"Gee, how could this possibly happen?" asks Doc Washburn, who kindly sent this in. Surely you don't mean to suggest that a Muslim working in the British Ministry of Defense might have jihadist sympathies! Why, consider all the screening British officials do to make sure that Muslims they hire don't harbor such sentiments!
Of course, actually they don't screen for that at all.
Meanwhile, a new drain on the British economy will be the expense of guarding Muslim soldiers so that they aren't murdered by other Muslims. When your soldiers have to be protected by armed guard, something is seriously wrong.
"Fears of terror mole in UK defence," by Daniel McGrory and Russell Jenkins in The Australian:
DEFENCE chiefs have launched an urgent investigation into how a gang of suspected Islamic terrorists obtained a list of names and addresses for 25 serving British Muslim soldiers as part of an alleged plot to kidnap and behead a serviceman.Senior officers are alarmed that the hitlist includes home addresses as far apart as Glasgow and the West Country.
A priority will be to ensure that no Ministry of Defence "mole" provided the suspected terror cell with such top-secret personal information.
All those on the hitlist are understood to be serving members of the regular army....
Police in the West Midlands were given seven more days yesterday to hold nine men arrested in Birmingham on Wednesday. The men are being held in connection with a suspected plan to abduct and murder a serving soldier, whose execution was to be broadcast on the internet.
Defence officials would not say if all those named on the hitlist had been warned. Senior MoD officials met yesterday to consider whether new security provisions were needed to protect the 330 Muslims serving in the armed forces and their families.
New guidelines are expected to be issued to Muslim personnel in the next few days about their personal safety. A defence official said last night: "Such sensitive information about our personnel is kept under conditions of strict confidentiality, so we obviously want to discover how a list of names and home addresses was reportedly compiled."
send those taken in by the Britts to G'itmo and waterboard them till they tell you who gave them that list...when will our government look out for its cictizens who actually vote them in, and pay their taxes!
Duh !
Whatever gave them that idea ?...What next ?
A nuclear submarine with it`s PC quota of muslims
on board ?
A mole in the MOD is only one option - it could be an employee of any number of private companies contracted to do government work.
How would you screen for this? A question on a job form saying, 'do you have hard on for jihad'?
Any jihadi with 2 brain cells would obviously answer in the negative.
Developed vetting for all employees would be impractical.
Racial profiling of some sort is likely the only option, although that is not foolproof at all given the number of 'reverts' in the EU.
From the earlier reports it seems like a fair number at least of these Muslims in the armed forces are good soldiers and probably MINOs - after all they agreed to act as bait. They're not the problem.
The big question mark is the attitude of the local community behind these soldiers. Almost certainly the hatred shown by the nine in custody was whipped up by the imams. They must be charged and deported, but the soldiers themselves have shown that their hearts are in the right place.
Brett makes a good point.
Interestingly the 'muslim community' has been very angry over these arrests.
Inspector Clouseau:
"I suspect no one and I suspect everyone."
Perhaps it was the Immam who served them in Iraq. Actually, this may be hard to solve as the list of suspects approximates the Moslem population of the world.
One only need take a look at the 'POLITICALLY CORRECT RABBLE'that make up the numbers at the home office(5th column)the vast majority of them.
Im sure the same applies at the M.O.D,pop down there,it looks like united nations seminars in the offices,and they wonder where the leaks are coming from!.
Im sure they have a system in place where they can pinpoint who is looking for what imformation on there data-bases,and who is entitled to see that information...maybe not.
And there encouraging more muslims to join the met police!...lol...bit like letting the fox have a sleepover at the chicken co-op!...
Re: UK officials suspect jihadist mole in Ministry of Defense
"Islam must dominate" is the core of the belief-system. Everything else follows from that, including the belief in one's superiority (not equality with others), the attitude of entitlement, the demand for special privileges, all the self-serving disguised as disinterested principal that is systemic to the Islamic belief-system.
Deception-hypocrisy is permitted ("War is deception") to further domination. It makes perfect sense to require every person in the security forces to take lie detection tests on a regular basis. It is absolute common sense to do that with belief-system adherents.
For several years at this website it has been suggested that NATO must meet, or perhaps the Defense Secretaries of all NATO countries aside from Turkey must meet, to discuss the problem of Muslim infiltration of the military and spy agencies and other security services. The supposed "integration" of Muslims, the ways in which those in charge of their vetting often rely on the advice of other Muslims, who make assurances to them, the access of Muslims, as the Muslim population grows, to Western weaponry and Western military secrets, the possible effect if, as that population grows, of a takeover by Muslims, in two generations or perhaps earlier, of a Western country, and what should then be the response of other Western countries still free of Muslim domination? Should they promptly expel their Muslim population to avoid the same fate? Should they invade the country taken over to rescue its art, its monuments, and the remaining Infidels, who might still be, in fact, close to a majority, or even a majority, of the population? Planning can only take place if the problem is recognized (see Lenin and the Bolshevik Revolution and the Russian Civil War; see Adolf Hitler and the irse of the Nazis; see global warming and possibly unstoppable, and catastrophic, climate change; see, see, see).
Infidels are going to have to rely for their knowledge of Islam not on what the Islamintern tells them, not what The Guardian or John Simpson or Edward Mortimer or John Esposito or a thousand others tell them that Islam is all about, but rather on those who are fully capable of studying the texts, studying the history, putting it together, and arriving at a view of Islam that both explains the previously accumulated data, and has predictive value about the behavior of Muslims in the future. Such a work, for example, is "Islam and Dhimmitude" by Bat Ye'or. Many of the articles at this website have made predictions, early on, about what would happen, what kinds of behavior could be foreseen -- that is, were perfectly foreseeable although not foreseen -- in Iraq, and then outside Iraq in response to events within Iraq.
Those who write books with such titles as "After Jihad" (such as Noah Feldman), demonstrate obvious misunderstanding of what Jihad is, and how it does not "go away" but merely, in a sense, can go into remission when the Infidels are too strong and the Muslims too weak. And many others have written in the same strange vein about "Jihad" as if it were a passing problem, easily overcome by Muslims themselves. These include John Esposito (a recipient of Arab financial support, and for decades a denier of the importance of Jihad (it hardly is mentioned once in his earlier books), and how came out with some soothing nonsense tellingly titled "Islamic Holy War: Myth or Reality?" where every page is meant to reinforce the idea of "myth." Yet even Esposito has had to do a quick rewrite here and there, and though economically, doing splendidly (that Lebanese Christian contractor who got the whole "Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding" rolling was long ago replaced by Saudi and other Muslim money, and Esposito, exploiting the Georgetown label -- can't James V. Schall, S. J. do anything about this grotesque tainting of Georgeotwn by Esposito's continued use of its name, and exploitation of an affiliation that should long ago have been severed by the university?). And the same kind of denial of the permanence, or the real significance of Jihad, can be seen in the sociological blah of Olivier Roy and Gilles "Never Right" Kepel. And Noah Feldman, thrusting young academic, has been made, in a disastrous move by Harvard Law School, an offer he will not refuse, and from which perch he will be in a position to mislead Harvard law students, and to exploit the "Professor-at-Harvard-Law-School" pseudo-authority in fooling others, for the next three decades, at a time when there is no room for such terminal miscomprehenders of Islam (no, those references from Roy Mottahedeh and John Esposito and, for all I know, Ambassador Bremer about Feldman's work -- why, he practically wrote the entire Iraqi "Constitution," dontcha know? -- should not have impressed those, alas, supposedly highly trained, sketpical, not-to-be-fooled and eminently foolable, faculty members on the Law School's Search Committee. And Esposito, though no longer an adviser to the government, still swans about giving interviews, being quoted as an authority, even invited to give keynote addresses by fellow conspirators in MESA Nostra (which see, quod vide, that is to say google "MESA Nostra"). And Kepel and Roy were consulted by Chirac and the vacuous D. de V. -- but Sarkozy will, one hopes (it isn't entirely clear) throw them out the way those who had counselled appeasement in Great Britain were thrown out when Churchill came to power -- unless they managed to completely change their views. Yesterday's Men, Feldman and Esposito and Kepel and Roy, but still in positions where they can do damage. That is why they must be scrutinized and their stated views held up to the mockery they deserve.
Just as the civilian leaders are mostly Yesterday's Men not up to the task of grasping, or even studying, the matter of Islam, the military leaders are similarly unfamiliar with the doctrines of this Total System, and of the peculiar hold it has on the minds of men. They may make judgements based on the exceptional Muslims, the one out of 1,000, rather than the other 999. This would be fatal. For reasons known only to them, a few prominent "Muslims-for-identification-purposes-only" Muslims -- Fouad Ajami and Zalmay Khalilzad come to mind -- will not announce their real views on Islam, and Ajami, in his books, stays carefully away from the subject, so that the value of his work has been, often, fatally vitiated by his refusal to confront the Matter of Islam. Perhaps he senses this, and believes he cannot, for career reasons, or even if he wishes to continue to travel, say, to Kuwait (Behbehanis and all), to meet with that handful -- it is a handful, only a handful -- of the enlightened or quasi-enlightened. He has the same problem that Bernard Lewis has: wanting to speak to the Infidels, and wanting at the same time, with the same words, to try to move a potential audience of advanced Muslims along as well. And neither Ajami, nor Lewis, has been able be the proper guide for policy, partly for that reason, partly because Lewis has minimized, and Ajami ignored, the malevolence, and power, and menace of Islam. They can't do it.
Others, however, can, and it is such people who should be consulted by the military and political leaders as they make plans to fulfill their primary task: to instruct, and to protect, those whom they presume to lead.
The solution is simple don't employ muslims in defence or the police. Or for that matter air travel.
It occurs to me that Dickens' story a Christmas Carol (really a story of Christian redemption) is played in reverse with Islam. Bob Cratchit is a Dhimmi, others are Dhimmis, who deserve to be exploited and deceived. Islam is the perfect cover for domination/exploitation presented as disinterested principle. Some Muslim Scrooge needs a lie detector at the Ministry of Defense.
(Hey Fitzgerald, I'll bet you could write a play reversing the Christmas Carol and have Scrooge turn Muslim. I'm serious. It could be hilarious.)
FYI - this is news from Friday:
(UK) Fears of terror mole in UK defense - urgent investigation into how a gang of suspected Islamic terrorists obtained a list of names and addresses for 25 serving British Muslim soldiers
http://www.ntnews.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,7034,21163287%255E401,00.html
Another example of cohabitation failure. If you screened all the muslims, and when you feel safe afterwards, other muslims in the units, will follow the same suite. You are not going to get Islam outta their heads, it won't happen. You can't take a gorrilla outta the jungle, put him in a zoo and expect him to be happy and content; it won't happen !
At first, he'll appear content, and then afterwards, "all hell will break loose !" Don't put him near dangerous equipment, or know of tactical procedures; it'll be used against you !
I think the best solution for Britain is to disband the military altogether, after all, what's the point in having it when you have their sort of immigration policy?
Hugh-
German General Halder said after WW2 that the General Staff planned a coup against Hitler in 1938 (during Munich) because Germany was not prepared for war against England. He said that all Chamberlain had to do was refuse Hitler's demands and say that war was inevitable and the German army was going to move to overthrow Hitler. I guess Halder and the General Staff were Nazi moderates. In the long run, the total destruction of Nazism was providential and the appeasement moved events to the necessity of the use of extreme force against Nazism (an ideology of force and domination).
Force (in one form or other) is central to Islam and Islam will end by the use of extreme force against its domination ideology. The days of the Chamberlains are passing quickly. The days of appeasement are coming to an end. The Iranian psychos will be the first of many belief-system adherents to feel the harsh sting of reality re Islam. Islam began with the sword and Islam will end by the sword.
"I think the best solution for Britain is to disband the military altogether, after all, what's the point in having it when you have their sort of immigration policy?"
You don't know how good they are?
Do you?
Grow up soft lad!
:-)
During the cold war MAD ruled. Reason ruled out.
Something like MAD needs to be declaired as a matter of US policy.
I would not expect the US to ever use Nukes first.
I wouldn't expect an Islamic "State" to have their fingers on the first use either.
However, Each Islamic "State" should be well aware what will happen to them. With Fingerprints or not.
If this happens to us, THIS WILL happen to You and You and You... All these "Yous'" are behind this Jihad by their own lack of condemnation. They allow it to occure and foster it's spread.
They are not inocent.
In Islam, the consept of Guilt by Association is proven in their Scripture. If you even could call it that?
They need to understand that they all will pay a heavy price for what they willingly turn a blind eye to.
How many times could we fuse all the sand of the Middle East into Glass?
They need to know the price for lack of reason. They didn't like hearing it from the Pope, but they might understand it from us.
Frank
"German General Halder said after WW2 that the General Staff planned a coup against Hitler in 1938"
There is no question about this. If you can get hold of a copy of "Bounden Duty" by Alexander Stalberg or Sthalberg he says they also told Chamberlin. You will also be suprised to find just what the German army thought of Hitler.
I think the real problem was the conventions of European diplomacy. It was just unthinkable to set the precedent of consenting/encouraging a military coup in another European country.
Flowerknife....
Right on ....
I suspect that those messages....errhum...diplomatic strong advice have already been issued.
Sort the shit out, prevent it, or you will ALL become contaminated pieces of glass.
Islam will be defeated by its own arrogance and ultimately......cowardice when confronted with the REAL fury of the West..
I hope this teaches the arrogant, smug, self-assured bureacrats in Western governments a lesson (Though they probably of course will learn nothing as usual! How do these people stay employed?). Muslims are not going to put loyalty to an "infidel" country above loyalty to their dead pedophile false prophet. As such, they are constitute a security risk of the most severe kind. They would occupy positions where they could expose undercover agents, thwart surveillance operations, inform on military operations, assist terrorist in casing targets, carrying out attacks, and escaping apprehension just to name a few. Put simply, they must never be permitted to occupy any government position of any kind. Even making them a floor cleaner allows them access to government buildings and places innocent people at great risk.
send those taken in by the Britts to G'itmo and waterboard them till they tell you who gave them that list...when will our government look out for its cictizens who actually vote them in, and pay their taxes!
Posted by: ZenaWarriorPrincess at February 4, 2007 06:22 AM
"Waterboarding" is a good idea but I think a pair of pliers, a bucket of pigsblood, and a blowtorch would get much faster, more complete results.
We will know if the UK will survive by the reaction to this sedition, if it proves to be true.
Kidnapping plots: If muslims start kidnapping westeners in their oun lands, I think it could be the greatest wake up call ever.
This could change the current immigration policies around and the views held by all those PCs out there.
Hugh mentioned Turkey. As Turkey becomes more Islamicized, the common defense of NATO against Islamist terrorism will become increasingly compromised. I do not see how Turkey can be indefinitely excluded from NATO discussions on Islamist penetration of Europe without starting a major diplomatic row. Likewise, if Turkey is admitted to the European Union, then the EU's common defense against Islamist aggression will become more difficult.
It's just as if a Communist country got admitted to NATO during the Cold War.
Think it can't happen? We've already had problems with Turkey that have hurt our fight against Islamism: The U.S. was forced to promise Turkey that we would not support Kurdish independence, in exchange for their support for the Iraq War. (In the end, they reneged on that promise anyway and we never got to launch a second assault on Iraq staged out of Turkey.)
I hate the BNP!
Vote BNP!!
Someone give me another option...
I'm with sounder on this one. Maybe the Brits miscalculated this one.
When Muslims start kidnapping in western lands, things will change immediately. It is a federal crime here. AFAIK, even the U.S. has suffered with political kidnappings however all of the kidnappers have suffered.
The miscalculation of the Brits could be in many ways. After all, many Imams would tell you the Muslims wouldn't kidnap people because they are a ROP. I can see why the Muslims don't believe any of this. They have been taught not to.
The US State Department encourages Muslims to show up to work in traditional Islamic dress. Direction from Condelesa Rice.
Everybody gets along swell in La La Land.
While kidnappings don’t cause the extent of carnage that suicide bombings do, they may cause just as much fear (maybe more).
How long before kidnappings of everyday citizens occurs somewhere near you?
Can every citizen be followed by security guards?
Who guards the security guards when they go home?
Wise up!
Be armed. Be prepared.
“Don’t ask what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your government.”
While kidnappings don’t cause the extent of carnage that suicide bombings do, they may cause just as much fear (maybe more).
How long before kidnappings of everyday citizens occurs somewhere near you?
Can every citizen be followed by security guards?
Who guards the security guards when they go home?
Wise up!
Be armed. Be prepared.
“Don’t ask what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your government.”
Posted by: LoneRanger at February 4, 2007 01:48 PM
Excellent argument! I fully agree!
This is a very serious problem for the British Ministry of Defence. When are they (and us here in the US as well) going to wake up and understand this will turn into a fight for our very survival.
flowerknife_us
"They need to know the price for lack of reason. They didn't like hearing it from the Pope, but they might understand it from us."
Sadly I have to disagree with you Flowerknife. I believe they will never figure it out it at all. They will unleash a dirty bomb or a nuke in some city in the US, Isreal or maybe even somewhere in Europe. When that happens, God have mercy, because the dogs of war will be unleashed.
Once this happens you can't put the Genie back in the bottle.
Hugh: it is not Esposito who taints the reputation of Georgetown U, it is Father Schall. The university as a whole is PC and apostate. What I wonder is what a genuine Catholic philosopher is doing in it - and, for that matter, in the Jesuit Order. Waiting for better days, I guess.
Moles in the Defense Department: just another example out of many of a mess a Western nation can get into by begin PC and regarding every Muslim citizen as any other citizen- as if they is no difference to worry about all else equal. They are not just like anyone else! The awful Koranic & hadith crap one has to assume they believe should prevent trusting them in sensitive positions. This incident represents another of a great many reasons to stop Muslim immigration, now!
PC kills. It's clearly a very different world now that requires new laws to protect against Muslim terror - like reasonable criteria for revoking citizenship of Muslims, aggressive ingterrogation methods (waterboarding is especially recommended), longer prison sentences and quicker deportation. Our current sell-out & spineless politicians are way behind the curve.
Problems arise not merely from moles, but from perfectly above-board Muslims, American citizens, whose worldview and whose goals cannot conceivably be the same as ours. When, for example, Vali Nasr gives a briefing, as he did for George Bush last year, it is not conceivable that he will suggest to Bush that the Sunni-Shi'a split is of great depth and duration, and that the best thing for the Americans is to exploit it.
No. Vali Nasr wants the Americans to take the side of the Shi'a. How does he put it? He puts it thus: that the real enemy of "democracy" in Iraq are the Sunnis (it's true, for after all the Sunni Arabs constitute less than 20% of the population) and it is they whom the Americans should be singlemindedly suppressing, and not bother with the Shi'a militia. What is surprising is not that Vali Nasr would hold such views, but that he would be asked to give Bush a briefing. And no doubt there are Sunni Muslims exerting their own kind of pressure, offering their own plausible stories, about the "Shi'a crescent" and so on, in order to get the Americans to fight the Shi'a militias and remain to protect the Sunni Arabs. And part of that plausible and self-interested version of events is to appear to be terrified of the Iranians, and to exaggerate their threat, and to "threaten" to send aid to Iraq. For god's sake, let the Sunnis send aid. Let them send tens of billions of dollars in aid to fellow Sunnis in Iraq. That's fine. Let the Sunnis put up a good fight, with plenty of money and weaponry, against a Shi'a enemy that has three times the population, controls the major oilfields in Iraq, and has the potential support of Iran and Iranian agents.
Fine.
But do not listen either to the special pleading of the Shi'a (it was that special pleading by Shi'a in exile that did so much to convince makers of policy to invade Iraq in the first place), including the smooth Vali Nasr, or to the special pleading of the Sunni Arab rulers and diplomats - in Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia --who are just as sinister, and manipulative, and probably more so, than the Shi'a variety.
It is true that the Shi'a state of Iran needs to be stripped of its nuclear potential. But otherwise, nothing need be done to limit the Shi'a fight against Sunnis in Iraq, or to limit the fight by Sunnis against Shi'a in Lebanon. No need to play favorites. Pace Vali Nasr and Reuel Gerecht, and even Fouad Ajami with his surpising admiration for Al-sistani, the Shi'a are not our friends. Pace Abdullah of Jordan, and Mubarak, and all the Saudis (our mortal enemies, not our "staunch allies"), the Sunnis are not our natural allies against this Muslim threat supposedly limited to wicked Shi'a being directed from Iran Both are false stories. Both should be rejected by an American government that seems terminally innocent, terminally manipulable by Muslims of one sort or another.
Something like MAD needs to be declaired as a matter of US policy.
I would not expect the US to ever use Nukes first.
Posted by: flowerknife_us at February 4, 2007 10:13 AM
++++++++++++
if the choice is to save America and Americans by using nukes first or let the mos use nukes in America, launch the bombers now.
The Texican.
Be armed. Be prepared.
“Don’t ask what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your government.”
Posted by: LoneRanger at February 4, 2007 01:48 PM
+++++++++++
it seems the message is getting out.
Prepare be armed be ready.
war is coming inside America......the muzzards will not take prisoners.
the muzzards are armed and trained to use their weapons.............
prepare be armed be ready..........
The Texican.
LoneRanger said:
“Don’t ask what your government can do for you. Ask what you can do for your government.”
Political correctness is too deeply ingrained in New Labour government policy for it to be able to take the necessary steps to counter the Muslim fifth columnists.
The official Conservative opposition have aligned their policies to match those of New Labour.
The Liberal Democrats wouldn't say boo to a goose (they would be more likely to attempt a sexual union with it).
The best thing we can do is to vote out the present government and replace it with one which will fulfil its primary objective: to protect its citizens.
Just a small reminder of the farcical consequences of New Labour's immigrant welcome mat:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006240168,00.html
Although I certainly would not discount the possibility of a Mohammedan mole in our security services (the Soviets managed to get many into both ours and the US during the cold war). I would not discount either, the possibility of this information having been gathered by Muslims themselves. Their communities and mosques are so riddled with hardliners that this would be easy. They would be duty bound as "good moslems" to rat on these guys. The conversation would go something like this "Why has Abdul not been to Friday prayers for a few weeks? - Oh he's joined the army to fight for the Infidels. Gosh we had better tell Mullah Ahmed at once or our souls will rot in hell!!"
Get the picture? Of course these jokers are organised, their inter mosque secret police will keep tabs on all of them (They are called Mullahs by the way). Islamophobia is justified and rational, we are facing a well organised and disciplined enemy with world domination in his game plan. Not to fear them would be madness. However not to fight them would be lunacy on a gross scale.
As for our security services, we need to tighten up the rules (listen up USA this applies to us both). All members of the security services should be subject to a new and enhanced Treason law. They would be required to swear a solemn and binding oath to their Queen and Country. At this point the punishment for treason would be made clear. Death by Firing Squad. Whilst I understand this would probably mean nothing to your average suicide mozzie, it ought to focus the mind a bit, and would certainly root out the wimpy, liberal, leftie sympathisers. I bet their "conscience" would have less desire to divulge secret information "for the public good" at the thought of that cold brick wall behind them.
Robert said:
"... a new drain on the British economy will be the expense of guarding Muslim soldiers so that they aren't murdered by other Muslims."
Common sense dictates that only non-Muslims should be considered for such bodyguard duties. However, in a land where common sense is equated to racism, anti-discriminatory laws could conceivably allow a covert jihadist to perform this role.
to mr tommy atkins
you stated "I hate the BNP!
Vote BNP!!
Someone give me another option..."
the other option is .....ISLAM!!!
most libs and socialists would sooner grasp islam than face their enemy, the far right.
george galloways party for example allies both islamic socialists and university socialists and the far left non muslims.