul 2005
Rt Hon Winston Peters
Speech

THE END OF TOLERANCE
An address by Rt Hon Winston Peters to members of Far North Grey Power, Thursday 28 July 2005, Far North Community Centre, Kaitaia, 2pm

THE END OF TOLERANCE

What happens when tolerance collides head on with intolerance?

It’s what we are witnessing first hand on our televisions screens.

London and Egypt now endure the horrific impact of terrorism, as Spain, Bali and New York did on that shocking day which is permanently imprinted on our consciousness – September 11, 2001.

These images beg the question – who could do such a thing?

And perhaps the more sobering thought: Could it happen here?

Most importantly, these images make us appreciate the freedoms we enjoy here in New Zealand.

Freedom of speech is one of our most cherished values.

It is at the heart of our democracy.

Well, we in New Zealand First think so.

The other political parties are more equivocal.

They pay lip service to freedom of speech.

To them it is nice in theory but they put some topics off limits.

And one area that all the other parties have trouble with is immigration.

On one level this is odd because clearly immigration is a very fundamental issue to the future of New Zealand.

After all we are a nation with many migrants.

The problem is that political correctness has contaminated immigration with all sorts of misleading ideas and fallacies.

So to talk about immigration is to be immediately branded as xenophobic and a bigot, or even Nazis as the drug soaked culture of the Greens would have it.

Despite this attempt to close down debate, New Zealand First has been the one party that is prepared to talk about the consequences and implications of immigration.

And our supporters know that we will not be silenced.

Because there is a very important link between immigration and freedom of speech.

The other parties cower from what it means to be losing tens of thousands of Kiwis and replacing them with people from an entirely different cultural background.

The obvious needs to be stated.

Many of the migrants coming to New Zealand come from societies that have no tradition of tolerance or freedom of speech.

On religious matters, they are unwilling to see the other person's point of view; not prepared to compromise or to be open to challenge or criticism.

The other parties peddle the old line when we raise concerns about the quality of immigration into New Zealand.

They say – ah yes – but New Zealand has always been a nation of immigrants. They miss a crucial point.

New Zealand has never been a nation of Islamic immigrants and in this connection the role of the bogus asylum seeker Ahmed Zaoui is instructive.

It is ironical that Zaoui has been lionised and fawned upon by many Christian religious groups in New Zealand.

They have all extolled his virtues as a man of faith, portraying him as the innocent victim of harsh and unfair treatment.

He must chuckle at the naiveté and innocence of his supporters who clearly have no understanding of radical Islam.

Anyone who has any knowledge of what was happening in Algeria because of religious fanaticism will know what devastation and mayhem it was causing.

And that is why three European countries kicked Zaoui out.

They want to keep that fanaticism out.

Zaoui was part of a party in Algeria which promoted radical Islam.

Its tactics were much like his approach here.

The party was called the FIS or the Islamic Front for Salvation.

The party had two leaders. A more moderate face in Shaykh Abbassi Madani, a Western-educated professor of comparative literature and a radical militant in Ali Benhadj, a high school teacher known for his fiery rhetoric and radical notions of the role of political Islam.

When a more restrained face was called for it was Madani who fronted the party, while Benhadj fronted the more militant actions of the party.

This two faced approach is how radical Islam works – present the acceptable face to one audience and the militant face to another.

In New Zealand the Muslim community have been quick to show us their more moderate face, but as some media reports have shown, there is a militant underbelly here as well.

These two groups, the moderate and militant, fit hand and glove everywhere they exist.

Underneath it all the agenda is to promote fundamentalist Islam.

Indeed these groups are like the mythical Hydra – a serpent underbelly with multiple heads capable of striking at any time and in any direction.

We have already seen media reports of an Auckland University student claiming that Muslim terror groups have sent representatives to New Zealand to preach their hate filled message.

The most disturbing aspect of this is the fact these messages were met with welcoming ears – that the message of terrorism, violence and intolerance was well received in some quarters.

Such pockets of discontent are what led to the London and other bombings – and it now seems they are here.

And nothing is in place to monitor these types of activities.

The same media report said they were free to spread their literature and preach their divisive hate filled message.

And before the Lilly livered liberal’s start to jump and up down that we are targeting one group – it is worth noting that these so-called “preachers” were pitting one group of Muslims against another.

This is a truly awful brand of intolerance.

These views are based on Islamic fundamentalism which is a brand of religious intolerance that would brush our own ‘tea and sympathy’ brigade of do-gooders aside in an instant.

In many parts of the world the Christian faith is under direct threat from radical Islam – and that threat is taking an extreme form.

Like death, and there is nothing more extreme than that.

Yet the apologists for radical Islam, and they exist in this country, are prepared to overlook its virulent anti-Semitism.

Do we want that sort of prejudice in New Zealand?

Let us be clear – radical Islam is not a ‘live and let live’ religion.

We cannot take our tradition of toleration for granted when we are importing fanatics for whom that tradition is alien.

In New Zealand we need to take heed of the European experience.

In Europe, in countries like the Netherlands, France and Britain large Islamic communities have not integrated into the general society.

They have formed into enclaves that barely interact with the broader host society.

The devastating results are now plain for all to see and the implications of these ghettoised communities is now starkly confronting those societies.

And remember these countries are old and mature democracies –they have deep rooted traditions of freedom of speech and tolerance going back to Shakespeare and Voltaire.

But they are confronting an entirely new phenomenon.

They now have large communities that do not share the very basic ground rules of a democratic society.

The Dutch, for example, have a tradition of tolerance that is second to none.

They have been the European ‘poster boy’ for a multi-cultural society.

Sadly for them, it has not worked.

With an Islamic population of a million, the Dutch are finding out about the limits of tolerance.

Like New Zealanders, the Dutch hold that tolerance of other cultures, religions, and ways of life is a virtue – but what happens when tolerance itself becomes a form of indulgence?

What happens when tolerance allows other forms of extremism to take root in a society?

Because what is clear is that extremist theologies are a threat to free and democratic societies.

The murder in November 2004 of the controversial Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh by an Islamic fanatic highlighted the fundamental conflict of values that now exists in the Netherlands.

One group of people, the Dutch built a society based on freedom of expression while the Islamic migrants brought their religious fanaticism and intolerance.

And in the light of the ‘War on Terror’, people are now asking where does the loyalty of those Islamic communities lie if it is not with the country that has adopted them?

In New Zealand First we say New Zealanders should look at the European experience and learn from it.

It would be wilful stupidity to ignore the warnings of failed immigration policies elsewhere.

For example, one of the situations the Dutch face is the presence of a large minority that does not speak Dutch.

A shared language is the most obvious way of promoting cohesion and allowing access to full participation in the political, economic, and cultural life of a country.

It is reasonable to ask then why New Zealand has allowed large numbers of people to migrate here who do not speak English.

The last census revealed that about 300,000 residents of this country speak little or no English.

We should err on the side of caution in importing large numbers of people until they affirm their commitment to our values and standards.

New Zealand First’s interest is in migrants who are prepared to assimilate our values and become productive and loyal citizens.

We are not enamoured with those who want to cling to alien values.

We need to spell out very clearly to prospective migrants the fundamental New Zealand values of:
· freedom of speech.
· freedom of association
· freedom of religion

And that those who do not subscribe to them are not welcome.

Those who want to practice religious intolerance have no place in New Zealand.

The United States has often been described as the “melting pot”. When the melting pot worked the USA was the final point of destination and not a bolthole to somewhere else. Those early immigrants signed up to the USA and its values. Today the States are alarmed at the number who have recently come there and and refuse to sign up, all the while shouting freedom of speech, expression and alternative action.

Well, to extend the metaphor, New Zealand is a very small mixing bowl.

We do not have a huge population – and we cannot afford to take risks on immigration.

There is still time to avoid the path to social disintegration that many European nations have taken.

Let me say this in conclusion.

New Zealand First has a clear position on immigration.

We are not opposed to it.

But we are working for an immigration policy that preserves New Zealand as a free and tolerant country.

And we say that to preserve our traditions of tolerance we need to be vigilant in excluding those who would undermine that tradition.

So we will work tirelessly to stop those people whose intolerance threatens New Zealand values from settling in our country.

Today we are sending copies of a letter to all of the leaders of Islamic groups in New Zealand calling on them to commit to naming any radicals, troublemakers and potential dangers to our society.

We want to know if they will let the authorities know who is sending money out of New Zealand to support these groups.

The reality is that it will not be the police or intelligence services which break these plotting webs, but the communities themselves.

While other parties cringe with political correctness when it comes to asking the tough questions we will not.

We must not be so naïve as to believe that it won’t happen here.

If causing a little offence means we protect out borders, then so be it.

But at the end of the day we must face the reality – that a tolerant society can only emerge from those committed to those values.

There is no place for intolerance here.

New Zealand First
Parliament Buildings, Wellington
Phone: (04) 471 9292 Fax: (04) 472 7751
info@nzfirst.org.nz

From the article posted above:

"...the Dutch hold that tolerance of other cultures, religions, and ways of life is a virtue..."

Tolerance, in this case, demands that the indigenous population deny their own heritage.

The USA, in theory, is one of the first societies to be truly multi-cultural. Of course, there will be those who disagree.

European nations are distinct ethnic groups who have formed their nations based upon those distinctions; ethnicity, language and a unifying, but ultimately divisive commonality of Christianity.

That is the key to maintaining European nationalism. They have forgotten their deep roots of Christianity.

It is imperative that Europe gets back to that common root in order to regain her forgotten pride of their once great status.

I am skeptical that it will happen though.

Completely off topic, but I noticed a post from Mentat from this link:

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/007618.php

"Sometimes Jihad Watch pays attention to me; sometimes they do not."

___________________________________________

I'm not sure what is up, but I have experienced the same behavior lately.

Not quite on topic, but a thought I need to express:

Any standard English dictionary will define the word phobia as, "a persistent, abnormal, and irrational fear of a specific thing or situation that compels one to avoid it, despite the awareness and reassurance that it is not dangerous."

And, on any given day, one can find a writer somewhere in the world using the trite and highly inaccurate term, “Islamophobia”; a coined term which is used liberally by Islamic apologists and their leftist confederates to describe anybody who is critical of Islam. This labeling prompts one to ask: Will a discerning approach towards one of the three Abrahamic religions lead a person down the road of “irrational fear, despite the awareness and reassurance that it (Islam) is not dangerous?” Does a critical analysis of Islam equate to a “persistent, abnormal and irrational fear” of it?

The answers to these rhetorical questions are no because the unbiased student can only derive one conclusion after studying the historicity and the stated goals (via Qur’an and Sira)of Islam: that it is indeed dangerous and should be feared. That student will also conclude from his studies that jihad, as sanctioned by Allah, is a physical war waged upon infidels in order to make Islam dominant and Shari'a the law of the land. Once the Caliphate is installed (or in our day - restored), the peoples of the book (Jews and Christians) become "protected" peoples (the dhimma) who are compelled to convert to Islam because of an exorbitant poll tax (jizya) and a system of humiliating laws which render the "dhimmi" a second class citizen.

Does the slaughter of seventy million Indian Hindus by Muslim invaders or the jihad genocide perpetrated by Turkish Muslims against Armenian Christians comprise an “irrational” fear? A fear yes, but an irrational one? Do the reassurances that Islam is a religion of peace by the Ulema and their liberal alliance give comfort to those infidels who face daily acts of murder and destruction by their Muslim neighbors in countries such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Phillipines and Thailand?

This is the goal of Islam, past and present, and being aware of it does not constitute a phobia. The works of Bat Ye’or, Andrew Bostom and Robert Spencer (to mention only three) bear witness to this fact. Are their works the drivel of Islamophobes or erudition of the cognitively aware? To label that awareness as Islamophobic relegates truth to the level of an inanity; a deranged gratuity to those who desire ignorance in order to more easily control.

Truth demands that the terms, Islamophobia and Islamophobe, be expurgated from human expression. Truth dictates to this writer that he propose a coining of their replacements: Islamocognition and Islamocognitive.

Eschwapp
Join the Loose Canon Club

I also was wondering why a great many articles do not show up on Jihad Watch,or there are very long time lapses,some of them are obviously of huge significance,and that's an unusual oversight on the part of Hugh and Robert. Or is it? That's the real question, isn't it?
On many occasions I have sent"Breaking News" only to have them ignored,or appear much later from different sources
Just recently I submitted to very relevant articles within 30 minutes of them breaking,
the first being:-
U.K. Institutes New Deportation Measures
Which did not show up on this forum until 12hrs later

The latest being:-
Lebanon detains British-based Muslim cleric Bakri
Which did not appear until 3,1/2 hrs
So I am beginning to ask myself are these oversights

You'al need to stop with all the hurt feelings stuff??

There is the commet line and after all we are not the only ones who have lives sure R,R,& H don't sit around all day reading this crap??

Hope they get to have a little Fun TOO!!

Don't be girli men??

Part of the American Tribe
Squirrel Hunter
Spider Killer

God Bless the USA and her Fighting Forces and ALL who Fight with her give them Strength, Wisdom, Sight, and Courage Amen

PS
Don't take that the wrong way either?

secret mercenary kill squads are in order

SALMAN RUSHDIE WANTS TO REFORM ISLAM

Salman Rushdie, who had a fatwa put on his head for writing the Satanic Verses, and who has how written Shalimar the Clown, a story of a Kashmiri boy who takes to terrorism, argues that The Koran should be looked upon as a historical document and not as divine. He states that by reforming Islam, it would finally leap out of the 7th century and into the 21st. Here are two articles:

Yahoo News article

The Guardian article

Despite Rushdie's comments, Islam is unlikely to undergo any real reformation. Muslim men have too much to lose and nothing to gain. Equality for women and non-Muslims in Muslim countries is not something that we will ever witness in our lifetime.

Check out my website:

Terrorism Watch

10:10 GMT

Rejoice!

It's just been anounced by the Home Office that Bakri has been 'excluded from the UK'

Now to stop those benefit cheques from landing on Bakri's ex-doormat

i sure would like to have been a fly on the wall during "discussions". either he got high-5ed once they were behind closed doors and a good time was had by all, or some serious threats about sudden visitors to the Chief of Police and Prosecutors homes were discussed.