UK Muslim leaders: fighting jihad will only lead to more jihad

Their comments, while predictably absurd, are telling -- and useful. The more this kind of thing is done, the more alert and wary non-Muslims will become. Good. Keep it up, Muslim groups. More.

I guess that haven't noticed that the West can lash back against their predations as well.

See: Afghanistan (former Taliban government expelled), Iraq (dictator disposed of), Libya (disarmed), Syria (driven from Lebanon), etc.

If the jihadists and their sympathizers want more of it, let them fail to grasp the power balance, the temper of the West, and the reserves of anger waiting for them should they bloody our innocents again.

This is the updated version of "fighting Nazism will lead to more fascism"--the cry of Lord Halifax and his confreres, who, had there been no Churchill, would have handed over the keys to the kingdom to Hitler.

One other comment--the Finsbury Park mosque should have been closed a long time ago.

The joint statement argued that the right of people to resist invasion and occupation was legitimate and said that questioning the legitimacy of Israeli occupation was also valid political expression.

Israel continues to be the crutch for those who have no leg to stand on. Muslims have been so conditioned to expect a sympathetic ear in Europe when it comes to demonising Israel for all the world's ills, it has now become a standard non-sequitur when seeking to justify incitement to terror.

Time for a new scapegoat.

"Islamic Human Rights" = Sharia = "No Human Rights"
Ila.

'the Islamic Human Rights Commission and the Muslim Association of Britain, said new measures outlined by the prime minister could lead to Islamic values being "demonised".'

Actually, it was the massacres of 7/7 that moved Blair's hand. "Islamic values" (terrorism) may now be the focus of popular discontent, but the Umma have only themselves to blame. Not that they will, of course. It's all the Kaffirs' fault, right?

Mention of "occupation" is misleading. To Muslims, the whole world belongs to Allah. That includes, of course, England, France, Italy, and all the countries of Western Europe. There is nothing in Qur'an and Sunnah to suggest that Muslim ambitions somehow stop with the Middle East.

If Israel never fails to be mentioned by Muslims feigning indignation (eyes rolling, hate-filled hysteria dripping from lips, and so on), this is only for the following reasons:

1) The Lesser Jihad against Israel has been going on for a much longer time, for the developments that have made the Greater Jihad (against everyone) possible have only begun to show their effects in the last 20 years. These developments include OPEC oil revenues (some $10 trillion), the suicidal policy of Western governments in allowing large numbers of Muslim immigrants (now more than 15 million within Europe, and overbreeding like crazy, often on the Western dole), and technological developments (audiocassettes, videocassettes, satellite television, and the Internet) that bring the full texts of Islam, with all their murderous venom, to the minds, and hearts, of Believers everywhere).

2) Antisemitism, a pre-existing mental condition that infects a certain number of those in the great world, can be exploited, in order to focus attention on Israel (i.e., Jews), and on its putative sins, and thus make it appear that the demands of Muslims are both discrete (only the "occupied lands" or, still worse, "occupied Arab lands") and legitimate (the "Palestinian people" who have been there tilling the soil that they own, since time immemorial -- a collection of gross falsities, from the recent invention of those "Palestinian people," to the misstatmeent of both land ownership in "Palestine" under the Ottomans (90% of the land being state-owned), and demography (where did so many of those Arabs and Muslims arrive from? They arrived, beginning in the mid-19th century, from Iraq and Egypt and Algeria, and even the Muslim-controlled parts of Europe).

All of dar al-Harb is "occupied land" that sooner or later will fall into the hands of its rightful owners, the Muslims. This is understood, and often expressed openly, all over Muslim websites. That non-Muslims dismiss this, dismiss the texts and 1350 years of history, is tribute only to their own fear, their own mental disarray, their own inability to accept what to them is fantastic, but to Muslims -- not fantastic at all.

What we have here is a failure of imagination.
It has happened before.

In the Duma, in 1917, Aleksandr Kerensky, in turned in the direction of the Bolsheviks apropos of some measure that they were dead set against, and addressed them thus: "What are you going to do, shoot us?" Silence from the Bolsheviks, laughter from the Kadets and the Left SR's and others on the right. (Sprava smekh, sleva molchaniye). Within a year that is exactly what the Bolsheviks were doing. Shooting them, everywhere they could be found.

In England and France, from 1933 on, no one could quite grasp that that excitable Mr. Hitler meant exactly what he had written in Mein Kampf and other texts, exactly what he declared again and again in hundreds of speeches to German audiences. They chose to believe him whenever, for foreigners, he attempted to veil, or nuance, or disguise, or sfumare, his intentions and his worldview. No one should have believed a word of those attempts. But it was easier not to take him at face value, to study what he told his own supporters. It could not be. It must not be. Therefore it wasn't. Rational people could not possibly mean what he seemed sometimes to mean. Therefore, he could not mean it.

Again, a failure of imagination.

And that, for all you Cool Hand Lukes out there, is exactly what we have here with Islam. The Tom Friedmans, the Dennis Rosses, the Michael Scheuers, the assorted fools in the press and the think-tanks and the government, who cannot bring themselves to study the tenets of Islam, or the history of Islamic conquest, and cannot quite believe that any of this can be meant, the same kind of fools who even now in Western Europe are making plans for "integrating" their Muslim populations, and believe that somehow the problem will go away (and how would a "French Islam" differ in its texts and teachings from any other kind of "Islam"? This is a pipe-dream, and one made more dangerous by the fact that it is being pushed by the seemingly tough-on-Islam Nicolas Sarkozy, who was good debating Tariq Ramadan, is great compared to the preening posuer Dominique de Villepin or the aging crook Chirac, but still does not get Islam, cannot quite allow himself to get Islam).

Yes, what we have here is a failure of imagination.

"However, we will not allow the demonising, devaluing or targeting of the concept of Islam which will we hold very dear."

He is essentially saying that we cannot criticize Islam or we are doomed, which is pretty much in line with Islamic theology. Point taken.

"However, we will not allow the demonising, devaluing or targeting of the concept of Islam which will we hold very dear."

He is essentially saying that we cannot criticize Islam or we are doomed, which is pretty much in line with Islamic theology. Point taken.

One can't confront jihad without at least saying something critical of Islam, the sira, Mohammad, the Qur'an, the hadith, and one can't criticize Islam without 'inflaming' otherwise 'peaceful' Muslims and enlarging the jihad.

A catch 22 of the aggressive, hypersensitive, paranoid, supremacist, irrational, potentially violent belief system that is the true problem: Islam itself.

I've heard enough. Actually, I reached that point a long, long time ago.

Deport them - all of them. Let them pound sand in a Middle Eastern weed patch. If they give us any more trouble, convert the weed patch into a rustic glass factory.

It is obvious that Islam, while playing a victim, destroys every Un-islamic entity in 'Dar-al-Harb' (World of War), deceptively, behind the smoke-screen 'Religion of Peace'.

Iraq is merely a smoke-screen behind which Muslims have raged a World War (WW III) against civilized world. Deception is stuffed in every aspect of Muslim life. Like the 'burhkas' behind which these cowards hide and the slogan of 'Religion of Peace' behind which Muslims barbarians hide. But to Islam, end justifies the means.

After Chechnya, Kashmir, Bali, 9/11, 7/7, Madrid (and the list goes on), only the brain-dead can't see the obvious.

... said new measures outlined by the prime minister could lead to Islamic values being "demonised".

WE don't want "Islamic values"-

None, nada, zilch, niente, basta!

Islam is a demonic cult. So are it's 'values...'

... said new measures outlined by the prime minister could lead to Islamic values being "demonised".

WE don't want "Islamic values"-

None, nada, zilch, niente, basta!

Islam is a demonic cult. So are it's 'values...'

demonic, satanic...

This statement only betrays that there are no moderate muslims, just active or inactive ones. Once provocated communally or their active arm is interfered with it becomes clear they all share the same religious sentiments.

Even more obvious, they don't even attempt to make an intellectual distinction between themselves and the active jihadists.

What's more disturbing is how they make an existential distinction in the public sphere between their host civilizations and themselves. There isn't a scintilla of loyalty or acceptance of our civilization's values. From their perspective, we're just raw material to exploit.

Hugh, yet another insightful posting from you. I would, however, not characterize the Islam apologists as suffering from a 'failure of imagination' but rather as suffering from a 'failure of reaction'. In other words, they exhibit the classical signs of dhimmitude in that they prefer to live in the cocoon of their sanitized make-believe 'peaceful' world rather than directly confront the jihadists who they know have openly declared war on us. The Islamists have proclaimed their intentions loud and clear; and just in case we weren't listening, have even bombed some of our most prominent buildings killing over 3,000 people. They have publicly beheaded prominent people, stabbed filmmakers, bombed our subways and buses to further drive home their message. One would truly have to be daft to not realize that Islam has declared a war on us.

Another excellent posting from Hugh.

"In England and France, from 1933 on, no one could quite grasp that that excitable Mr. Hitler meant exactly what he had written in Mein Kampf and other texts"

I only add that in the U.S. that same resistance to face reality existed. The nation was in a strong isolationist period, and the "European problem" was an ocean away. Henry Ford, Charles Lindbergh, and others declared that the Nazis were a party of peace, they were just reacting to the humiliation and injustices forced on Germany at the end of WWI; they wanted to recover their occupied territory. It took the destruction of our navy at Pearl Harbor before public opinion changed 180 degrees overnight.

It is interesting and useful to look back at the world's behavior just before WWII began.

"I would, however, not characterize the Islam apologists as suffering from a 'failure of imagination' but rather as suffering from a 'failure of reaction'."
-- from a posting above

The "failure of imagination" is not that of "apologists" for Islam, but for those Infidels who simply cannot allow themselves to take seriously the menace of Islam, its teachings, its history. Kerensky was not an "apologist" for the Bolsheviks -- but he could not believe that they would kill their enemies ("What are you going to do -- kill us?"). Those in France and Britain who were not "apologists" for Hitler but simply refused to believe that Hitler meant what he said, when he wrote and spoke, were a much larger problem than the outright would-be collaborators with Hitler.

So I don't think it accurate to describe my post as levelling as mild a charge as a "failure of imagination" at "apologists." The charge was direced at the average inhabitant of an Infidel land, busy with getting and spending, and as little willing to investigate Islam as he is willing to investigate global warming and the melting ice cap and the methane being given off in Siberia, and the new findings about a more-rapidly heating troposphere.

This statement makes me just shake my head in disbelief one more time.

The real clinchers are:

1) "The British Muslim community has always been a law-abiding community and all its endeavours to create a just society have been entirely peaceful." I guess Britain wasn't much of a just society before the muslims came along to "endeavor" to make it "just" by "peaceful means."

and 2)"the Muslim leaders said plans to deport foreign nationals to countries known for human rights abuses was "abhorrent"....". LOVE IT! They aren't saying that life in Dar-al-islam is "abhorrent" now, are they?

Enough's enough.

fighting jihad will only lead to more jihad

so do you ...?
1. Negotiate
2. Ignore
3. Appease
4. Just lay back and enjoy!

There are really only 2 choices.

1. fight
2. dhimmitude

Sent this to the IHRC a few weeks ago. Funnily enough I am still waiting for an answer!

The Chairman
Islamic Human Rights Commission

Dear sir

Three Important Questions for the IHRC

After hearing your passionate condemnation of the Metropolitan Police on BBC London this morning, I decided to have a look at your website (www.ihrc.org). After studying it I must say that I am a bit confused about the name of your organization "The Islamic Human Rights Commission". I came away with the distinct impression that the IHRC is concerned with the rights of Muslims seemingly to the exclusion of those of the rest of humanity.

Since my conclusion could be based on a misunderstanding I would be interested in your answers to the following three questions:
* More than 50 members of the human race were killed on 7/7. Your reaction to this is limited to a one sentence condemnation followed by several paragraphs of advice to Muslims, should they be harassed as a result of the bombings. I could find no word of condolence to the families of the victims and you gave no indication about the motivation for your (very brief) condemnation. Are we to assume from your use of space that the rights of Muslims not to be on the receiving end of rude remarks or gestures weigh heavier on the minds of the IHRC than the right of innocent commuters not to be blown to smithereens?

* I saw on your site that you provide a web form where Muslims can report instances of discrimination or harassment. Since no one in our society should have to put up with being dealt with in an undignified manner this initiative should be commended. However I failed to find any web form where members of the Muslim community can report criminal activity of the kind that led to the vicious deaths of so many people on 7/7. Am I to assume that, because the vast majority of the victims of these activities are not Muslims, the violation of their most basic human right (i.e. the right to life) is simply not a priority for the IHRC?

* You prominently display your British Muslims' Expectations of the Government (BMEG) project on you site. I am a recent immigrant to the UK who earlier this year received British citizenship after swearing an oath of loyalty at a citizenship ceremony. After the ceremony I was handed a letter from the Home Secretary reminding me that citizenship comes with both rights and responsibilities. Does the fact that I could not find an equivalent British Muslims' Responsibilities towards Society project reflect a belief that the Muslim community is absolved of these responsibilities? (Under the current circumstances relevant responsibilities include loyalty, efforts at integration and reporting subversive activities)

I suspect that you will dismiss my three questions as just another example of the 'Islamophobia' that you are trying to battle. Please be assured however that I am asking them in good faith. In answering them you may also want to explain why I as a non-Muslim should not have a justified fear (not a phobia) of an ideology that divides the world between the 'world of Islam' and the 'world of the sword''; that prohibits it's adherents to befriend even those who are closest in faith to them (Qur'an 5:51); and that enjoins them to fight unbelievers until they feel themselves subdued (Qur'an 9:29).

I challenge you to publish my letter (which will also be sent to a variety of media outlets), and your response, on your website.

Yours truly,

PJS
24/07/2005

Ps. I would have liked to sign my name but after a member of the Muslim community (after what I thought had been good natured debate over the Internet) threatened to track me down and slit my throat I tend to be a bit more careful. (I would have liked to report the incident to the IHRC but again could not find the relevant form).

So I don't think the charge of a "failure of imagination" directed not at "apologists" but at the average inhabitant of an Infidel land, busy with getting and spending, and as little willing to investigate Islam as he is willing to investigate global warming and the melting ice cap and the methane being given off in Siberia, and the new findings about a more-rapidly heating troposphere.

Your point is well taken, Hugh. I guess I was using the wrong term in calling these folks Islam apologists. I understand your analogy between the present day stick-their-heads-in-the-sand infidels and the early 1900's Europeans who failed to understand that Hitler actually meant what he said. But while the 1900's folks could at least give the excuse that they really weren't paying attention to Hitler's writing; what excuse do the present day infidels have for their inaction? I mean what more do the jehadists have to do besides blowing up buildings, doing regular suicide bombings, beheading a few of us every now and then... to gain our attention and to actually get us to believe that they mean exactly what they say?

Sorry to say but it won't wash, we in the west especially commuters in London are suffering a collective punishment for being infidels, I suppose they are going to blow up some more trains.

Personally I can't see any difference in the before or after scenario. And who are they to declare that these are acts of a dictatorship, if the Islamics were people of peace and respect, respected democracy and human rights then I would accept that criticism, but they are not, so I don't.

FInally Islamic Human Rights Commission, that is a bit of a joke, but I guess as PJS1 has so rightly pointed out it is only Muslims who have human rights in their opinion.

The minority, a group invited to join, is warning the majority, the group inhabiting these lands for generations, of a backlash unless they get their way? What's wrong with this picture???

We fear that recent events are being exploited by some sections in society to demonise legitimate Islamic values and beliefs and hence consider it appropriate to make the following observations.

Obviously these "legitimate Islamic values and beliefs" are detrimental to the rest of civilized society as they are used extort and hold that society hostage and in thrall.

PJS: that is an excellent letter, full of well reasoned objections. May I ask you from where you come, originally?

The full text of the statement by the Muslims needs to be read.

Here is one significant excerpt:

"1. The term "extremism", frequently used in the public discourse about religion and terrorism, has no tangible legal meaning or definition and is thus unhelpful and emotive. To equate "extremism" with the aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Muslim world or the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands, as seemed to be misrepresented by the prime minister, is inaccurate and disingenuous. It indicates ignorance of what the Sharia is and what a Caliphate is and will alienate and victimise the Muslim community unnecessarily."

There it is. We should not call "extremism" the natural and understandable "aspirations of Muslims for Sharia laws in the Mulsim world" (or in any part of dar al-Harb that falls under Muslim control; as an important Muslim cleric said in Australia the other day, the minute Australia becomes 51% Muslim, the non-Muslims will be "asked to leave") -- the aim is Sharia, in black and white. As for the idea that the Prime Minister displays "ignorance of what the Sharia is" -- well, let's go into what the Sharia means, has meant, always and everywhere, for Infidels. Let's discuss it, let's adduce examples from history, let's look at Antoine Fattal's study or the other available studies; let's see what we can find at www.dhimmitude.org or by reading the books of Bat Ye'or or Spencer's "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance." By all means, let Infidels clear up any misconceptions they may have about the Sharia.

And the Muslim group also claims that Muslims, in addition to aspiring to the imposition of the Sharia in all lands that are deemed Muslim, also aspires to a new Caliphate. And why? What is so special about the Caliphate? Well, it is a way to unite all Muslims, in order to make them stronger. A Caliphate can order a world-wide Jihad, and possibly make that command stick, so that every Muslim must participate. A Caliphate means an extension of Muslim power, to the obvious detriment of all non-Muslims everywhere.

Yet the Muslims in Great Britain are outraged, even though in their very statement they admit that they have "aspirations toward the imposition of the Sharia" and toward the reimposition of the Caliphate.

What could be clearer? What could be more sincerely and clearly stated? What more is needed to send chills down the spine of every single Infidel in whose country millions of Muslims have been allowed to enter, to procreate, to conduct Da'wa and to further the demographic conquest, from within, of Infidel lands?

Only a fool could ignore the plain meaning of all this. There are still quite a few fools around.

"The British Muslim community has always been a law-abiding community and all its endeavours to create a just society have been entirely peaceful.

A just society = sharia. Articles about islam should come with a Islamospeak/English glossary for the unwary.

So many obvious and troubling truths flow from these statements.

"The aspirations for Sharia laws in the Muslim world and the desire to see unification towards a Caliphate in the Muslim lands" are precisely the aspirations and desire of Osama bin Laden and so-called 'al-Qaeda'. Hence, according to these 'moderate' signatories, the aspirations and goals of Osama bin Laden are not extremist at all but entirely legitimate. Furthermore, to deny that these goals and desires are legitimate is to 'victimise' Muslims and demean Islamic ideology itself. Again, Osama has been saying this all along.

So, what is the difference between this 'moderate' position and so-called 'al-Qaeda'? The difference is obviously not ideology. The ideological goals are the same; there appears simply to be a disagreement about how to achieve these legitimate ends.

Or is there really that much distance on that score? To what lengths are these 'moderate' Muslims willing to go to defend and advance these Islamic goals and protect against the 'victimization' of Muslims and Islam? Do these statements carry implied threats? Do these statements imply that those who pick up the torch of violent jihad in the wake of these 'disingenuous' attacks on Islam are exonerated?

Here are sopme more excerpts:
3. It is natural for Muslims to feel sympathy with fellow Muslims elsewhere in the world and to desire justice for those of them living under oppression. Many people compare the Israeli reality with South African apartheid and demand a similar solution. To denounce anybody who questions the legitimacy of Israel will be seen as an attempt to silence academic thought and legitimate political expression. If the government hopes to pander to Zionist pressure by condemning and excluding from this country people who are critical of Israeli apartheid, it is in fact supporting apartheid.

Here are some questions? Why is it natural for muslims to feel sympathy for fellow muslims elsewhere in the world? Whuy is justice ONLY desired for fellow muslims and not for ALL. And look at the way these jokers talk about a non-existent 'apertheid' in Israel but completely ignore the most blatant form of apertheid that actually exists in all Islamic countries.

4. The proposal to ban the non-violent organisation Hizb ut-Tahrir is, in our view, unwarranted, unjust and unwise, and runs counter to all the principles which Western democracies are currently trying to promote abroad. Any disagreement with a political organisation must be expressed through debate not censorship. Whatever objections one may have to someone else's point of view, we must uphold their right to hold and articulate those views. If it is suggested that any laws have been broken by any individuals or groups then this must be proven by due legal process. Criminalising the mere possession of certain opinions is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies.

Hmmm, to term Hizb ut-Tahrir as a non-violent organization requires quite a sleight of hand. I would urge people to take a look at their official site (http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.org/english/english.html) to get an idea about what this organization aims to do. Here are a few excerpts:

The work of Hizb ut-Tahrir is to carry the Islamic da'wah in order to change the situation of the corrupt society so that it is transformed into an Islamic society. It aims to do this by firstly changing the society's existing thoughts to Islamic thoughts so that such thoughts become the public opinion among the people, who are then driven to implement and act upon them. Secondly the Party works to change the emotions in the society until they become Islamic emotions that accept only that which pleases Allah (swt) and rebel against and detest anything which angers Allah (swt). Finally, the Party works to change the relationships in the society until they become Islamic relationships which proceed in accordance with the laws and solutions of Islam. These actions which the Party performs are political actions, since they relate to the affairs of the people in accordance with the Shari'ah rules and solutions, and politics in Islam is looking after the affairs of the people, either in opinion or in execution or both, according to the laws and solutions of Islam.

What is manifested in these political actions is culturing the Ummah with the Islamic culture in order to melt her with Islam and to cleanse her of the corrupt creeds, false thoughts and erroneous concepts including the influence of Kufr thoughts and opinions.

I suppose we shouldn't be too concerned about these guys. Surely they don't mean us when they talk about the 'corrupt society' that needs to be changed.

5. The same reasoning applies to the proposal to close mosques if they are arbitrarily defined as being "extremist" or to try and politically influence what may or may not be said during a religious talk. This would amount to a collective punishment of the community and will be likely to create fear and prevent legitimate political discussion within mosques. This repression could lead to the very radical subculture which we all seek to prevent.

Ah-ha... do I detect a threat!!!

6. The proposal to deport and/or extradite foreign nationals to countries known for gross human rights abuses is abhorrent to a civilised nation, irrelevant of whether or not a diplomatic assurance that deportees will not be mistreated is obtained.

This takes the cake! Aren't Britain and USA corrupt nations neeeding to be straightened as per Islamic law? Why should the muslims be worried about being deported to their own oh-so un-corrupted lands?

Hugh,
Since my time here, you have enlightened me with your historically accurate posts, and I want to thank you for showing me the things that I would have otherwise never known.

Sincerely,
Bayoucoyote

Diana West has an incisive article

Watching the guard wave a practically magic wand over every angle and face of the thing, it struck me that here we are, Americans in high summer, at the dawnish of the 21st century. We may be citizens of a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal, but our liberty has shrunk under measures we take to ward off Islamic terror attacks, and our dedication to equality looks tatty as we go about making the world safe for ... sharia.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/dianawest/dw20050815.shtml

The more muslims there are in the West, the more our freedoms will be limited.

UK muslim leaders: Fighting jihad will only cause more jihad.
............................................
Well there you go then..I'm just going to relax and watch a little telvision. We should have known that resistance was futile.

The real World War 3 is staging as we speak.

http://www.debka.com/article.php?aid=1071

"It may "create fear" which could lead to "the very radical sub-culture which we all seek to prevent".
Finally, the Muslim leaders said plans to deport foreign nationals to countries known for human rights abuses was "abhorrent"....

Sounds like pure blackmail to me .. of course, I've said that all along because that's what they've used on Israel so much. Now others are getting a taste of it where it hurts the most .. at home.

"Criminalising the mere possession of certain opinions is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies." Does that apply to Saudi Arabia (or any other country under sharia) where it is illegal to build a church or synogogue or worship in any way other than Islam?

Catch 22 here:
"...recent events are being exploited by some sections in society to demonise legitimate Islamic values and beliefs..." such as violent jihad to force the world to submit to Islam......
Translation: "How dare you critisize us for believing we should infiltrate your society and destroy you from within as well as by violent attacks from outside. It is our religious right!"

"Criminalising the mere possession of certain opinions is the hallmark of dictatorships, not democracies."

For example, rational humans might possess the opinion that a psychopathic bedouin murderer, liar, thief, and child-rapist was neither a "perfect man" nor a "prophet". I'm sure one is free to posess that belief in those wonderful arab societies ....

Muslims claim that Islam is the religion of peace.

They say that they condemn terrorism.

But now they say that if muslim terrorists are thrown out of the country then that will create MORE terrorists. How is that so?

Voltaire:But now they say that if muslim terrorists are thrown out of the country then that will create MORE terrorists. How is that so?

Because, as everyone knows, muslims invented maths. This 'LESS' is 'MORE', is advanced maths, well beyond the understanding of you and I.

DP111, I think you've got something there. It's a matter of Al-Gebra.

We know that two wrongs don't make a right. But look here: Three wrongs, raised to the fifth power, times four reciprocal wrongs raised to the third power, less the cube root of the detonation speed of C-4, and Voila!! More terrorists.

Right on Hugh.
Islam is implacable, unchangeable,unforgiving deceiving and deadly.One can see it as a hydra headed monster with many limbs and enablers-from the bombers to the immam enablers to CAIR to Hamas to the PA, to the Int'l Solidarity Movement
The choices of response are:
(1) appeasement - which is the Euro response (they are just waking up to the terrifying possibility that IT WONT WORK). Leads to even stronger and more vicious attacks, and surrender or death.
(2) surrender to Islam - servitude.
(3) resistance and ATTACK. Means the ending of MULTICULTURALISM, Muslim IMMIGRATION, making the law of the West clear on SEDITION and an offence punishable by death, deportation, and everything in between.
(4) end the charade of Islamic states owning the gas station.
We must capture or kill or otherwise neutralize those who are prepared to kill us.

Islamic (un)holy texts make it very clear that resistance or self-defense against muslim imperialism is considered aggression against muslims and Islam. It's a no win situation. Once they invade your country, multiply, build mosques and schools, your beloved homeland is forever changed, and not for the better.

How arrogant they are to expound on the doctrine of democracy and how unfairly they are being treated, when they would abolish every democracy in the world tomorrow if they could. These mendacious hypocrites deserve to be deported to their native Islamic countries. If they end up in squalid prisons and suffer at the hands of their fellow muslims, they might see how good they had it in the evil, corrupt U.K. I have a hard time caring if totalitarian megalomaniac jihadists are tortured or executed. Better them than us.

Pity us all for our stupidity and the pathetic paralysis that prevents us from eliminating the perennial menace of Islam. Pity us for letting this scourge contaminate our countries and our lives. What were we thinking?

But wait, aren't these the "moderate" Moslems? These are the good guys, right? How come they all sound like jihadists? I'm so confused!

Shouldn't we just give peace a chance?

What to do, what to do....

How much more of this crap do we have to put up with before we here in the West do what we have to do and deport every last Moslem outta here? They have NEVER been able to get along with ANYONE, including each other, and have been a cancer everywhere they have been allowed in.

And the politicians who keep telling us that Islam is a "religion of peace" should all be deported along with them, and then they can all live in 'peace' together in the desert!

"Qusayy, Muhammad's great, great, great grandfather was a pagan, of course. He ran a religious scam in Mecca, which centered about pagan Arabs' worship of pre-Islamic gods in the rocks of the Kaaba, the large cube in the allegedly holiest spot in Mecca. One of the pagan gods at the time of Qusayy was named "Allah" ("god" in Arabic is a different word, "ilah," which sounds quite a bit like "Allah" to our ears), sort of like "Joe" or "Sam." Allah was one of 360 gods. He wore three hats. He was a moon god whose special interest was agriculture, as well as a god of the sword and war. He was selected as Muhammad's favorite because of the last two hats. His symbol was the crescent moon, a familiar sight atop many a minaret.

"Qusayy was the Meccan "conventioneer par excellence," promoting and controlling the ceremonies, rituals, and all activities of pagan Arabs coming to Mecca on Hajj (yes, it was going on with exactly the same rituals many decades before Islam) to worship the stone gods of the Kaaba. He ran concession stands, facilities for room and board, transportation, and regulated rituals, procedures, and all access to the Kaaba. This religious scam was Qusayy's livelihood at least 80 years before Muhammad was born, and it was apparently profitable. Even Qusayy invented little; he used the customs, practices, and superstitions of the tribalists. Qusayy's genius was in his conventioneering." - America's Extreme Vulnerability To Islam - The Religion Barrier

So there you have it. "Allah" is a f--king moon god of war who came from a stupid rock! And over one-billion people believe in this nonsense. Apparently, Mr. Barnum, you CAN fool one hell of a lot of people ALL of the time!

One of our university academics here (Paul White of U of Western Sydney), has this to say:

... He believes the chances of a London-style terrorist attack in Australia are negligible.

“Muslims here do not face the same level of provocation as they do in a country like England,” he says, although he is concerned that some media outlets are doing their best to ratchet up the level of Islamophobia to western European levels. ...

Even some non-Muslims are telling us that we shouldn't "provoke" Muslims, or else.

Paul seems to be wagging his finger at the media, who have been doing nothing more than reporting the hostile things that clerics and sheikhs have been saying about Australia, its people, its laws, etc. I mean, they come right out and say some really confrontational, provocative stuff, on their own. Nobody's forcing them to say these things, or recording them without their knowledge. But Mr. White would probably prefer we don't hear that stuff, just the whitewash Islam is Peace and Muslims are so beneficial to Australian society rubbish instead. Mr. White is co-ordinator of Muslims for Peace here, btw. LOL! Isn't that an oxymoron? Or maybe we need to send Mr. White an Islamospeak glossary (thanks, Silvester) to help him understand the Islamic version of "peace".

If we didn't have prominent, influential people constantly making excuses for Islam, we'd have a better chance at fighting it.

"Islamic Human Rights Commission"

Now that is an oxymoron! Muslims are either overt or covert. They really do remind me of the borg.

"Islamic Human Rights Commission"

Now that is an oxymoron! Muslims are either overt or covert. They really do remind me of the borg.

Islamic Human Rights are the freedom to do the following as far as I can ascertain:

1. Kill unbelievers
2. Discriminate against unbelievers
3. Take any women of an unbeliever as slave
4. Tax unbelievers
5. Rob unbelievers
6. Destroy unbeliever society by any means possible
7. Take over the world

Any act in preventing the above is an injustice against Islam. So a catch 22 if ever I have seen it. As such it is a threat, but I hope that the UK government has the back bone to carry out these policies.

Actually when you think about it Iraq and the UK is a test.

Iraq, can the Muslims have a democracy, answer no as they have voted for extreme Shira parties who want to apply Islamic law and an Islamic Republic.

UK, can the Muslims be intergrated by using positive discrimination in a multi-culturist society, answer no as they do not themselves accept multi-cultures.

Now that they have failed those two very major tests, which we needed to set, we can now start playing hardball.

Anyway Islam is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, for me that is a big enough reason for me to see them as the enemy and I can never understand the left wing in not seeing that.

Did anyone see that article about solid sunshine in the Economist, Michael Epstein and his team at Weizmann Institute have developed a novel way to generate Hydrogen using solar energy.

Very insightful comments on this thread deconstructing the Muslim Declaration of War published in the Guardian. The sad -- but predictable -- thing of course, is that there will be no comparable forensic analysis provided by any of the MSM outlets. No attention drawn to the irony, the hypocrisy, and the sheer ludicrousness of those who advocate for Sharia and a global caliphate simultaneously demanding free speech and due process.

Rather, the MSM can be expected to point to this Declaration as evidence of "why they hate us" the next time Islamic terrorism strikes Britain. They warned us, you see, that suppression of their civil liberties might result in further attacks. What a masterful stroke! All the perpetrator has to do is issue veiled threats in advance of violence and -- voila! -- the ensuing violence is completely justified.

Very insightful comments on this thread deconstructing the Muslim Declaration of War published in the Guardian. The sad -- but predictable -- thing of course, is that there will be no comparable forensic analysis provided by any of the MSM outlets. No attention drawn to the irony, the hypocrisy, and the sheer ludicrousness of those who advocate for Sharia and a global caliphate simultaneously demanding free speech and due process.

Rather, the MSM can be expected to point to this Declaration as evidence of "why they hate us" the next time Islamic terrorism strikes Britain. They warned us, you see, that suppression of their civil liberties might result in further attacks. What a masterful stroke! All the perpetrator has to do is issue veiled threats in advance of violence and -- voila! -- the ensuing violence is completely justified.

"The British Muslim community has always been a law-abiding community and all its endeavours to create a just society have been entirely peaceful."

The muslim population of Britain is less then 2%, yet muslims comprise some 8% of Her Majesty's guests.

entirely peaceful??? that gives them 7/7 for Taqqiya.

Someone remind me. Wasn't Hizb ut-Tahrir the gang that barged into some pre-election gathering in Bethnal Green-Bow, menacing the attendees, including then candidate and now Mental of Parliament (as John Lennon might have called him) George Galloway, denouncing him as a false prophet and instructing Muslims not to participate in the elections as they were unIslamic?

Self Criticism is for Wimps - MCB Watch

http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/

Well worth keeping an eye on this blogsite.

Islamic "logic" is just as bizarre as Islamic "science":

A cesspool of indoctrination, circular reasoning and superstition...

We must expose them at every turn...

islamic Human Rights Commission.........

Those first three words are an oxymoron as there is no such stuff.

Viruses and islam.. both must be fought long and hard,as both can be virulent and deadly.The difference, however is that viruses are not evil.

Thanks Hugh for your insights they are a great help to me, who is struggling to read sufficiently to become better informed.

Know your enemy.

Marilyn

Wait...I've seen this movie before.

That the difference between "moderate" and "extremists" muslims is at best undiscernable and at worst non-existent reminds me of something.

Back in the sorry days of a very active Ku Klux Klan many 'law-abiding' citizens were well aware or had a very good idea of who those thugs and murderers were but remained silent out of:

1)fear of reprisal.

2)agreement with what the Klan was doing.

Ultimately, the terror was only brought to an end by anger of the citizens that escalated and brought about the subsequent and overwhelming involvement of federal troops in those areas affected. The 'culture' wasn't changed; it was simply overpowered and pounded into submission.

Even if it did exist, it's quite plain that 'moderate' islam has no control or doesn't wish to control the extremists within their own ranks.

Painting with a wide brush? Hell yeah.

Shut'em down, pack'em up, ship'em out.

I live in the UK and I want to share this with you.

Fact - on July 5th 2005 Abu Hamza's trial started in the UK - CNN being the only station I found which reported the fact. There is a news blackout on what is going on - because it may prejudice the good man's right to a fair trial.

I believe it to be no coincidence that 7/7 bombings happened when they did. If they had retaliated on the day of the trial itself (his followers promised retribution were he to go on trial) then they may have given Britain the Olympics - decision to be made on the 6th. They did not want to give UK a sympathy vote. So they waited till the 7th.

No site in the UK can publish this by law.

It is therefore even more interesting that right now, our police are being tried by the family and lawyers of the young man mistakenly shot by police - oh yes and the media also want to try the police. The police, each of whom most probably acted with the right intentions, do not, it seems have the same right to a fair trial.

That's nice isn't it.