Former UK "intelligence" chief: 9/11 was no big deal

Oh dear. As a Brit, I only hope that any posters from the USA reserve their anger at these idiotic comments for this woman herself (and maybe the Grauniad too).

She quite clearly doesn't understand the difference in scope, methods and aims of the IRA and Islamic Jihadists.

"Response to 9/11 was 'huge overreaction' - ex-MI5 chief"

No wonder England is going down the tubes.

As an Englishman I'd like to state that that stupid, Muppet woman doesn't speak for the rest of us over here. No wonder Al Quaeda and their ilk are laughing at us with idiots like that who have been in charge of our security services.

'In an interview with the Guardian, Stella Rimington calls al-Qaida's attack on the US "another terrorist incident" but not qualitatively different from any others.'

As a citizen of the United Kingdom I want to say to you Americans that I (as with many others) do not accept, or associate in any way with her statement. I feel ashamed to declare my self as 'British' when such opinions are made.

An assesment of what Islamists think of the Islam and its relationship to the UK can be found at the following:

http://duaat.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/british.pdf

Let's be clear here; she does have a point.
The War in Iraq has been a key event that Muslims in the UK have used to their advantage. Look at the suicide bombers videos and you will see that they do cite Iraq and Afghanistan as reasons for their future actions.
Don't get me wrong, Islam is by default radical, but a War in Iraq/Afghanistan only gave them more fuel to fire back at us(in the UK).

Put it this way, if the government had:

1. completely stopped Islamic immigration and growth

2. actively made sure that Muslims integrated into the UK and not create their ghettos

3. they not allowed Saudi Arabia to buy the destruction of British Culture in favour of an Islamic one complete with even more mosques, halal meat shops and complete freedom of dress as well as Sharia

4. they instituted British culture into them and not allowed them to have their own Islamic one

5. they stopped the radical preaching of Imams in Mosques, or should I say the true teaching of Islam to Muslims

6. made them learn English as their first language and become British with love in their birth country before any other/religion

7. they clamped down immediately on the Salman Rushdie protests, allowing free speech in the UK especially on Islam and any book to be published

8. they made sure that any books/speeches/articles against Britain could be tried as treasonous

then the situation that we have would not be as bad as it is.
Look at it this way, the UK has allowed its Muslim population to grow unhindered and protected and by going to war against a Muslim country, when the government knows fine well that Muslims will protect Muslims before anyone else, all they have done is made the situation worse. Before you think I'm apologising for the governments actions, I'm not, I'm just simply making the connection that if you all a group of people to grow up in a society, completely alien to it, who have no loyalty to it and yet bomb countries, that to them is nothing short of killing their families, then expect trouble.
The government in allowing Islam to grow any way it pleases in the UK and not put a leash on it has made many problems for people in the UK and abroad. It is the failures of our governments more than anything, who have allowed something they have no understanding of whatsoever to take a foothold in the UK and start to shape it how it wants, even though it makes up 10% of the population.

People! You must read this NYT article today about how China is controlling Islam! We need to follow China's example - the entire West does:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/19/world/asia/19xinjiang.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Thing is that I don't really buy the whole "suicide bombings were in retaliation to our involment in Iraq/Afghanistan" theories.
If I recall correctly around 18 months or so ago wasn't there some kind of terrorist bombing which was discovered just in time by their security forces - even though Germany didn't have troops in either country? I could be incorrect, but I'm certain I read something along those lines.

If these people are more loyal to those in Muslim countries than the country they are allowed to claim benefits in? Well - ship them back.
It will cost billions to do it but in the long run.

We also keep hearing that in the UK our NHS wouldn't function if we deported the Mozzas.
Load of rubbish - less people to support on the NHS less people needed to work in it.

Maybe instead of importing Drs from abroad we should make it easier for our own citizens to train to become Drs.

"She doesn't know, of course, because she probably knows next to nothing about history or about Islam, that the war in Iraq is just a pretext, and if it weren't there, some other pretext would be found. The pretexts always shift, but the jihad imperative behind them remains."

Good heavens, yes. Among other pretexts: the existence of Israel, the "plight" of the "Palestinian refugees", the American bases in various Islamic countries icluding Saudi Arabia, the American alliances with various Islamic countries such as Pakistan, the Western "theft" of Islamic oil ("theft" at over $100/bbl!), etc. Then there's the near-universal belief by the Islamic "street" and its clerical leadership in CIA and Mossad "plots" that keep Islamic countries poor and weak -- see V.S.Naipaul's "Among the Believers".

If the response to the September 11 2001 attacks on the US as a "huge overreaction" then what was 9/11 itself?

An overreaction to:
-Eight years of coddling Yasser Arafat and financing his killing machine. Did Bill Clinton invite him to the White House too many times?
-Ten years of trying to aid Muslims in the former Yugoslavia, to the detriment of our own interests
-Eight years of ignoring the first attack on the WTC. That attack was supposed to knock one tower into the other at midday, with a possible loss of life in the tens of thousands.
-Eight years of pretending al Qaeda didn't exist and that the attacks on American embassies and ships and soldiers were just the work of a few malcontents.

Al Qaeda was just so upset at being ignored that it had a huge temper tantrum on 9/11. It was really "a huge overreaction" to America's existence. Not even Bill Clinton could stop it.

Darcy, I took a look at the link you gave for the Chinese control of Islam in Sinkiang. Very interesting. Bit I didn't see any mention of another method the Chinese are using: namely the settling of ethnic Han Chinese in that province in large numbers, with the aim of making the Islamic Uighurs a minority in their own homeland. It's the same technique that the Moslems are using against Europe, only used against them in this case -- a bit of hoisting by their own petard.

If these people are more loyal to those in Muslim countries than the country they are allowed to claim benefits in? Well - ship them back.

Vampire Jack,
Colin Powell just took that argument away. His endorsement of Barack Obama included what was supposed to be a heart-wrencher about one of the soldiers killed a year after 9/11. He was just twenty years old, came from NJ and died serving his country. When he was buried it was under the Islamic crescent. "No Christian cross, no Jewish Star of David".
This effectively means we should can any and all talk about Islam's threat to America.

"Just another terrorist incident"

Pearl Harbor:

The overall death toll reached 2,350, including 68 civilians, and 1,178 injured. Of the military personnel lost at Pearl Harbor, 1,177 were from the Arizona.

9/11:

The 9/11 attacks killed 2,973 people, including Americans and foreign nationals but excluding the terrorists.

VampireJack and other Brits,
This woman doesn't speak for you but what about her party? You can't separate her from her party. There's good and bad in a parliamentary system.

Stella Rimington has embarked on a new career as a writer. She and her novel appeared on C-SPAN2, which boasts forty-eight hours of NON-FICTION BOOKS.

How did "At Risk" do in the UK?
It sounded politically correct: a terrorist who's an ethnic native of the target country and thus able to cross its borders unchecked and move around its environs unquestioned.

Darcy, I took a look at the link you gave for the Chinese control of Islam in Sinkiang. Very interesting. Bit I didn't see any mention of another method the Chinese are using: namely the settling of ethnic Han Chinese in that province in large numbers, with the aim of making the Islamic Uighurs a minority in their own homeland. It's the same technique that the Moslems are using against Europe, only used against them in this case -- a bit of hoisting by their own petard.

Posted by: ebonystone at October 19, 2008 9:55 AM

Thanks, ebonystone. Why don't you relay that info to reporter Edward Wong? I sent him a nice long message filled with "Bravo China!" and lots of info about evil Islam, Mo, Qur'an, and why the Chinese are RIGHT to contain Mohammedanism. Bravo, China!

I think it's a VERY IMPORTANT ARTICLE. Thanks for reading!

Stella's been into the Stella.

Singapore also controls its muslim population tightly. They control their entire population tightly. Everyone's under someone's thumb in China. It would be impossible to implement here.

You can find stupid anywhere you look. You can find it among doctors, attorneys, engineers, an yes, even leaders. Remember, Jimmy Carter used to be president of the US. Look at what he's saying now. It's enough to make a dhimmi blush.

No, the real measure of a religion is what it does in the face of adversity. If it advocates violence, opposes justice for all, oppresses its populace, and can not tolerate criticism then it must be a cult, not a mainstream religion.

We prosecute cult leaders and imprison their members for the crimes they commit. They are power hungry evil people and they deserve to be separated from the rest of the world.

Should we do that with Islam? I leave it to you to draw your own conclusions.

As Jdamm said our 7/7 was not such a large event as 9/11 - but try telling that to the people's families who died. We must also remember that 2 weeks later another attack failed (luckily).

I'm pretty certain that another attack is just around the corner (there were rumours of planned attacks against our Royal family - which if that were to happen, well shit really would hit the fan and I wouldn't feel safe ever again if I were from a Muslim background).

What really sickens me is that our Government tolerate Muslims on the streets celebrating these attacks with banners claiming that Europes 9/11 is coming - and so is the REAL holocaust.
They wouldn't tolerate BNP members warning of a REAL holocaust coming for the Muslims.

What I don't get though is the stupidity of these Muslims - have they already forgotten what happenended in Nazi Germany to the "scapegoats" back then? Have they forgotten the history of the European people? Have they already forgotten that both previous times they thought they would conquer us they were defeated....
What - do they really think their precious Allah will protect them when civil unrest kicks off?

They really are the ones commiting suicide at the moment.

"Rimington mentions Guantánamo Bay, the practice of extraordinary rendition, and the invasion of Iraq - three issues which the majority in Britain's security and intelligence establishment opposed privately at the time"

Sounds like MI5 is due for an overhaul.
Maybe Dame Eliza Manningham-Buller had better been replaced by Dame Edna.

i don't know what to say to our cousins, the English. i'm glad i live in america. you see, we have a 2nd amendment in our constition which allowing me to bears arms. and the reason to bear arms? well, the reasons were written long ago, our forefathers knew that the nature of governments is to get large, too invasive. a well armed citizens might stop that(then again, they might not).

what are the British to do?

"Britain is now part of the Axis of Evil as far as I'm concerned. Not most of the people, but the government."

By PMK Above

With all do respect PMK, that provocative comment was patently unfair to the British people. Be critical if you shall, but that definition is quite unfair.

Regards
Mackie

Without a doubt, this is one of the most disturbing articles that I've read here.

If we're looking toward government officials for effective leadership against this enemy and ideology, it obviously isn't going to happen.

The British elites remain clueless about what Islam really intends. That comes through quite clearly as excuses are made and are pathetically thought of as arguments by those making them. Also, it's interesting to observe how China treats with its Muslim population, but no Western democracy will treat with its Muslim poulation that way because it is a Western democracy. Right now, Islam has Western democracies by the balls. And the excuses keep pouring out from deeply ignorant Western elites, be they in Britain, America or elsewhere. We're in trouble.

What - do they really think their precious Allah will protect them when civil unrest kicks off?
Posted by: VampireJack

No, not Allah, Allah never protected anyone from anything. All he does is sit around all day willing things. No, not Allah, Obama..

Obama will not only save America and it's beloved Mohammadans, he will save Europe and the world.

Don't you recognize the messiah when you see him? Louis Farrakhan and my sister do.

The swooning and prostrating at his feet has not even yet begun in earnest, wait till he actually wins, and reveals his true identity...
Hint...There's a big red S on his undershirt...

Quote: "she probably knows next to nothing about history or about Islam"

- Having worked in British intelligence, I can tell you first hand that very few analysts and terrorism 'experts', know anything about Islam, and even when they do, they know very little. The general consensus is that Islamic terrorism (Jihadism) should be treated like any other form of terrorism, and that the root causes are the same. This is why you hear the arguement that Islamic terrorism is a consequence of poverty and oppression, rather than a direct result of the sanctioned/mandated violence against unbelievers, within the Islamic sources.

The thing about Jihadism, is that it's a religious ideology, rather than something mundane and easy to understand (like IRA national grievances). Being based on religious texts, Jihadism is believed to be 'open to interpretation', rather than an immutable ideology, which is applicable for all time.

Islam is just SO complex and vast in scope, that intelligence agencies would need a specialised department and specialised experts, just to deal with Islamic terrorism alone.

The problem is that intelligence agencies over-generalise terrorism, turning every attack into a cookie-cutter incident that requires no real understanding.

[Britain is now part of the Axis of Evil as far as I'm concerned. Not most of the people, but the government."

Mackie replied:

With all do respect PMK, that provocative comment was patently unfair to the British people. Be critical if you shall, but that definition is quite unfair.]

Mackie
Fair or not to the 'British People' as an American, all I can say is the UK passport in the hands of 7th century barbarian terrorists that YOU have made 'British citizens' is the GREATEST danger to the U.S. in the world today. The massive back & forth movement between Pakistan and Britain is a daily injection of deadly microbes into the bloodstream of the West. Your government, media and institutions daily facilitate EVIL. I'm sure you are 'bothered' by this but many good Germans were 'bothered' too. A lot of good it did.

I regret to have to say this to fellow Americans. A country that is poised to elect the abandoned child of a polygamous Muslim, with the name Hussein, to the presidency is in no position to criticise the Brits.

Robert or staff:

Thank you for removing the comment by PMK.

poetcomic1;

As I pointed out, make your critical comments of course, but PMKs' remark was completely out of line.

The British people are not responsible for their plight. They have the same disease America has only a larger dose in a smaller area. The British people are not held captive by Islam, but like in America, held captive by our elitist, self serving, and stupid officials. Who seeming really are 'stuck on stupid', where Islam is concerned. Officials that almost seem like clones of each other, and all on the same page. The page of appeasement, of yielding, of surrender, their own forms of taqiyya, and of selling out the very people who put them in power, and keep them in power.

In America the choice today is between John McCain, who will sell us out a little, or Barack 'H' Obama who will sell us out completely.

While the lesser of two evils is still evil, in this case I will take the lesser...

Rogster: Not surprised in the least by your sobering and informed analysis. I have to wonder if there's any chance that many younger intelligence personnel coming up through the ranks might be beginning to get it. Perhaps this is a generational thing. Let's hope so. But, of course, the possibility that younger folks have been brainwashed by political correctness, multiculturalism and a disallowance of appreciating traditional British culture could actually make a younger generation of intelligence personnel even more abysmally ignorant of Islam's agenda. Hope this isn't the case. Better not be or Britain really is going down the tubes. Too bad the Brits ever let the spiritual cancer which is Islam into their country. Ditto for every other Western nation.

To commenters:

I wish to apologize to PMK in regards to the comments that I attributed to him.

The comment was in fact made by jdamm.

My apologies PMK

I will ask Robert about removing the statement made by jdamm.

Regards
Mackie

Stella Remington's statement reveals not just ignorance about Islam, but a pronounced anti-Americanism. How else does one explain the utter factual inaccuracy of her statement. The "qualitative difference" between 9-11 and any previous singular terrorist attack anywhere in the world couldn't be more stark in terms the numbers killed and the impact on the economy.

Anti-Americanism is the ideological life-support that keeps the ossified multicultural elite in Europe from self-euthanizing; it is the one facet of identity they have left.

Mackie, that was me, not PMK. To American ears it sounds as if the British government is siding with Al Qaeda and suggesting that we deserved to not only have our WTC and most of Lower Manhattan along with the Pentagon destroyed, but that they should have succeeded in blowing up the White House too, oh, and screw those brave souls who took the plane down themselves, some of the most noble fighters in American history. A civilian D-Day, if you will. I made the distinction between the government and the people. How am I not to come to the conclusion that the British government is evil when they say things like that? It's enough to cause the equivalent of Alert's Conservative Betrayal Bush Derangement Syndrome. I don't think the good people of Britain feel that way anymore that Americans do: it's the radical Leftists, the Cindy Sheehans who think that, but in both nations it seems like the crazies are running the nuthouse.

What really sickens me is that our Government tolerate Muslims on the streets celebrating these attacks with banners claiming that Europes 9/11 is coming - and so is the REAL holocaust.

Don't forget my favorite: GOD BLESS HITLER.

"How am I not to come to the conclusion that the British government is evil when they say things like that?" --jdamn

Someone said "There are two kinds of people: Fools and Damn Fools."

The Brits, at the present time, are the latter.

I don't think they're evil, I think they're the biggest damn fools in the world right now.

If anyone knows the author of the above quotation, please let me know. Sounds Twainish.

Also, I reserve "evil" for: Islam.

Jdamm:

I have many stallwart friends in Britain who are as frustrated as we are.

I felt that your provocative comment is a bit over the top when I look at many other countries that deserve that title beyond the UK.

Granted the politicians, Etc. are bending over so far for this 10Pct population minority that they are beginning to fall on their collective heads with the perversion of multiculturalism that is clearly their achilles heal in this war on this aggressive ideology.

It's the EU and the Left, the American Left as well, generally. Blaming Britain for this sort of attitude is like blaming the President for everything that's gone wrong in the lst 8 years. Maybe the Brits are somewhat justified in making statements like that only because of the massive bombings they endured on the part of the Nazis and the decades of recovery they went through to come back from it. That I hadn't considered. But I will never forget that horrible day as long as I live and to say that it's no big deal, well, that's just hurtful, like American civilian lives are meaningless. It wasn't Pearl Harbor. Pearl Harbor was a military installation in the middle of the ocean, not on US territory. 9/11 was DC and Lower Manhattan. It was civilians. 3000 of them. And our Towers that completed the New York skyline, which is now an open sore. You can't not be reminded of it. Watch the Sopranos or any Law and Order isotope. They're right in the background during the opening sequence of every show. They're America and we'll never be the same.

If much of the radicalization of Britain's Muslims stemmed from the West's response to 9/11, then what caused 9/11? As this MI5 chief states, 9/11 itself was just another terrorist attack in a long chain, so the radicalization leading to terrorism predated 9/11.
After careful investigation, Mr MI5 would discover that it all started in 622, in a little town that time forgot, in Arabia, where all the men are ruthless, all the women are subservient, and all the children are above average jihadis.

Rimington's comments could have just as easily come from any American Ivy League educated liberal. Its a kind of stupidity that knows no national boundry.

In short its not a British problem, its a problem with our elites here in the west. They've become educated idiots that use political ideology in place of honest analysis and thinking.

Its made worse because of their isolation from the rest of the population. They tend to associate with only like minded people which only reinforces existing views on subjects, etc.

Stella Rimington's remarks about over reaction to the 9-11 attack appear almost bizarre when it comes to how much toleration one could take from Islamic terrorism that had been building for decades from one attack after another throughout the world.

The count to our left here portrays a count gathered after 9-11 that does not take in the numerous attacks prior to 9-11 such as the USS Cole,The Marine Barracks in Lebanon,Pan Am 103,Embassy bombings,WTC 93' ,over 100,000 killed in battles with the Moro Islamic liberation front,in the Phillipines in the 20 plus years, and on and on. Etc.

Could Stella Rimington be responding to British History during WWII were almost 28,000 British citizens where killed by Nazi attacks during the "Battle of Britain"? At what point or how many deaths does it take for Stella Rimington to decide when to attack the enemy? Would she have said around August of 1944 that Britain and the allies over reacted in their Invasion of the Normandy Beach heads in June of 1944?

Please lay out at what point the military should decide to attack the enemy?

How many civilians need to die before you decide to act in defending your nation?

Is it 28,000 as in the Battle of Britain Stella Rimington?

What did I do wrong?

Mackie, apology accepted.

PMK:

I took offense to a comment make by jdamm that I felt was over the top in being critical of one of our allies,Britain, and I errored by attributing it to you.

Thanks

One has to wonder what sort of terrorist attack Ms. Stella Rimington would consider as beyond the norm?

The main reason "we" are able to hoodwinked by our government on this issue is that for the most part "we" have been remiss in our primary duty as citizens of democratic societies, which is to educate ourselves. This is what I give people for a simple illustration. Does the term "War on terror" seem like a lie? When you hear that obvious lie and you as a citizen just accept it, you become part of the lie. Then I go off for hours debunking, re-educating and pointing out to them that they can blame Bush all they want, but it is their duty as citizens of a democracy to participate, and that includes more effort than punching out D or R on election day. It boils down to a chicken and egg scenario. In one of Bushes state of the union addresses he went about as far as you can go publicly, as a politician, on this subject. If "we" can't hear the truth, then who is responsible for the lie? If only lies can be spoken, then who is responsible for the truth? Notice the relationship between education, speakers, and liars chicken ... egg. For example what is the obvious big lie in the above article? Here it is, "So I think you can't write the war in Iraq out of history. If what we're looking at is groups of disaffected young men born in this country who turn to terrorism, then I think to ignore the effect of the war in Iraq is misleading." What this opinion, so obviously ignores is the fact that Muslims in the U.K. see themselves as Muslims first, then Britons some other place in their list of societal relations. Someone with sentience will conclude that, as Robert put it, "She doesn't know, of course, because she probably knows next to nothing about history or about Islam, that the war in Iraq is just a pretext, and if it weren't there, some other pretext would be found. The pretexts always shift, but the jihad imperative behind them remains." It just seems so obvious it makes me want to slap people and wake them up, but sadly for most the lights are on, but nobody is home at the moment. It seems most peole have become a bunch of dullards swallowing their own load of BS, blissfully unaware of the 1 trillion pound gorilla in the room. One word of advice for Stella Rimington the former MI5 agent. When performing a craniorectal extraction use steady pressure then a quick pull and jerk. Don't forget the lube. http://www.goofigure.com/images/library/heads_up_ass.jpg

The British government has been Islamicizing the country in their efforts to cater to wealthy Saudi and Emirate princes (and to cash in on the Islamic banking bubble)

They're also kissing up to the Iranians and the Russians. The Russians have been bullying the British government for years, and the British government has been reacting the way they usually do - with craven appeasement.

The Russians effectively won this little war over British Petroleum

Most of the anti-Americanism in Europe can be traced to their Euro-British efforts to appease oil producers and wealthy Gulf-state troglodytes.

As for the British people, if you don't start standing up to your government, if you don't tell them that you're mad as hell and you're not going to take it any more, say goodbye to your way of life. And your pubs.

Are these the same people we saved from becoming a German Nazi pauper state in 1939-45 ?And then againgave nuclear tech to in 1955 ? And what have they given in return ?

They've lost a few hundred and they act like they're shouldering a great burden in the war on terror.

We have to ask , are they worth it now and were they worth it in 1945 ?

The French are starting to look ever that much more trustworthy !

'Response to 9/11 was 'huge overreaction'

She's got it exactly backwards. Our response to that obvious act of war was, in fact, not nearly strong enough.

After 9/11, the President told us Americans to all "go out and shop." Instead of sealing the borders, he let the Saudi cockroaches scatter from their jihad-plotting safehouses all across America. He seemed to figure out things a bit later with his "with us or against us" doctrine--seemingly recognizing the us/them attitude of the Muslim Ummah, with their contempt for national borders and international law as they swim freely about in the Muslim sea. But after cleaning Saddam's clock in only three weeks, The President decided that was enough of that (revealing that he really understood nothing, just like Rimington), and began nation-building to win hearts and minds.

But our war effort was not enough punishment--not by a long shot. There are no "nations" to be built in Islam--only the Ummah counts, sustained by the jizya that we infidels "owe" them. And there are no hearts and minds to win in any case. Islamic brain-washing from birth sees to that.

The only useful message that we can reasonably get through to the poisoned Islamic brain is the certain knowledge that swift and ferocious and permanently debilitating consequences are sure to follow any act of aggression, no matter how slight, that bubbles out of their vicious cult.

"Islam is just SO complex and vast in scope, that intelligence agencies would need a specialised department and specialised experts, just to deal with Islamic terrorism alone." -Rogster

I dont' think so. If a guy of average intelligence like me can grasp the essentials of the problem, those intelligence agencies can too. There's nothing complex and "vast" about grasping the fact that Islam causes terrorism around the world. Once that is grasped, the many complex details about that fact can be organized and used.

jdamn wrote:

Britain is now part of the Axis of Evil as far as I'm concerned. Not most of the people, but the government. I wouldn't wish a 9/11 on anyone (except Iran or Pakistan) but I think the Brits are so dhimmified they've lost all perspective and only when they have their own 9/11, which they didn't by a long shot on 7/7, will they understand. It would be like losing the whole financial part of London in 2 hours and having a plane flown into Scotland Yard.

Really? So Britain is is part of the Axis of Evil (England, Wales, Scotland, N.Ireland, the latter 3 with their own assemblies incidentally) but not most of the people but the Government? Make up your mind? Is it the people or the Government, because 'Britain' encompasses all.

I think you need to see just what living in the UK is like JDamn, before passing comment on 'dhimmified Brits'.
I am a Brit(one of the very few remaining) and certainly do not class myself as a dhimmi.

Firstly, those dhimmified Brits as you like to put them are not in fact Brits at all. They are people either:

1. Indigenous people born in the UK
2. People with foreign parentage, who have made a beeline to the UK in order to drop their load thereby ensuing their children gain British Citizenship and for them to gain residency in the UK.
3. The Left Wing; all those that are majority wise Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transsexual, Disabled, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim, Jewish, Feminist etc etc, yes the very people to be victimised first under Islamism
4. Those foreigners not born here, but have come over to attain British Citizenship, of course thanking the NuLabour Government for their British Citizenship, even though they have no intention to learn the language, integrate or be British.
5. People who have grown up in the UK, indoctrinated by our Left Wing Media and Education systems.

Those who are not dhimmified are in fact proud of their country, their heritage, the great Brits before them who did many great things here and all over the world.

Secondly, once you've seen just how many CCTV cameras there are, how many laws the Labour Government are passing to control us even more, how by merely discussing immigration can have you brought before the courts on charges of Racism, how many people in this country do not vote and instead cast their protest vote at abstaining because there really is no party that speaks to them or if they do, upon election they go back on their pre-election promises and last but not least, not only are you fighting against your Government, who have completely turned their backs on the Indigenous population in order to curtail the minority for election votes(i.e. a vote for NuLabour is a vote for Islam) but you are also 'hard against it' with the left wing, your 'fellow' countrymen, who have just watched the Emperor pass by bollock naked and think his suit looks wonderful, who see no problem whatsoever on the destruction of our civil liberties, freedoms and of course our pandering to Islam above all else.

What do you propose jdamn - Operation "Bomb the crap out of the UK"?

You're going to find this exceptionally odd what I'm about to say but Islamisation HAS TO happen in the West for anything to be done about it.
I've watched many times people posting about this and that but in all reality, they're just keyboard warriors, who are simply unable to do anything at what the government decides to do.
I say bring Islamisation on for the simple reason that once it really kicks in, then all the above 'left wing' who supported them will soon realise just what a terrible mistake it was. Then of course many will see the end of their liberties and freedoms, no pig, no pubs, no dancing, no drinking, no fashion, no media as it is.......

Islamisation of the West is the only thing that will make apathetic people come to life and realise that what happened in the past, the deaths of many of their ancestors, happened for a reason and now it's their turn to give their lives for the freedoms their ancestors did so willingly for their offspring's freedom.

We can sit for hours, days, weeks, months and years and get no where. The only real action that will stop Islamisation is affirmative action and unfortunately I see very few affirmative people in the UK and Europe.

purplemarbles-

It took how many posts for the usual berk to pop up out of the woodwork to tell us how you 'saved our asses' and we're behaving like ungrateful dogs in the face of it?

I'm surprised it took this long. However, I'm more than a little exasperated by the fact that this thread, by and large, has been filled with support from Americans who sympathise that we have to put up with a class A crackpot like Stella Rimington.

This is not good. Time was I could count on someone like you to justify my cynicism within ten posts or less and here you are having kept me waiting all day. On top of the fact that I've had to read all this 'positive' stuff to get here too.

"Are these the same people we saved from becoming a German Nazi pauper state in 1939-45 ?And then againgave nuclear tech to in 1955 ? And what have they given in return ?"

No. It's Stella Rimington.

"'They've' lost a few hundred and 'they' act like they're shouldering a great burden in the war on terror."

Nope. That'll be Stella Rimington too.

"We have to ask , are they worth it now and were they worth it in 1945 ?"

Ask Stella Rimington. Then again, don't bother. That question was answered a long time ago. Some time between 1941 and 1945, I believe.

Where is the point in your cognitive process, whereby the words or opinions of one individual become the consensus of a nation? By that logic, should Obama get elected, then you'll be happy to take the mantle of untrustworthiness from the French and wrap it proudly about your own shoulders.

purplemarbles wrote:

Are these the same people we saved from becoming a German Nazi pauper state in 1939-45 ?And then againgave nuclear tech to in 1955 ? And what have they given in return ?

How about the deaths of our people, who came into war with you after the 9/11 attacks?

purplemarbles wrote:
They've lost a few hundred and they act like they're shouldering a great burden in the war on terror.

We've lost fewer soldiers than America for the simple reason that British Soldiers are vastly superior in the field than Americans are. This is known worldwide. Worse still, because our government is crippling our Armed Forces, we are also short of equipment, you have in abundance and yet you're still losing more men.
Considering our population of the UK is 20% of the USA, then I'd say we've given quite a lot to a war in Iraq and Afghanistan that should never have been waged.

purplemarbles wrote:
We have to ask , are they worth it now and were they worth it in 1945 ?

Oh and so I suppose that it would have been ok for America to have completely shut itself off from the World in WW2? No chance of the Germans eventually over running the USA, once it's captured all of Europe, Russia and Asia?

purplemarbles wrote:
The French are starting to look ever that much more trustworthy !

That'll be the same French who were 100% behind you, like the British in the Invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan then? Are we talking about the same French here whom, you loved so much, you named your 'French fries' to freedom fries at the outbreak of the Gulf War 2? Are we talking about the same French who have been behind the creation of the EU superstate, creating a Parliament in Brussels and having complete control over all European States?

There's always one pig ignorant American who always comes out with the attack on Britain and 'we saved your asses' in WW2......

Did you? Were you there? Did you fight and see loved ones die, fighting against the Nazis? I doubt it very much.

poetcomic1:

The massive back & forth movement between Pakistan and Britain is a daily injection of deadly microbes into the bloodstream of the West. Your government, media and institutions daily facilitate EVIL.

You might want to check the 'daily injection' into New York too, pal.. but I suppose you'll think that we Brits are facilitating that, too :sigh:

www.piac.com.pk

You, together with some of the more blinkered of your fellow Americans need to open your eyes to what your own Government, Media and Academia are doing without any help at all from across the pond.

To be fair about America and WWII... Roosevelt made Britain pay for every bullet and can of beans from the days of lend-lease on. We didn't 'give' them anything. America's economy retooled and boomed while for years Britain was stuck in enormous debt and austerity, large areas of its cities devastated. It was perhaps part of Roosevelt's dream of freeing the world from the 'British Empire' (which he accomplished).

Apologies? No. That's the way super-powers act in the real world or at least we used to. Even Winston didn't take it personally.

If Iraq then Afghanistan, radicalised Muslims who were born and educated in Britain, then all it shows is that the allegiance of "British" Muslims to Britain is less then skin deep.

It also means that if fear of radicalising British Muslims becomes accepted as an idea, Muslims in Britain will have veto power over all policy.

I think we should continue on our present course of bringing the light of democracy to as many Muslim countries as we can. The sooner we radicalise Muslims in the West, the better.

I see Brits and Americans going throat to throat here about who has suffered more, whose soldiers fight better, whose politicians are more idiotic, whose citizens are more ignorant and it all saddens me -- but any Islamic whose reading all this is LOVING it -- you count count on that.

"Islam is just SO complex and vast in scope, that intelligence agencies would need a specialised department and specialised experts, just to deal with Islamic terrorism alone." -Rogster

What? What is it about "Kill the Infidels" and "Slay the Unbelievers" until the world is "all for Allah" you don't understand?

It's quite simple. "Kill" - that's the Mohammedan ideology. Oh, OK, "Subjugate," too. Simple.

Sorry -- my last line should have read "you can count on that."

Another correction for my last line: the last "whose" should have been "who's."

poetcomic1

Thank you for making those points as Roosevelt is on record as saying “Churchill is a great war leader but I am not prepared to allow the British Empire to exist after the war” You are quite right saying that is the way superpowers act but I always thought he unintentionally did Britain a favour. The empire was finished anyway as a British historian (Corelli Barnet) wrote it was “A useless ragbag of an empire, the accumulation of two centuries of wars and treaties, a political, economic and stratigic liability.”

BTW Roosevelt felt the same way about all empires including the French, which is why the US helped set Ho Chi Min in power in Vietnam in 1945. He first offered it to the Nationalist Chinese on the reasonable premise that the Chinese had been there for 800 years until the French drove the out. In the light of what happened later the US might consider Chiang Kai-chek’s response to this generous offer, “Under no circumstances!”

I guess I'm proof that Americans are less skilled at English grammar and usage. Anyone want to fight about that? Just joking.

Robert says what she says is false, and if the invasion did not occur
Muslims would have found another pretext to justify attacking the UK.
If what she says is false and Robert is right, then why is it that before the vicious and evil invasion of Iraq there was never any terrorist attack by Muslims against the UK, why was there also never any foiled plots, or incitement to attack the UK. Robert says " even if the invasion did not occur they would have found another pretext" well Muslims have been in the UK for over 50 years,so why was there never any hostility from Muslims before the destruction of Iraq? His statement is proved false by the fact that no pretext was fabricated in the half a century before the invasions. Also, Osama Bin Laden has been making his videos since the early 1990s, before the invasion of Iraq he never once mentioned the UK or British interests. Naturally after the invasion he mentioned the UK as a legitimate target. Now if before the invasion of Iraq, Osama was mentioning the UK, suicide bombings were going off on the tube, terrorist plots were getting, the argument that Iraq had nothing to do with it would be accurate, but that is not the case. All bombs, plots, videos started to happen after Iraq.

On another note, the invasion of Iraq is one of the worst crimes in modern time. It is not a war, as a war is a fight and a fight requires two sides of similar strength. This is not the situation in Iraq. In Iraq you have the American fascist terrorist using WMD's, f16, MK 77 etc against a few freedom fighters with nothing but homemade weapons and old guns. The invasion of Iraq is a massacre and annihilation.

Robert says what she says is false, and if the invasion did not occur
Muslims would have found another pretext to justify attacking the UK.
If what she says is false and Robert is right, then why is it that before the vicious and evil invasion of Iraq there was never any terrorist attack by Muslims against the UK, why was there also never any foiled plots, or incitement to attack the UK. Robert says " even if the invasion did not occur they would have found another pretext" well Muslims have been in the UK for over 50 years,so why was there never any hostility from Muslims before the destruction of Iraq? His statement is proved false by the fact that no pretext was fabricated in the half a century before the invasions. Also, Osama Bin Laden has been making his videos since the early 1990s, before the invasion of Iraq he never once mentioned the UK or British interests. Naturally after the invasion he mentioned the UK as a legitimate target. Now if before the invasion of Iraq, Osama was mentioning the UK, suicide bombings were going off on the tube, terrorist plots were getting foiled, then argument that Iraq had nothing to do with it would be accurate, but that is not the case. All bombs, plots, videos started to happen after Iraq.

On another note, the invasion of Iraq is one of the worst crimes in modern time. It is not a war, as a war is a fight and a fight requires two sides of similar strength. This is not the situation in Iraq. In Iraq you have the American fascist terrorist using WMD's, f16, MK 77 etc against a few freedom fighters with nothing but homemade weapons and old guns. The invasion of Iraq is a massacre and annihilation.

This could just as easily be a Dhimmi Watch headline.

Richard the Lionheart, first, I applaud your bravery at suggesting that Islamization is a necessary evil that you're willing to put up with in order for a new day to dawn. That suggests to me your devotion to your nation, and it's a wonderful nation to which your should be deeply devoted. I just think that you're in the minority, just like people who actually love America are in the minority right now. We'll see on November 4th whether or not 1% more Americans love America than hate it, but it's a negligible difference in any event. I wouldn't suggest "bombing the crap out of" the UK.

I would suggest never bothering to consult with nations like Britain before going to war again. Acting unilaterally was the right thing to do when we went to Iraq and I'm glad we told the UN to f off. Brits are dhimmified. The nation upon which we based our legal code, British Common Law, is now being brushed aside in favor of Sharia. That suggests to me not only a ridiculous degree of dhimmitude, but that Britain no longer adheres to the UDHR and therefore should not be dealt with. Apparently, in your government, some people are people and some are not. At this rate you'll have slavery in 5 years. No free-world nation should ever deal with a nation which does not hold regular, free elections and uphold the UDHR and the Geneva Conventions. That's why I want out of the UN.

I think that most Brits stand somewhere between you and the government. I hope you don't have to suffer Islamization and then fight WWIV just to be Britain again.

And I don't think that most people from Axis of Evil nations hate America. I think most Iranians like AMerica, as well as North Koreans. That doesn't make their nations worthy of being dealt with. We're on that path too, but we haven't made our legal system moot or denigrated the lives of American citizens by saying that 9/11 was no big deal. I'm with Stendec that we didn't make a big enough deal out of it. Ignorance and PC idiocy should have ended that morning but now it's even more pervasive. We obviously went wrong somewhere. The fact that the DNC nominated Obama proves that half of America welcomes Al Qaeda and wants to see Beslan and 9/11 everywhere in AMerica every day just like your leaders do.

But when you guys do decide to take your country back, I would gladly put up arms to defend it, even if your own citizens wouldn't because England is worth it to me. Your current government, however, is dead to me.

purplemarbles wrote

"Are these the same people we saved from becoming a German Nazi pauper state in 1939-45?" Yes

"We have to ask , are they worth it now and were they worth it in 1945?" Yes

"And what have they given in return?" Brotherhood and blood ... they physically backed us even though most of them thought we were wrong about Iraq. When push comes to shove that is what family will do for each other. Many times our brothers from across the pond think we are fools, because many Americans think history started on 7/4/1776. Britain has already fought this war in Iraq, and we asked them to do it again, they thought it was foolish, but did it anyways.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/text/bltxtiraq9.htm

What will we do in return?

jowen,

You don't get it do you? It is real simple. If a terrorist like Bin Laden can call upon British Muslims to attack their own country at a time of war, then it would appear that the Muslim population would see their loyalties to Islam as being stronger than their loyalties to the U.K. If that is the case then Robert is correct in his assertion that it would merely be a matter of time before another schism between Muslim loyalties were tested. Your assertion that Iraq is a terrorist war is wrong as well. After we were attacked on 9/11 our government realized we were at war with a religious ideology. We had several options.

1- Do nothing.
2- Fight in Afghanistan.
3- Fight in Iraq.
4- Expel all Muslims from our country and outlaw Islam.

We are in a religious war, Bush elected to fight. You can argue with the where, the how, and the why. We will continue to flail wildly until we can name the threat, and the ideology that drives it. Iraq is, for now, the "central front" but the situation is larger as illustrated by the article. Muslims aren't British, because when push comes to shove Muslims are Islamic before they are British, and since Islam directly calls for the subjugation of all non-Muslims through the implementation of Sharia then yes an internal conflict is inevitable in any western state that has a sizable Muslim population. Not by our nature, but by the nature of contemporary Islamic orthodoxy.

If what she says is false and Robert is right, then why is it that before the vicious and evil invasion of Iraq there was never any terrorist attack by Muslims against the UK, why was there also never any foiled plots, or incitement to attack the UK.

jowen - For many years before 9/11, the UK was known as a haven for Islamist terrorists. If you were too evil and Salafist for the Egyptian government, the Lebanese government or for other Arab government to tolerate, you could find a home in Britain.

Before 9/11, the British government believed that they were protected by a "Covenant of Security". According to Mohamed Sifaoui, who author of "Inside Al Qaeda",

"it has long been recognised by the British Islamists, by the British government and by UK intelligence agencies, that as long as Britain guarantees a degree of freedom to the likes of Hassan Butt [a loudmouth pro-terrorist Islamist], the terrorist strikes will continue to be planned within the borders of the UK but will not occur here. Ironically, then, the presence of vocal and active Islamist terrorist sympathisers in the UK actually makes British people safer, while the full brunt of British-based terrorist plotting is suffered by people in other countries."

However, the British government failed to look at the fine print in this 'Covenant of Security'. Islamists thought it was bad manners for first-generation immigrants to attack a state which had given them shelter. But they had no objection to supporting terrorist attacks committed by second generation immigrants.

In 2002, the loudmouth second generation pro-terrorist Islamist Hassan Butt went to Pakistan to fight with the Taliban. He promised to return to Britain and to bomb a few landmarks.

According to terrorist Omar Bakri, who was based in London at the time, Britain became vulnerable to terrorism because of anti-terrorist legislation that was brought into effect in 2001.

I can understand why the head of MI5 don't want to discuss this failed Covenant of Security, but please don't think we're as clueless as British intelligence.

And jowen, the rest of your comment is too stupid to address.

ethoman,

First Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Second why were there so many lies in the lead up and aftermath of the war, eg they are linked to al qaeda, they have WMD's, we went to liberate them blah di blah

Third, Iraq was a secular state. Saddam was primarily a nationalist and the Jihad mentality was not rife in Iraqi society.

Also in comment to purplemarbles

"Are these the same people we saved from becoming a German Nazi pauper state in 1939-45?" - Um, at the time Britain controlled quite a large portion of the planet - we had an Empire much larger than anything the US could ever claim. The facts of the matter is that even until the end of the war Hitler wanted a peace-treaty with us Brits - and a combined Empire, where we controlled the sea and he controlled the air - with joint co-operation on land. If the Nazi's had defeated Britain then almost the entire Globe would have been under Nazi control. How long before they would have EASILY defeated America. Remember that the Nazis would have had missiles that would have hit the US at this point. So, all this American's saved our asses thing is really a misconception - you saved your own asses. Oh, and I think you will find that the Russians, French, Dutch, Australians and many other nations contributed also. Obviously for the freedoms we have in Europe (at the moment) we do have gratitude - but so many people who make this "we saved your asses" claim weren't even born then. Remember also that the Nazi's held a deep found respect for the British, seeing us as kindred spirits from the same Germanic roots.
Also remember that at the time we were expected to police the world much as the US is now - and I'm sure you will find it's not easy.

"We have to ask , are they worth it now and were they worth it in 1945?" Yes - as I stated above if the British had been defeated do you really think the US would have become the powerhouse it did? Well, you wouldn't have rocket technology, satellites, a lot of the medication you take for granted? You also wouldn't have the freedoms that you also take for granted.

"And what have they given in return?" - well, we were the first to offer assistence to you in Afghanistan and Iraq. We will be the first to aid in Iran too. And wherever else needs to be taken out.

Oh - and the 2nd world war created a debt to the US from us which is still being payed off - so yeah, you could say we also saved your economy back in the day when you were on the verge of financial meltdown.
Also remember that we asked for your help in the war much earlier than you entered it - and then that was after you were attacked by the Japanese. You declared war on the Japanese and in return Germany declared was on you.

A former head of MI5 today describes the response to the September 11 2001 attacks on the US as a "huge overreaction"...

A "huge overreaction"? What, Ms Rimington, would be the proper reaction; perhaps a meeting of the diversity council, or giant sensitivity session?

...and says the invasion of Iraq influenced young men in Britain who turned to terrorism.

If this is true Ms Rimington, don't you think that's a bit of a problem in and of itself?

In an interview with the Guardian, Stella Rimington calls al-Qaida's attack on the US "another terrorist incident" but not qualitatively different from any others.

Hence our reaction to it wasn't "qualitatively different" either, we just poured on a little more quantity. Pardon my bluntness, but if killing idiots that would kill us seems like a disturbing overreaction to you, you're either heavily sedated, completely gutless, or dumber than a rock.

The only overreaction in play here is the one which, based on some intelligence error, placed Rimington in the position she held.

maryatexitzero,

Convent of security? LOL, I always wondered what the western equivalent to "the jews did 9/11" was, looks like I found it. Thanks, theres nothing funny on TV tonight, and that overcompensated for it

Intelligence in quotations is definitly correct!

In regards to Jowen's post, though there may not have been "hostility" from moslems before the war in iraq, it doesn't follow that they were ideal citizens of the UK.

I've posted this before: in the early 90s I was in London and my hosts took me to speakers' corner in St. James Park. There was a huge moslem gathering there and my hosts told me that the moslems in the UK had stated a goal of turning the UK into an islamic country. This was more than 15 years ago; perhaps all the war in iraq has done is flush them out so to say.

"In Iraq you have the American fascist terrorist..." --jowen the Mohammedan

jowen, as a Mohammedan, YOU are the Fascist and YOU are the Terrorist. Get it? Your evil "religion" (see: Koran) makes that so. Get it? End of story.

The Mohammedans who mass-murdered over 3,000 Americans are down in hell with your false prophet, who made the whole "Brothel Paradise" thing up. You brainless 'bot. Mohamet - a "Sower of Discord" as found in Dante, with his guts spilling out. Bravo!

LOL, I always wondered what the western equivalent to "the jews did 9/11" was, looks like I found it. Thanks, theres nothing funny on TV tonight, and that overcompensated for it

It's not as funny as

"In Iraq you have the American fascist terrorist using WMD's, f16, MK 77 etc against a few freedom fighters with nothing but homemade weapons and old guns"

Most of the 'freedom fighting' car bombers in Iraq were Saudis, sent to Iraq by Saudi cheif justice Sheik Saleh Al Luhaidan, who announced, on television in 2004, that young Saudis should go to Iraq to wage war against Americans.

Saleh Al Luhaidan's freedom fighters were chased out of Iraq by local Sunnis, who grew tired of AQI's Saudi charm.

I don't know if you're getting your information from Ikhwanweb, Anti-war.com or the Daily Kos, (or if you're just making stuff up) but whatever source you're using, it's wrong.

I've posted this before: in the early 90s I was in London and my hosts took me to speakers' corner in St. James Park. There was a huge moslem gathering there and my hosts told me that the moslems in the UK had stated a goal of turning the UK into an islamic country. This was more than 15 years ago; perhaps all the war in iraq has done is flush them out so to say.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at October 19, 2008 5:25 PM

Don't forget post-9/11 idiotic, imbecilic, "political correctness" concerning the Barbarians. "PC" Leftist ideology is responsible for A LOT of the current Mohammedan "uprising."

jowen said:

"Second why were there so many lies in the lead up and aftermath of the war, eg they are linked to al qaeda, they have WMD's, we went to liberate them blah di blah" Yeah I agree. That whole pack is because we are unable to vocalize the reality publicly. Islamic theology, Islamic tradition right here growing in the west. That is where the central front is. Once you start telling lies it becomes a tangled web. If "we" can't hear the truth, then who is responsible for the lie? If only lies can be spoken, then who is responsible for the truth? Notice the relationship between education, speakers, and liars chicken ... egg.

"Third, Iraq was a secular state. Saddam was primarily a nationalist and the Jihad mentality was not rife in Iraqi society."

Yeah I lean more towards option #4 which was stated earlier, but that isn't feasible yet, so more lies lies lies. The Brits already fought that war. Like I said earlier

jowen: A few things to consider: Iraq had something to do with the first bombing of the WTC back in 1993 even though it was not involved in 9/11. Iraq was in violation of well over a dozen UN resolutions (and just because most UN nations are cowardly or complicit with evil doesn't mean all have to be; America and its allies had every right under the UN charter to see those resolutions were honored, by force if necessary). Saddam Hussein was daily firing upon British and American fighter jets which patrolled the two no-fly zones over Iraq. SH engaged in an attempt to assassinate Bush 41 during the Clinton era. Every single major intelligence agency on the planet thought Saddam still had WMDs (and just consider if 100% certainty be required before democracies take action against tyrannies-----see the absurdity of this?). Saddam had all kinds of contacts with terrorist organizations. Ansar al-Islam was his conduit to al-Qaeda. Finally, the Western Left, which endlessly likes to moralize about how awful the invasion of Iraq has been, was prepared to do absolutely nothing to stop SH from slaughtering and torturing his own people and conveniently ascribes blame to the American military since the invasion for thousands of civlian deaths, when in fact the proper blame should be squarely placed upon the Islamic terrorists for almost all deaths since 2003. Your arguments are no arguments at all but tired and ill-informed excuses.

This was more than 15 years ago; perhaps all the war in iraq has done is flush them out so to say.
Posted by: eve_anne_gelical

Yep. What this "jowen" character above is doing is taking a fallacy and running with it. Essentially what he is doing is like this analogy:

A guy has been living in a house for decades and has not had major structural problems. One day, rather recklessly, he decides to tear out half of his basement in order to install a new garage. In the process, he discovers thousands of termites that have been there for years, slowly eating away at the foundations.

The guy calls up "Jowen's Home Repairs" shop, and "jowen" tells him -- you idiot, you should never have tore up your garage and tried to install a new garage! If you had just lived your life normally and not bothered the flooring and walls in your basement, everything would have been fine!

"So what should I do now?" the guy asks "jowen".

"Just leave your basement alone, ignore the problem, and be nice to termites from now on."

So - while we were busy in-fighting (Americans and Brits), look what slimy evil thing lurked long enough, and then crawled in through the back door. A cultist named Jowen, who doesn't know the definition of "terrorist" apparently.

There is a silver lining in this article. This woman is retired.

First Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11.

WRONG.

Iraq CAUSED 9/11. It started with the invasion of Kuwait. Then we were stupid enough to not go into Baghdad after kicking Iraq out of Kuwait.
Then Saddam was given back his weapons and he proceeded to violently quell the rebellions in the north and the south. The UN declared no-fly zones and the US and Britain spent the next ten years (nine?) monitoring and enforcing the no-fly zones. They did this from bases in Saudi Arabia. Our presence in that stupid land (nowhere near Mecca, but that didn't matter) was the justification for all the attacks on the US. We never would have been there were it not for Saddam, so please stop saying Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq was the originator of the chain of events that resulted in that atrocity. If Saddam had abided by the resolutions he agreed to after the war, we could have been out of that sandbox within a few years.
If we had any sense, we WOULD have expelled each and every Muslim from the US the moment US airspace was reopened. Instead, we airlifted Osama's family out of the country. They should have been the last ones to leave, not the first.

Darcy, what the Chinese are doing is interesting, because they are treating their Muslims firmly (the State comes first) while being extraordinarliy nice to Islamic governments of countries such as Pakistan and Sudan, so much so that they are creating a convenient dependence.

I believe they will have the final say in this debacle. In war there are always profiteers, and in a global war there will be a global profiteer. Quietly they will avail themselves of property in the chaos, and take their people, and establish tenacious colony-like control over resources and labour.

We, with our democracy, which with multiculturalism has become a tragic liability, will be floundering, our famous creativity stifled by the weight of having to deal with chronic homeland insecurity.
Well, I hope not; it might not happen if we are quick.

"There is a silver lining in this article. This woman is retired."

And trying to flog a book, no less....

Thank you jdamn.

First what I see on this forum, which I have to say is frustrating me is that we are all falling prey to classic battle strategy of "divide and conquer". If we stand united we win and divided we fall. This is something that no amount of Muslims could ever beat us at. We in the West are and always have been a far stronger and superior people to them. People will say that's a 'racist' comment and I couldn't care less what they say, for the simple reason that our Western Cultures have proved countless times that it is superior to theirs.
First off, I'd love to go into more detail, but I really don't want to get hauled up by the Police/Security Services for speaking freely about what I would do to take back the UK from Islam and our corrupt leaders.
Britain is not dhimmified jdamn. Our government is appeasing Islam in order to maintain business links with the Saudis, however, talking to your average Brit(not your left win toss) and you'll find a very angry person at feeling powerless at seeing NuLabour destroying their Nation.
Thankfully the 42 day detention bill will not go through...yet. This means that many Brits still have time to rise up against NuLabour without the fear of being thrown into a cell for over a month on NO charge.

Things need to change and I hate to say it but that will only come through serious unrest, bringing the UK to a standstill. Yes, I'm talking about complete revolution, followed by the imprisonment and subsequent execution of all people responsible for the attempted destruction of the UK and amalgamation into oblivion that is the EU.
jdamn, trust me on this, if the whole of the UK went on strike and demanded the resignation of the Government and umpteen changes then the government would have no choice but too. Remember that the armed forces' parents will be those on strike so the chances are we would very much see mutinies all over the UK in Army/Navy/Air Force bases and rightly so.
I really don't think that people actually realise the total dangers that is Islamisation and this is why I say we need it on order to people see the reality, for at the moment they are completely oblivious to the fact.

People really do not realise the relationship Britain has with America. This deeply saddens me and makes me angry. Trust me though, when WWIII does start, I won't be sitting at home, but doing my best to bring it to an end and it heartens me to here that Americans would come over and help us with our struggle...
However...
jdamn, remember that Islam too is growing in the USA and I feel that you will soon be experiencing the problems we in Europe have. Let's hope trying to gain more and more ground in discussion on the Evils of Islam can happen faster and faster each day, because I'm telling you, that the more and more I walk through London, the more I feel like I'm living in a Muslim Country.

I just want to say to the Brits that they are not alone. We have our own Stellas in America. I for one will stand beside our British cousins side and help them fight the PC multi-culturalist crap that is drowning ALL of the west. This garbage about "if it wasn't for we Americans helping during WWII" can go to the dumpster with the rest of the garbage. Always remember that as usual the Brits and Americans are in this together and as usual have a common enemy in Islamofascism.

Richard the Lionheart

you might want to try to find out which UK lawmakers are going to the 'Facing Jihad' conference in Jerusalem - at which Spencer and Wilders, among others, are going to be speaking.

If you can find out, somehow, which politicians from the UK are going to that conference, then you know whom to support and encourage.

If push comes to shove - if it does come down to the sort of huge disruption that you describe - then if you have even a few Islamosavvy MPs who are informed and 'on side', then you have the 'seed' around which a sane and civil government can be re-formed.

In the meantime - I've suggested this before - there are surely morale-building and community-building things that British Infidels can do. As simple as sitting in someone's living room watching videos and discussing them - 'Fitna' - 'Submission' - 'Islam: What the West Needs to Know'. As simple as visiting your local rabbi and giving him a copy of 'The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism' and telling him - 'NOW I understand why so many Muslims hate Jews, and why the Arab Muslims will never in a million years accept the existence of the Jewish state of Israel'.

If you are even nominally a Christian - find a local church and join it and then try to educate people. If they're hopelessly dhimmified, go to a different church and see if things are better there. Your very presence will be an encouragement. Find those parish priests and other clergy who *are* already clued up - e.g. Canon Patrick Sookhdeo - and back them for all you're worth! Ask them for advice!

If you're a Christian, the Day of Prayer for the Persecuted Church, 9 November, offers a splendid opportunity by which to introduce people to the subject of jihad and dhimmitude.

Ancient British social customs such as the Beating of the Bounds, and Guy Fawkes Day, offer all kinds of possibilities for community protests, consciousness-raising, and expressions of resistance to Islamisation. Parties could be got together to visibly demonstrate and reaffirm 'ownership' of significant Infidel places such as cemeteries, especially if such places have been attacked by Mohammedans in recent times.

Get involved in schools and local councils and every other community organisation you can think of, and spread awareness there. Imagine if every 'twitcher' and 'trainspotter' and 'plane-spotter' and hiker and Boy Scout knew all about Islam and jihad and was on the lookout for wannabe jihadists sneaking through the bushes or hanging around railways and airports.

The 'Islamofascism Awareness Week' currently playing out on campuses in the USA, might be critically examined, and adapted for the British context. Use your imagination!

Have you thought of perhaps trying to arrange for Mr Spencer to visit Britain? I don't think he's been to the UK. Get in touch with Sookhdeo and Nazir-Ali, for example, or someone like Melanie Phillips, and see whether they have any ideas as to how he might be got into the country, whether there's some organisation that might be willing to sponsor him and set up fora in which he can speak.

Try persuading Terry Pratchett and J K Rowlings that he is the Granny Weatherwax/ Sergeant Vimes/ Dumbledore of the modern west and that large donations to cover his coming to Britain would be an investment in the future of western civilisation. Hey, try Paul McCartney - tell him of Spencer's support for Israel, and the praise heaped on Sir Paul's head at this very website for defying Muslim jihadist threats and going to Israel regardless!

If there were no think-tank or intelligent philanthropist willing and able to coordinate the effort, then just ordinary citizen counter-jihad resisters passing round the hat amongst themselves might be able to raise the funds for his air fares, security detail, and honorarium.

More and more, I have been thinking that the resisters of jihad in Australia, some of whom post here regularly, are going to have to get up and DO something: if we can't find a 'conservative' think tank or intelligent philanthropist/s to sponsor a visit and speaking gigs by Mr Spencer, we are just going to have to set up a Bring Spencer to Australia fund, and keep on passing round the hat among ourselves until we have enough.

Where you are - how many others of the same mind as yourself, do you have? If there are several, start by having regular dinners together, or taking over a pub or cafe and holding your counter-jihad conversations and brainstorming sessions there.

Someone called 'dag', who has posted here often, a Canadian, set up an informal group that met regularly in the atrium of a public library to discuss Islam and jihad and to brainstorm. When the Steyn case came up, there were enough people, from that group that had met week by week, to mount a reasonably-sized demonstration outside the court.

In my case: my husband 'gets' the problem, though he gets cranky if I 'go on' about it too long and too often. At my church, two other parishioners are completely agreed with me, and the parish priest is rapidly coming up to scratch.

My dad (elderly, but has LOTS of contacts in Returned Servicemen's League, local political party, etc) 'gets' it; my stepmother 'gets' it (and she and dad are very involved in the community, hopefully their knowledge spreads); at least one of my brothers is Islamosavvy - and he volunteers in the Bush Fire Brigade, so he can educate others.

The more ordinary citizens and pew-sitters grasp the situation, the more likely it is that Islamosavvy shire councillors (in the secular realm) will be elected, and that parish priests or pastors (in the religious realm) will come up to scratch, which then has a knock-on effect.

PMK: Just curious here. I too thought that Bush 41 should have gone into Baghdad and overthrow the damn bastard back in 1991, but, if we had, then what? Would we not have then been under obligation (which we surely would have felt since the West sees duty to all as a calling in a way no other civilization ever has----witness MacArthur's enlightened administration of Japan as a good example here) to set up some kind of government and would that not have resulted in very much the same kind of situation we have now-------an America too good for most of the world trying to make a dysfunctional, awful place more like America and the West? In short, were we not back in 1991, as we were on the eve of invasion of Iraq in 2003, damned if we do, damned if we don't, precisely because the non-Western world, and in particular its most dysfunctional area, the Islamic portion, is such a sorry-ass excuse for humanity?

Things need to change and I hate to say it but that will only come through serious unrest, bringing the UK to a standstill. Yes, I'm talking about complete revolution, followed by the imprisonment and subsequent execution of all people responsible for the attempted destruction of the UK and amalgamation into oblivion that is the EU.
-Richard the Lionheart

Sadly this is the somber truth. The election of Barrack Hussein Obama will also be part of the process in America. His relationship to the Weather Underground and to Black Liberation theology (with its relation to Islam)shows that he has a love for the ideology of both groups which ultimately called for the overthrow of the US government. He will be elected by spoiled children of privilege and the drunkards of social welfare but manifestation of the "change" he brings will be division, hatred and unrest that was exhibited in the sixties.

In my office at work I have a large poster of the person I most admire: Winston Churchill. It is a repro of a WWII propaganda poster featuring a confident Churchill, surrounded by a British armada of tanks and planes, with the caption: "Let us go forward together."
According to Martin Gilbert, Chuchill's historical biographer, Churchill was an early opponent of the Nazis because his father, Lord Randolph, was close friends with Jews in Britain's upper-class social circles, and shared his Semitophilia with his son.
Today's Islamofascism is also a threat, but it is far more insidious than Nazism, and in a sense, far more difficult to deal with. I think that's because the Islamofascists know how to couch their Shariah ambitions with the language of liberalism, but their real agenda is utterly primitive.
If only Winston could be brought back, I'm sure he'd see through it.

More nonsense from the "it's-all-our-fault" brigade. With people like this foolish woman in key positions of power and influence, it is hardly surprising that the UK is in such a mess. I would call her idiotic comments treacherous.

She was a former head of MI5? She actually said the 9/11 tragedy was an 'overreaction'? The bombing that shook to the ground the twin towers; one that killed over 3,000 Americans in one day that was an 'overreaction'? What is a proper reaction then?

If we had any sense, we WOULD have expelled each and every Muslim from the US the moment US airspace was reopened. Instead, we airlifted Osama's family out of the country. They should have been the last ones to leave, not the first.

Posted by: PMK at October 19, 2008 6:50 PM

Sorry for getting a littl late on this, but it is an interesting read, to debate.
Since we are at that, PMK, ever wonder how, when and why US started the Gulf Wars I and II. There can be many reasons and interpretations, but what I can bet is that USA would not have intervened, had the 'victms' not been the rich wahhabbis Al-Sabahs, close friends of the Bush family. Also, the other close, rich , wahhabbi Bush friends, Al-Sauds were in danger from Saddam. It is for these reasons, that Bush put American money, arms, blood and lives on the line... To protect their family friends Al-Sahabs and Al-Sauds. 9/11, in retrospect, proved that, instead of going after Al-Sauds, Bush went after Saddam, this time blatently protecting Al-Sauds and Bin Ladens by:
- escorting Bin Ladens to safety, with all US flights grounded.
- Clearing references to Al-Sauds/Saudi Arabia from 9/11 Commission report.
- Including terrorist nations Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, as 'allies' in the 'war-on-terror'.
- Increasing, yes, increasing student's visas for Saudi Arabia.
- Providing arms and financiel-aid, hard to believe, to Saudi Arabia.

Bush claims of terrorists in Iraq, provided to US and world, by Bush, Powell were found to be unfounded and as Vincient Bugloisi claims to have has proven, beyond any reasonable doubt, lies! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45f1Riv_z1I

Had Bush family been patriotic, Iraq would have been invaded, in 1991, for the right reason, to liberate Kuwait (it is hard to prove if the reason was to protect Al-Sabahs and Al-Sauds, but let us give the benefit of doubt). If Bush family was not so corrupt, if Dubya had not taken billions from Saudis for Arbusto and Harken Energy, had Bush not been under heavy Saudi obligations, if Dubya had earned an honest living of a hard day's work, if Bush had any self-respect and dignity, USA would be at war with Saudi Arabia and second Iraq war would not have happened. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXk0LFVAgHE&feature=related

Now, blame whoever you want but smart and astute minds should be able to dig through blames, lies, excuses and fabrigations, and reach the shining diamond of truth, and truth is, and Bush family's proves that between Al-Sauds and America, Al-Sauds come first, no-matter the cost (money, arms, blood, lives) to America/Americans.
Rest is academics.

Rogster,

Your explanation of what goes on in British intelligence is exactly as I suspected was the case. You should know - and I think you do know - that the same templates and attitudes prevail over at Langley. The intellectual sloth of our respective elites, as pertaining to Islam, is marked, dangerous, and entirely preventable.

That is why VP Candidate Sarah Palin over here is so popular. So many people relate to her excoriation of the elites in this country, whose intellectual sloth and moral torpor are putting our nation in danger. In fact, these people put all of human civilization in the hazard and they blissfully do not know it.

It is the people trained in our most prestigious universities who are destroying our nation, its economy, and whose policies of appeasement would put the whole world in grave danger.

I think she is fresh enough, smart enough, and thorough enough to not fall into the mental traps that encumber our governments' responses to Islamic jihad.

In short, were we not back in 1991, as we were on the eve of invasion of Iraq in 2003, damned if we do, damned if we don't, precisely because the non-Western world, and in particular its most dysfunctional area, the Islamic portion, is such a sorry-ass excuse for humanity?

Posted by: Wellington at October 19, 2008 8:08 PM

You read correctly, that the dysfunctional Islamic world did nothing, but wrongly assume that USA has to do something. If USA was to do anything, it was to liberate Iraq. Kuffar USA has no other obligation to anyone to the ummah. 1.5 billion musllims have the means to do all they want, for thr ummah!
ofcourse, being a good Saudi slave, Bush did all he could for Al-Sauds ( http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/01/truly-america-i.html ), which included protecting them from 9/11 investigations, to increasing the very visas they had abused, the stuent's visas.
Even today, other than Tom Tancredo, R-CO, and to a lesser extent Sue Myrick, R-NC, are the only ones who read the SDaudis well enough. As for the Bush family, their service of Al-Sauds have wone them wnat they were after in the first place, wealth, even if it as the cost of American blood and lives.

Robert.

You are lucky to live in the States, we in the UK have to put up with these idiots, who either don't see the threat, or won't take it seriously. How many lives need to be lost before these buffoons think it IS a big deal. I apologise to our US friends for the comments of this 'pen pusher,' it seems we are going through a 'denial' phase at the moment. We will wake up eventually, I assure you.

Robert.

You are lucky to live in the States, we in the UK have to put up with these idiots, who either don't see the threat, or won't take it seriously. How many lives need to be lost before these buffoons think it IS a big deal. I apologise to our US friends for the comments of this 'pen pusher,' it seems we are going through a 'denial' phase at the moment. We will wake up eventually, I assure you.

I think the best thing we can all do to educate others is this :

Invest in a pack of black dvdrs (maybe a hundred) and run off copies of Fitna, WTWNTK, Obssession etc and the POST them to everyone in your street - with the message make copies and spread to everyone you know. There will be people who do this. Spread the message. Wake up YOUR PEOPLE.

Fair or not to the 'British People' as an American, all I can say is the UK passport in the hands of 7th century barbarian terrorists that YOU have made 'British citizens' is the GREATEST danger to the U.S. in the world today. The massive back & forth movement between Pakistan and Britain is a daily injection of deadly microbes into the bloodstream of the West. Your government, media and institutions daily facilitate EVIL. I'm sure you are 'bothered' by this but many good Germans were 'bothered' too. A lot of good it did.

Posted by: poetcomic1

Excellent points poetcomic1. As a Brit(sadly one of the very few true ones remaining) I wholeheartedly agree with your reply to Mackie.
A British passport used to be like the Golden Ticket to Charlie's Chocolate factory. Many people from all over the World did their best to get a British passport, mainly because of the opportunities to be had in the UK, a better way of life, freedoms, great justice, honesty and integrity and above all, to be part of Britain with it's highly respected status throughout the world. However, now it is similar to a toy found in a breakfast cereal packet and has no value whatsoever.
There are people born in the UK, who have never learned English and don't need to because the New Britain, thanks to NuLabour is all about growing up in your own segregated culture and being everything but British. 'British' people now in the UK are not British and that's even the indigenous ones too. They have grown up, indoctrinated by left wing ideology in schools to hate their country of birth, to deride their history, to call their ancestors the oppressors and destructors of the World. It is simply unbelievable that a society can teach its children the way Britain does and our government to hate its people the way NuLabour does.

"I'm sure you are 'bothered' by this but many good Germans were 'bothered' too. A lot of good it did."

The above comment is brilliant and really hits home. This is what I've been saying all along, that there are people who are bothered, but what are they doing? What use are petitions to the government with the odd thousand signatures to complain about Sharia Law in the UK, now it's here? Why on earth are they going to remove it once they've allowed it, especially when they have already caved into Radicals in the UK with the removal of books on Islam in our stores. If they removed Sharia then there would be more unrest in the Muslim communities and more appeasing by the government.

The damage has already been done in the UK and they should not have given British Citizenship to people who stay here for a couple of years, can hold up their hand and say "blah bhah Great Britain blah blah Queen blah blah..." even if they can only speak a couple of words of English.

Our government has committed the highest of treasons and completely abandoned the British people, but by Orwellian 'doublespeak' they've managed to get away with it.

I would love to go into more detail on what I want to do on this website, but then if I did, I'd get arrested by the Police, charged with 'inciting violence' and 'Racial and religious hatred' and banged up.

Put simply, if anyone does have good ideas to stop the continued Islamisation of the UK, we are attacked by the very people we are trying to protect, arrested by the very people whose were set up to protect the people and made an example by our Judicial System not to question the decisions of our government, especially on Islam that is nothing more than a Religion of Peace that means us no harm.

If I were an American, I'd be very concerned of letting anyone in with a British passport now. Before you could spot Muslims by their appearance, i.e. there were no blue eyed, blonde haired ones but that has now changed. As Islam takes more route in the UK, we have more converts from previous Christian families who 'strayed'.
In fact I wouldn't stop at British passports but I'd also stop at anyone from a Muslim country as well as Muslims themselves.

I am not angry at feeling that in the future America should not allow me in because I'm British. I'm more angry that our good name around the World has been sullied by this government in its continued appeasement to Saudi Arabia not forgetting the fact that they give British Passports out to anyone, regardless of their history.

It's disgusting.

dumbledoresarmy,

Great reply to me. Thanks for that. I can't really reply as such as I agree in all that you've stated. I already am doing something already in regards to stopping Islamisation but all help is greatly needed and I want to thank you for your poignant words and time spent on such a detailed and helpful reply.

Can we just clone a bunch of Tancredos, Wilders, and Sue Myricks and send them to run the whole Free World, including India? I have a friend on Indonesia Matters, a brilliant, 17-year-old Bengali girl who says she would be thrilled to settle for Bush or McCain in India. They need help too.

Come to think of it, what's Netanyahu doing these days?

Alert, Wellington,
Right on all counts. Hindsight is 20/20. When I supported the first Gulf War, I had the belief that Saudi Arabs were on our side. The Iranian Revolution did a lot to my view of Islam and I bought the canard (I know it now, but I was younger and less informed back then) that Sunni Islam was "moderate".
Face it. We were dependent on the flow of oil through the Persian Gulf, regardless of how much we ourselves actually bought from them. The cold war was another matter. That 'special relationship' seemed to matter and the countries that sold the most oil were our allies, not Russia's.
Had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported either war. The people of Islam would have been told to fight their own battles.
We'll never know how Iraq might have turned out if we HAD gone in in 1991. But we didn't. Instead we allowed Saddam to massacre both Shia and Kurds. The Kurds were able to eventually build a modicum of a society but the Iranians had a good twelve years to work their mischief in southern Iraq.
Colin Powell had his "Pottery Barn" maxim: you break it, you bought it. That was seen as a justification for not entangling ourselves in Iraq but almost as soon as we said we wouldn't go in, we ended up monitoring no-fly zones to protect the people of the north and the south. When it comes right down to it, what we did in 2003 was merely a holdover from 1991. We never truly left the Gulf after the first war. We were still responsible for Iraq and it cost us the WTC.
I can no longer reconcile the Pottery Barn rule with self-determination. The people of Iraq want to rule themselves so let them rule themselves. No one should be responsible for the survival of the Iraqi government but Iraqis. Sovereignty cuts both ways. People can't point to the US and say: people are dying, DO SOMETHING! and then, when we do something, say: how dare you violate the borders of a sovereign nation!
Wellington, you're right. Since we're damned if we do and damned if we don't, let's don't. We'll save ourselves a lot of trouble. The second guessers will have a field day in either case. Let them fight their own battles. America's involvement should consist of a promise: If the US is attacked, Muslims can be assured that the US will destroy MECCA. MAD

It is entirely possible for Islam to seize power in the west. But in order to do that, it has to have the cooperation of western elites in power positions, and lots of brain dead puppets, to carry out their edicts.

The while holding off the Islamic hordes, with one hand, we have to remove these appeasing traitors from power positions, and install people with the knowledge, and willingness to act, like Tom Tancredo and Geert Wilders. There are others.

Halt Mohammadan immigration. Deport undesirables.

Redefine, Islam as not a religion but a hostile political entity, intent on the violent (spiritual terror is violence) overthrow of the US gov, and ban it. Deny it's submitters the right to vote.

The only way to keep Allah out of US/British/western politics is to keep Allah out of US, and western politics. Absolutism is necessary.

Sound a little tough? It is tough. In this case, tough is required...

What is this wanker's view on Pearl Harbo(u)r?

The Iraq war...Bush had many motivations for launching the invasion, most of them dubious, in my estimation.
However I don't think he needed to lie, in order to launch.

Saddam lost the first gulf war. The loser is supposed to act like a loser...losers make agreements from inferior positions, and are expected by the winners to fulfill them.

Saddam did neither...He never acted like a loser is supposed to act, and continued hostilities in one form or another, right up to the last minute.

Generally speaking when the loser fails to recognize his losership, and continues hostilities after surrendering, the war continues...

That's the way it's been since Allah created winners and losers...

A former head of MI5 today describes the response to the September 11 2001 attacks on the US as a "huge overreaction" ....

In an interview with the Guardian, Stella Rimington calls al-Qaida's attack on the US "another terrorist incident" but not qualitatively different from any others.

"That's not how it struck me. I suppose I'd lived with terrorist events for a good part of my working life and this was as far as I was concerned another one," she says.
..........................

This woman is an idiot, but she is not alone. I have heard a lot of morons on both "sides of the pond" minimizing the importance of 9/11--Brits talking about how they are much more stoic than Americans--often citing British attitudes during the London blitz and other bombings. Some on the American Left have even made light of the carnage on 9/11 by comparing it to traffic accidents!

My mother did go through the London blitz as a young girl in the service. It is true that people were proud of keeping "a stiff upper lip" and "carrying on", but this was only part of it. They were also angry--*and* they were also fighting back. Any idea thqat they were just passively suffering through Nazi attacks--or held this as any sort of ideal--is entirely false.

Anyone who suffers passively through attacks is only inviting more of them. I have many, many issues with the "War on Terror" and the way it has been waged (starting with the imprecise moniker "War on Terror")--but I think it should be fairly obvious that a failure to react (or "overreact" in Rimington's absurd point of view) would have been much, much worse. I would have done nothing but embolden further those Jihadists who want to bring down the West.

Wellington--excellent post about the state of Iraq under Saddam Hussein. Like many people here at JW, I have grave reservations about the war in Iraq, and the possiblity of turning that "nation" into a functioning democracy. Nonetheless, I am repulsed by those who--with criminally short memories--extoll the supposedly marvelous state of the the country when it was under the heel of that brutal dictator.

British "intelligence" services have provided us with some of our biggest traitors.

Ivory towers spring to mind when reading this man's dribblings.

gravenimage: Thank you for your comment. While reasonable minds can differ as to the wisdom of going into Iraq in 2003, only those with a false or warped agenda (like Jowen) can deny that America had more than enough justification to take out Saddam Hussein.

PMK: Thanks for your response to my questions. You know, I often think of the Puritans and Pilgrims (and others) who came to a new land to get away from all the troubles across the pond. There's something deeply ironic about American history in that folks here since the early seventeenth century would have preferred that the rest of the world go away, but the rest of the world's idiocies (like producing Marxism and Nazism, starting two world wars and having one dysfunctional Islamic state after another) has kept drawing America back into other lands where it has performed in a stellar and noble fashion time and time again-----so much so that everywhere today where you find a free country, that country owes its freedom in part, if not in large part, to America. And yet the world never learns and much of it even continues to despise us. Stupid world. It doesn't deserve America. And we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Think there's any way we could make most of the rest of the world go away?

We thought Iraq had nukes. He was supposed to let us have inspectors in there to check it out, per 12+ UN resolutions. AQ Khan was selling nuclear technology at the time. Iran and China bought it. We did the right thing we went into Iraq, just like Israel did the right thing when they bombed Iraq's nuclear facilities in 1983. Preventing Muslims from getting nukes is just about the only reason which would justify going to war with any of those monsters. Rebuilding Iraq is the wrong thing to do. Decadence rules wherever Mohammedanism does. We should have taken all that money and manpower and invested it in protecting and sealing our shores and borders. Screw the Iraqis. We should have protected the Christians, maybe even given them asylum and let the Shi'ites and Sunnis all kill each other, even let Iran come and take over.

We should not have gone into the first Gulf War. There's someting shamefully hypocritical about refusing to save Lebanon, a Christian nation, from Hezbollah terrorists and saving Kuwait. Why is Kuwait worth saving? It's not. What makes one theocratic dictatorship better than another? Nothing. We owed Kuwait nothing and they should have gotten nothing from us.

jdamn: If we hadn't gone into the first Gulf War, there would have been economic blackmail by Saddam Hussein and world financial implosion which would have made the recent mortgage mess look like a glitch and not much more. I agree that most Muslims are ungrateful and ignorant where America is concerned, but not to have gone into Kuwait to liberate it would have been akin to letting Hitler take Poland with no consequences.

Come over here and say that to the deceased ones' family's faces. Bastards.

Come over here and say that to the deceased ones' family's faces. Bastards.

But in order to do that, it has to have the cooperation of western elites in power positions, and lots of brain dead puppets, to carry out their edicts.

Posted by: duh_swami at October 20, 2008 10:52 AM

duh_swami, where have you been? What do you think Bandar was doing in US for the last 20 years? Have you not heard W call him 'Bandar Bush'? Bandar had more access to Bush than any one else. FBI, CIA, Congress and foreign delegates included. Bandar got briefed aboout the Iraq invasion before even the congress. Bandar was Bush's chief advisor on Middle East. Americans don't know what Bandar was up to inside Bush family: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/the-diplomat-who-schmoozed-his-way-through-washington-452239.html

But why would Americans? They did not care that their POTUS had not earned an honest day's living. That his failing businesses were funded by the same Jihadi wahhabis who were financing international terror. That their POTUS and his daddy were in Saudi pockets even before W got elected.
You see, "western elites" have been co-opersating with Jihadists for over 20 years. Now put the Gulf Wars in perspective and you will find that Bush faught Al-Sabah's and Al-Saud's war against Saddam. Finally, how do you think Al-Sauds and Bin Ladens flew away to safety while all US flights were grounded? How do you think Osama is a free man while border patrol agents are behind bars?

Had I known then what I know now, I wouldn't have supported either war.

Posted by: PMK at October 20, 2008 10:45 AM

PMK, you make many important points and express your frustration at what you did not know. Of course you did not know. You, like many Americans, yours truly included, were kept in the dark. Even I supported both Gulf Wars. Like you, I did not know that POTUS is nothing but a failed, rich, spoilt brat: http://alaric3rh.home.sprynet.com/science/bceo.html That, had it not been for his dad, W would have amounted to nothing. Had it not been for Saudi money, W would not have been on the board of directors of Harken Energy, the UAE contract would have gone to Exxon or Mobil or ARAMCO: http://www.realchange.org/bushjr.htm Where in the entire Bush family record, do you see care / concern for America? Why would Bush take America to Gulf Wars if it was not to benefit their rich distant families: Al-Sabahs / Al Sauds? That, not democracy, not freedom, not security was the reason, Guld Wars occurred. Few would have imagined that 9/11 could be turned into a war for Al-Sauds, to finish their enemy, Saddam, by their favourite slaves: http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2008/01/truly-america-i.html.
Put Vincent Bugliosi's read in perspective and you will find that W is responsible for murder of thousands of Americans: http://www.pubrecord.org/multimedia/178.html?task=view
You see, traitors do not have a label across their foreheads, but when one does know the truth, it is never wrong to correct mistakes.

I'm no big fan of Bush, but Alert's post just behind me there is about one milimeter away from stating the "Truther" position -- if you go far right enough, you'll meet the far left from the other direction!

if you go far right enough, you'll meet the far left from the other direction!

Posted by: DenverRodeo at October 22, 2008 11:11 AM

Have been labeled a 'socialist', a 'commie'... although am equally critical of how Clinton sold American children to Islam: http://www.blessedcause.org/proof/Clinton%20Embracing%20Islam%20selling%20out%20children.htm\