UK: Muslim couple guilty of anti-Jewish bomb plot

Ah yes, the Jihadi-mooners.

BANG....ZOOOOOOM, to the moon god alice , one of these daze, one of these daze.

Police found a cache of terror-related material after being called to a domestic dispute at the couple’s home in Oldham, last July.

Hilarious how the police got on to them. But not sure if he was beating her or the other way around. He's a pudgy nebbish with an Islamic beanie and beard. Plus younger than her so she may be calling the shots

(photos at original source)

The message is so important that it need to be repeated. The meessage is the reason that so many Muslims hate the Jewish people so much is because when Muhammad went to live with the Jews they would not accept his claim of prophethood. There he became very resentful and bitter towards them for it. He get so worked up over it that he then started to hate them for it and then spoke many terrible things about how he felt about them. His words were written down and eventually went into the composition of the Quran. Thus Muslims feel about Jews the way they do because of how the Quran reads. Furthermore, I can keyboard that Muhammad might have been a prophet. Nevertheless, Muhammad was NOT a prophet sent by God, but rather a deceptive prophet sent by Satan. In fact Jesus warned about the coming of such men as Muhammad. For Jesus taught "Beware of false prophets,which come to you in sheep's clothing, but imwardly they are ravening wolves."
Matthew 7:15. The Bible further warns that "many false prophets are gone out into the world." First John 4:4. [KJV]

"They both became radicalised by material found on the internet such as an al Qaida magazine called Inspire..."

Seems like you got that backwards. More likely they "became radicalized" first, and then went looking for jihadi material on the internet. I think that anyone reading Inspire magazine has already been "radicalized". If I had to guess, they probably "became radicalized" by listening to their local imam.

Ah well, it's not the first time nor the last that the Infidel is saved by Muslims' mutual hatred.

There's nothing like a few beheading video's to stir up the ole jihad juices...Islams a great religion in't it?

From the Article:

"Beheading videos, propaganda glorifying Osama bin Laden..."
___________________________________________________________

I hate to be simplistic, but really - what kind of a**holes sit at home watching BEHEADING VIDEOS?!

Can't they get their Jihadi Jonesing satisfied by, say, reading the Q'uran?

Alternately - don't they have something better to do?

An utterly nauseating case. However, at least the good news is that they were arrested before they could do anything.

Unfortunately, Wahhabists were successful elsewhere today, launching a double terror attack aimed at killing outspoken critics in the city of Kazan. There is some information in the following article that you will not (to the best of my knowledge) find in other English-language sources at present: http://durotrigan.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/wahhabist-terror-strikes-tatarstan.html

BBC News - Oldham wife Shasta Khan guilty of Jewish jihad plan ... whats jewish jihad? at a glance you would imagine
that the islam loving, antisemitic bbc was using sleight of words, surely

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=jewish%20jihad%20plot&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CE4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fuk-england-manchester-18882619&ei=P0kIUNyzNJCY1AXB7cWHBQ&usg=AFQjCNG7XGef7ZqIvKurecIy3qk5ubPobQ

or maybe not
According to BBC, Israel has no capital – but Palestine does

http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=bbc%20refuses%20to%20name%20israels%20capital&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CFUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2F972mag.com%2Faccording-to-bbc-olympics-page-israel-has-no-capital-but-palestine-does%2F51348%2F&ei=4k4IUIyACKSR0QXJq5TPBA&usg=AFQjCNGJzjZcn6tSsohQXJV0-WAttFaQPA

more

bbc - israel terror attack awful "accident
http://youtu.be/ZtteqEE2W8c

Is it human nature to blame an entire community for the wrongs done by a few :

the following is a quote from :

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/24/my-faith-after-my-mosque-was-torched/

And Muslims everywhere are feeling increasingly less welcome in America.

We see our kids bullied in schools over their faith and our daughters, wives and mothers picked on and ridiculed for wearing hijab, the Muslim headscarf.

Mosques across America have been vandalized in recent years. Mine was one of them.

"Both will be sentenced at 2pm tomorrow."

Please post an update with the sentence. I'd like to see if they get more than a slap on the wrist.

"And Muslims everywhere are feeling increasingly less welcome in America."

Good!

The West is not for muslims. And muslims are not for the West...

There was a newly wed Muslim couple some years ago: he blew someone up or was killed in an action or whatever, and his widow described how they watched Jihadist videos between making love. Something like that, I can't remember the details.

It takes all kinds.

Kudos to the Yorkshire Post for a headline that tells it like it is.

I observe that Mr Spencer did not have to rewrite the headline at all.

Mr Spencer's headline: 'UK: Muslim couple guilty of anti-Jewish bomb plot'.

Original Yorkshire Post headline: "Muslim couple guilty of anti-Jewish bomb plot,"

When we get to the point where we discover, here at jihadwatch, and at other places, that we do not have to reword *any* of the incoming newspaper headlines in order to reveal that a given story is part of the day's 'Jihad News', then we will know that we are getting somewhere.

I also observe that within the body of the article, that this female Mohammedan Jew-hater is described bluntly as 'British-born Muslim Shasta Khan...".

Ladies and gentlemen

a propos the whining Mohammedan dementor and Bullshitter [I am using 'Bullshitter' as a technical term: for more, see Harry Frankfurt's 2005 book, 'On Bullshit'] calling itself 'Peter, above.

In all its previous appearances to date it has claimed, among other things, to be a born-again Christian.

And its very peculiar style and the content of its postings were identical, moreover, with the style and content of multiple postings by a previous bandersnatch who first turned up under the handle 'loveverybody' and then under the handle '45ch', also in both cases claiming to be a devoutly pacifistic Christian.

But I pegged it as a Mohammedan almost at once.

*Now*, at last, I see it has dropped the mask: "Mosques across America have been vandalized in recent years. **Mine was one of them** [emphasis added - dda]".

@ Tom Billesley - Interesting point. I have been saying and writing "the False Prophet Mohammad" for some time now. Perhaps I will change that to "The Fictional Prophet Mohammad"

@ David Dowse - I agree. If they don't like it in America, they should leave and move to a 'Muslim' country where they can be 'free' to practice their 'religion'. (Of course, if the version they are practicing is not 'pure' enough, their fellow Muslims might kill them. But hey, that's not our problem.)

OT: My re-drawing of Oliphant's anti-Semitic cartoon from a couple of months ago.

http://willdoohan288.typepad.com/blog/2012/07/anti-jew-cartoon-re-draw.html

Ladies and gentlemen

observe the Mohammedan, 'Peter', who told a straightout Lie to poster David Dowse, some time ago.

He said he was not a Muslim. He said he was a Christian. He has posed as a Christian before, in postings under other monikers. But he LIED through his damned teeth when he did that, because in a posting above (and it is not a different 'Peter', because the robotic, flat style of his postings is exactly the same), he identifies as a Muslim.

Of course, I can think of one or two ways he might try, by shifting goalposts and stretching the meaning of language, to pretend that that was not what he just did. But the normal reader, reading these words in the posting by 'Peter' above - "Mosques across America have been vandalized in recent years. Mine was one of them." will naturally assume that the speaker is a Muslim. Just as the normal western reader, reading any number of the earlier postings, in threads from a year or two years ago, would have taken assorted statements on trust and presumed that the speaker was a Christian (I, however, did not, because the *vibe* coming off those postings made my skin crawl, and no genuine Christian I have ever known personally or whose postings I have read here, writes in the odd, stilted, pedantic - and faintly-sneering - style of of 'Peter').- 'Peter/45ch/loveverybody' writes).

His questions are not sincere. I don't think he gives a damn whether they are answered or not; and if they *were* answered, he wouldn't listen to the answers.

He's not here to debate in good faith, at all. He's here to say whatever he thinks will protect Islam; whatever will further the cause, and advance the Dominance of, Islam, Islam, Islam, which is what he *really* worships.

He's BULLSHITTING.

He's flinging handfuls of sand and sh*t and pixels all over the place, in order to try to distract people from the ugly spectacle of Mohammedan Jew-hatred, and of a Mohammedan couple in Britain with a stash of **beheading** videos in their house. Videos of real people being ritually murdered - human-sacrificed - by Mohammedans.

Lord forgive my typos.

The Truth sets us free--you both singular and plural. You and me, he and she. The Lord reveals Truth Himself to everyone.

Mr. Dowse, our poor self-satisfied friend here is too full of himself to learn, and is unable to really grasp history, much less theology.

"Peter" asks, "So what is the truth?"; so did Pilate, but he didn't pursue his question further.

Two points to note.

Re. Peter the dementor's statement about alleged mosque vandalism.

The first time he provided a statement, a link, and then a chunk of entirely plain text not enclosed within either quotation marks or a 'quote/ unquote' mark, and without other indicators such as 'excerpt', to make it quite clear that the text following the link was an excerpt from the article to be found if one followecd the link.

This meant that I did not register the excerpt *as* an excerpt - and I am, normally, a pretty careful reader, although hampered at present by a cataract in one eye.

The second time, when Peter is gleefully pointing out that I have misread the posting, he does indicate the item clearly and uses 'end of quote' at the end of the quoted passage. He did NOT do either of those things the first time.

The first rule of a comments section like this - as well as the clear use of things like the SARC mark if one is employing sarcasm - is to indicate as loudly and clearly as possible which words are your own, and which you are quoting from others. This is especially helpful for anyone with visual impairment, and for persons who are pushed for time and may not have time to read and re-read.

I made an error; but the way that 'Peter' laid out his posting made that error an easy one to make. Others also misread it the same way, which shows that he was not sufficiently clear.

Secondly, I observe he thinks that the Founding Fathers of the USA ought not to have rebelled against King George...

If that is the case, he is welcome to leave the USA, which he clearly despises, and believes should not have been created in the first place, and go live in Canada, or in the UK.

If either of them will have him... I doubt very much that either the Canadian or UK jihadwatchers here present are much interested in having 'Peter', the Mohammedan dementor pretending to be a Christian, as a neighbour.

(Despite my misreading of that one quote, I still am quite convinced that 'Peter'/ 45ch/ loveverybody is a Mohammedan and nothing will shift me from that conclusion, the weird 'vibe' I am getting off him is nothing like anything I have ever gotten off any other self-identified Christian I have ever met, on the internet or in real life, but strongly resembles the vibe given off by assorted Mohammedans of the nastier, slyer kind who have frequented this site from time to time in the past.)

I observe that 'Peter' has uttered not the tiniest squeak of condemnation of, or horror over, the news that a pair of Muslims in the UK were preparing to carry out murderous attacks upon Jews, in the UK.

His first posting was an attempt to claim victimhood for the poooor persecuted widdle Muswims, and to try to dissociate the Ummah, and Islamic teaching, from any possible connection with the murderous Jew-hate of this precious pair of plotters in the UK.

It occurs to me to wonder: supposing the plotters had *succeeded*. Suppose they had killed one, or two, or more Jewish UK citizens - perhaps even doing the same sort of horrors as Mohammed Merah gleefully perpetrated, or the torture-murderers of Rivka and Gavriel Holzberger in Mumbai - and *then* been caught.

Would 'Peter's first posting, *still* have been a whining, squealing attempt to absolve Islam and the uMmah of all responsibility for or connection with the crime, and to try to represent Muslims *in America* as victims of 'persecution'? Probably...

I don't wish to be drawn into a contest of "holier than thou" with a pretentious boggart.

Observe the Mohammedan in a mask, still bullshitting busily.

It seems quite unaware that it is possible to walk *and* chew gum at the same time.

One can deplore the Colorado cinema shooting, and *also* condemn 9/11, Madrid, Beslan, etc.

It is irrelevant to discuss the Colorado shooting at this site, except to note that the Colorado shooter did NOT belong to a cult 1.2 billion strong that would *teach* him to do what he did, and acclaim him as a hero, and would actively or passively *endorse* what he did. Whereas the Fort Hood ghazi raider/ Fifth Columnist *does* belong to such a Cult: the Arab Imperial Religion, the Arab Religion of Blood and War, the Code of the Mohammedan Mob, in zealous pursuit of Total World Domination.

And why should 'loving' Muslims preclude criticism of their belief system, or active resistance to (and even due and proper punishment of) its bad behaviours? Grandma's loving a child does not mean she doesn't punish it for bad behaviour.

During the Cold War, Christians prayed for the salvation of Russians and Chinese - and smuggled bibles into Russia and China, and paid for radio programs that A/ trenchantly, rationally, and persistently criticised Communism as a belief system/ ideology and B/ clearly explained and promoted Christianity. They criticised Communism *as well as* explaining God's love to Communists.

And the sensible Christians in the West, and elsewhere, were quite happy, at the same time as they engaged in what we might call 'spiritual warfare', to support their countries' governments' rational legal and/ or military self-defence against Communist acts of subversion and aggression.

Me, I will most certainly pray for the liberation of Muslims from Islam. I am currently taking part in the 30 Days project.

And I pray every Friday for two things 1/ the Defeat of the Jihad (because I care about the lives and wellbeing of *all* non-Muslims assailed by Jihad: the robbed, the raped, the kidnapped, the murderedas well as about all the beauty that different cultures have created that is all in danger of being vindictively smashed by Muslims)

and 2/ the Conversion of Muslims to Christ.

If I meet a Muslim I will tell that person that Jesus loves him. But if the subject of the content of Islamic ideology comes up, and I am in a safe, free western country, I am *not* going to pretend that Islam is OK, that there is nothing wrong with it. Islam should NOT be immune to criticism. And when there are Muslim demands that my country and its system of law should recognise and accommodate such things as Mohammedan polygyny, then I will very loudly and strongly **oppose** any such recognition or accommodation, and **I will criticise** that Islamic practice or practices.

Loving someone does not mean that you pretend they are alright when they are NOT; that whatever they are doing is right, when it is NOT. If you see a child in the playground pulling another child's hair, or kicking the other child in the back, or getting a big stick, to hit the other child over the head, do you just stand by and let them do it? Is it 'unloving' to grab the little bully by the scruff of the neck and tell him or her that bullying is JUST NOT ON?

I refuse to pretend that Mohammedan kidnap and rape of Coptic girls is good; and I will pressure my government to impose CONSEQUENCES on Islamic Egypt (because of Islamic Egypt's winking at such wickedness and cruelty) to the best of its (my government's) ability.

And if a Muslim wants to rape a nine-year-old and call it 'marriage', in *my* country, I will urge the Authorities to hit him with the full force of the Law. And if a Muslim country were to attack and invade my country, I would *not* call for my country's government to meekly surrender to Islam and subject us all to the horror of dhimmitude.

Further: I do *not* believe that 'loving Muslims' requires that we allow unlimited numbers of Muslims to enter our countries and, once entered, to do whatever they damn well please.

I don't see that there would be anything unchristian, at all, about putting a complete stop to all further immigration of Muslims into, say, Australia. We wouldn't have allowed hundreds of thousands of Heil-Hitlering Nazis to immigrate into Australia in 1938 (supposing Hitler had tried it) nor would we have allowed hundreds of thousands of card-carrying Chinese Communists complete with copies of Mao's Little Red Book to enter our country in 1955 and set up Training Camps and Indoctrination Centres. So why should we permit the Soldiers of Allah to march in and set up camp en masse, and build their Houses of Hate/ Barracks (Madrasas and Mosques)? - **Knowing** that they intend to do harm?

Islam has been violently and sadistically at war with the rest of the world since it began; so sane and sensible non-Muslim countries have a perfect right to use due and necessary force to resist Muslim military invasion and to refuse to accept Mohammedan 'immigrants' and 'refugees', as being actual or potential 'Fifth Columnists'.