U.K: Anjem Choudary plans new group called "Democracy is Dead," raises spectre of "Bosnia" in Britain over banning of prior group

You have summed the situation up pretty exactly except that I do not think Chowdhry will eventually be killed. The prospect of a “British” muslim martyr is so terrifying for the authorities that they will do everything possible to ensure it does not happen.

It is worth mentioning that Chowdhry and his gang were discussed on Radio 4’s “Any Questions” this week. For those not in the UK this is a weekly current affairs programme when a panel of journalists and well-known talking heads go out to town and village halls taking questions from an audience made up of members of public.

They're so PC it's infuriating but I did hear one speakers answer to a question on Chowdhury. I cannot remember what she said word-for-word but the gist of it was,

“Why is this madman given so much publicity? Yes, we should report him but somewhere on an inside page not on every front page in TV news bulletin in the country. He is not a proper Moslem! He does not represent the Muslim community! We do not need hear so much about him!”

Naturally this was greeted with loud and prolonged applause from the audience.

This caused me to reflect that a recent survey revealed that one-third of muslim university students in Britain think it is all right to kill for your religion. If one third of the most educated muslims feel this way how can she be so sure of the vast majority of Muslims many of whom are semi-literate and some (many?) of whom do not even speak English?

I don't think you are correct in respect of Chaudhary being knocked off. It is very easy to kill someone - even if they are under Police guard as he is. That brings me to another subject. We have a situation where a British subject is preaching sedition and treason. What happens ? He is given protection by the very state that he seeks to destroy. No wonder Chaudhary and his ilk are laughing at us and God knows what the police who are guarding him think.On another subject. The next election will be decided by 1% of the vote (according to the Times) and some of the key marginal seats are in Dar al Islam, Brent, Liecester, Birmingham etc etc. The politicians are lining up to exploit the Muslim vote. This is why we have the constant reassurances that all is well in the polity of GB. Reality is sidelined and consigned to the rubbish bin. However most ordinary people know the reality and are becoming increasingly frustrated and angry with the explosion in immigration, the exploitation of our services by people who pay nothing in but take everything, no housing, a crumbling infrastructure and no jobs. The policians are living in a fools paradise, sooner or later the civil war will come. I don't want it, I don't promote it but facts are facts even if some people want to ignore them.

What are you talking about?

@sheik yer'mami
You're right on! I too, fear the stealth jihad much more.
It's simple really, everyone knows that bad people are bad; but those who say 'islam is peace' only to get through the gate, bypassing all security, are the real threat, the real Trojan Horse. CAIR is just one, there are many worldwide. Once they get hold, it's all over. Schools, police, media, government; from there to full sharia law is just a matter of time.

@ewha1
Do you know where you are?

“Why is this madman given so much publicity? Yes, we should report him but somewhere on an inside page not on every front page in TV news bulletin in the country. He is not a proper Moslem! He does not represent the Muslim community! We do not need hear so much about him!”

The problem is - he is a proper Muslim whose views represent at least 50 or 60% of the Muslim community.

Me too. What is he talking about ?

ewha1 was probably dancing, singing and handing out sweets on 9/11.

I fervently wish that your scenario would come to pass. However the war when it comes will not be a war with a clearly defined enemy, except as insofar they be Muslims and thier quisling friends in organisations like the UAF and the EHRC. The war, at the moment and into the forseeable future will be a war of demographics. Put simply, they will outbreed us and with the current rate of entry due to immigration outnumber us. The other factor to take into account is the role of the politicians who will do anything to gain votes even if it endangers the majority population. The real enemy is the enemy within. All other wars have had an external enemy who was clearly defined and thus identifiable. The British people are fed up with the current state of affairs but are even more afraid of being labeled "racist". So they huddle together and complain and bitch and moan but take no action - for the moment. The only political party that offers a clear analysis and solutions is the BNP.

Galadriels_Mirror asked ewha1

" what are you talking about?"

ewha1 appears lost &/or confused.

Clue:

If "Jihad Watch.com"

wrong address . . .".org"

ewha1 may be referring to The Iconoclast which is a group blog featuring Hugh Fitzgerald, Mary Jackson, Rebecca Bynum, Ibn Warraq etc. and may be referring to discussions about Balkan conflicts at either (or both) JW & Iconoclast .

Lost, just the same.

There is one way to disable Islam permanently: attack the Koran. Attack it intellectually, attack it critically, attack it historically, attack it ethically. Attack the Koran with essays, books, speeches, debates, jokes, ridicule, and cartoons.Attack the Koran publicly, and make it an object of scorn. Reduce the Koran to the level of a crude comic book. Then Islam will fall.

I'm in agreement with you, JEdgar. We had 'empowered' Islam by accepting their claim of being an 'Abrahamic Faith' along with the other two main faiths of Christianity and Judaism. Nothing is further from the truth, and any critical reading of Koran and Hadiths will make it imminently obvious. They are not of the same cloth.

Do not empower anything in Islam. Do not empower their texts, their religious claims of Abrahamic equivalence, deny their rights to equal protection as a "religion" more a cult, ridicule their many internal textual fallacies, in-your-face criticisms of their cult-worshipping-Mohammad, their cult black-stone worship, and their many forms of 'takiyya' deceits, treat them with indifference in media coverage, and stop giving them special consideration in public institutions, especially in prison. That is the first level.

Then onto the second level. Forcibly educate their youth in our democratic constitutional secular laws and government, both in philosophical thought and social responsibility. Force any who migrate to the West to learn our laws and language, along with our cultural norms in society, especially gender equality. Treat with intolerance and punishment all who preach social hatreds and sedition to instigate replacing our constitutional government with theocratic Sharia. Criminalize common Islamic practices such as 'honor killings', FGM, forced marriage, polygamy, raping of non-Muslim women, attacks on homosexuals, loud call to prayer at mosques, mugging of the elderly, looting and car burnings, and treat all these crimes with severity. Teach Muslim children critical scientific thinking, especially simple logic and arithmetic. They must be forced to evolve socially and mentally beyond the village goatherd mentality if they are to live in the civilized world.

Third level. Teach Islamic children our history from ancient Classical times to modern events, especially focussing on all the good things our society had created and why their parents chose to come here in the first place. Let them understand that there are different levels of civilized societies, and that some societies come to the aid of others with good intent during crisis, while others will take advantage. Compare behaviors of the Western societies in times of crisis versus those of Dar al Islam. Show how 'isolated' Muslim acts of terror are not per their personal wishes but acted out as their collective-social-Islamic philosophy by individuals, so they are individual tools of the Dar al Islam. Finally, encourage Islamic youth to talk to their elders, in the same way school children are taught that smoking is bad and to talk to their parents, about the backwardness of their Islamic belief system in a progressive 21st century world.

This is all to dis-empower Islam at the personal level, where each individual living in the West is made painfully aware of the terrible shortcomings of this primitive 7th century barbarian Islamic cult in the modern world. Within that framework, then it should be easy to round up and arrest those whose criminal activities target them for imprisonment or deportation. Like a rotten fruit falling from its tree, Islam will fold within the West. But isn't this really what it was all about all along? An Islamic 'death wish' of their Last Days? Give it to them. Are you listening Choudary? Islam is dead.

imnokuffar

Thanks for replying and you raise some good points, especially in pointing out that this time the enemy is within. However, although this will make the coming struggle all the more difficult, I believe that whether within or without, sooner or later, we must inevitably always face our enemies.

As things stand right now today, we are faced with another inevitabilty; that unless we as a people take some form of positive action we will, over the next decade or two, be transformed into a Muslim state. But you and I are both Brits and we know the temper of our people. We will not go quietly into the night. No Muslim takeover of our country will go unopposed, no matter how stealthily it might happen.

As I've said in other threads, the growth of the Muslim population in Britain is one line on a graph. The growth in the awareness of non-Muslims to the threat they pose to the rest of us is another line. At some mathematical point in the future those lines will intersect and when they do something terrible will happen. It will happen because it's the only thing that can happen.

But we must beware, for such large-scale social upheaval will undoubtedly impell our government into deploying troops to restore order. In such an event, and in order to preserve the maximum number of human lives, our troops will no doubt be instructed to protect those sections of the community that our leaders perceive to be at greatest risk - the minority Muslim enclaves. We cannot naively assume that our deluded leadership will automatically take our side in any such conflict. We could very well find ourselves staring into the gun barrels of our own armies.
Furthermore, I believe that this assessment would apply to any of the three current mainstream parties in British politics. The only party that would either keep the troops confined to barracks while we clean house, or commit them in support of our team, would be the BNP. There again, with the BNP in power there's every chance they would do the job for us anyway, but any electoral success sweeping Nick Griffin into Downing Street would also likely be against a backdrop of civil unrest, rioting and bloodshed.

These are the calculations we have to make before placing our tick in the box.

I have to say your first post was less than clear but your second explains everything.

Our "free" MSM alluded to the fact that NATO had helped the muslims but presented them as victims of nasty islamophobic Serbs. The only reference to muslim atrocities I saw was on JW at the time of the trial of Milosovich. I THINK it was posted that one of the witnesses against him was a muslim commander who's unit had raped, bayoneted and burned 20+ Serb women. The irony was that the prosecutor was Canadian and Canadian troops had been traumatized by having to bury the victims.

However the information blackout does not only cover events in the Balkans as this UK government "guidance" circular to the MSM shows,

http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/communities/pdf/151921.pdf

"ewhat1" wrote:

"darcy" and "wellington" have no problem with any of this, sweet souls that they are.
.....................

I've followed these two posters' comments for years, and have *never* seen anything like what you are claiming. Neither of these people support slaughter—and to claim further that they support *slaughter by Jihadsts* is shear insanity.

Darcy does at times shoot from the hip, but it would be difficult to find a more stalwart anti-Jihadist anywhere. Wellington's comments are always thoughtful and measured—the idea that he would back the mass slaughter of *anyone* is just crazy.

Let's see some links if you want to back up your claims, or else I think we can all agree that your comments are so much idiocy.

Hmmm, your comment is somewhat incoherent, but from your later ones it appears you are from the former Yugoslavia and have a problem with how things have turned out there, specifically with the way the KLA atrocities in Bosia were whitewashed and the Serbs were demonized. I don't think there are many regulars here who would disagree with you. I certainly don't.

In your note you said "Choudary had more than a few willing allies in, say, 1992 to 1995, amongst the "Jihad Watch" subscribers"

I'm not entirely sure when JihadWatch debuted but I doubt if it was that far back. The archives certainly only go back to October, 2003, so you must be referring to comments made something like ten years or more after the events of 1992-1995. But, again, your comment was so incoherent it's hard to understand what you meant.

In any case what beef do you have against Darcy and Wellington that caused you to single them out, not just in this comment, but in later ones too? Darcy and Wellington are two valued regulars here who are as staunch antijihadists as you could hope to find anywhere. If you're going to criticize, then do the right thing and back it up with specifics.

Hard Rain, you very nicely pointed out the strength of democracy. Then ImnoKuffar pointed out the dangers of demography. Both were very interesting informative posts.

I read Lee Harris's "Suicide of Reason" and he points out among other points that the Muslims, when they must, are "tribal actors" unified in loyalty to their "artificial tribe", which is huge and expanding.

They even are often willing to die for their cause. Whereas Westerners are more rational actors who never want to die for any cause and who in majority desire to be only rational and fair and impartial, foolishly expecting all people to be like that.

However, I mostly agree with your assessment trumping that of ImnoKuffar by a small margin. Because I also read Ray Kurzweil's "The singularity is near". There is Artificial Intelligence that like DNA-research and application, and so much technology, including information-technology, that is improving exponentially! It develops at an incredible speed right now!!

At the same time, Non-Muslims and Muslims alike are getting ever better educated. And free, intelligent people just don't want to be ruled, suppressed, not the Muslima's, not even many Muslim-men when they are pressed.

Galloping technology will have it's own impact and it will in Democratic countries probably not allow people to be suppressed.

But in Islamic countries, where there is lack of freedom of speech, under-education and propaganda-education, on the other hand, Islam is still very strong and hard to overthrow.

The crucial part to play is for the Western Muslims and where in the end they will lean to; to support for fellow-Muslims and opposition to democracy in Democratic countries or opposition to Islamic theocracy all over the world, including Islamic countries.

If they did that in majority eventually, then their migration to the really strong Western Democracies would in the end have had a great beneficial effect. Either violently a bit or peacefully.

Demsci

Thanks for replying. All credit to you, you're far more well-read than I am. Sorry for being such a dunce but I haven't read either of the books you mentioned, so I can't really comment on them.

Glad you found some interesting ideas in my chats with imnokuffar. I enjoyed it too. He (or she) and I are in no way at odds. We seem to be in agreement on the core issues, and sharing his (her) slightly different perspective gave me valuable new insights. Indeed, the reason I started posting here was so that I could share thoughts and ideas with other antijihadists, and anyone else who happens to pass this way. Many of the writers who post here are people whose work I've been reading for months and in some cases years. In that time many of them have built up an impressive body of work, with depths of insight, eloquence and scholarship that leave me in awe. I'm not so much a writer as a fan of the writers I read here.

With regard to the Western Muslims you mention, and the question of which way they will lean, I think such considerations are a bit unrealistic. They are not so much Western Muslims as they are Muslims in the West (a subtle yet profound difference). And sadly there is nowhere for them to lean.
I don't think it's possible for a Muslim to remain true to the basic tenets of Islam, with all its rigid constraints on thought and action, while also simultaneously entertaining the fundamental principles of Western ethics, such as critical enquiry and freedom of thought, conscience and speech. These two value systems are so diametrically opposed as to cancel one another out and while Westerners claim as their right the freedom to adopt and adapt any new ideas they deem worthy, this is not the case for Muslims. Islamic law dictates even the opinions they may hold about themselves and the world around them. Such restrictions on thought are anathema to Westerners. To us, embracing Islam is like asking us to embrace that which we hate and loathe the most - the abdication of thought itself.

Any attempt to reconcile Islam with Western philosophy, and trying to fit them into the same intellectual space in any coherent way, would require a level of 'double-think' that would set George Orwell spinning like a dynamo in his grave.

It's no more attractive to Muslims either, for if they were to adopt normative Western thinking on issues such as personal freedoms they would find themselves in clear breach of Islamic law. Voicing their agreement or sympathy with such Western ideals would open them up to accusations of apostasy, which would certainly lead to harrassment and possibly imprisonment or even death.

There are two campfires, one in the West and one in the East. We cannot draw heat from both. We must decide which one warms us the best.