UK to force returning jihadis to undergo “de-radicalization” program

Jihadist-Propaganda-ISIS-FilmThis absurd idea is based on the British government’s fundamental and unshakable assumption that Islam is a Religion of Peace, and that jihad terrorists are misunderstanding and misinterpreting it. So all that needs to be done is teach them the true, peaceful Islam, and all will be well, right?

Well, let’s see. De-radicalization programs have been implemented elsewhere, notably in Indonesia and Saudi Arabia. Let’s look at how they fared. From the Jihad Watch archives:

11 ex-Gitmo prisoners flee the Saudi “rehabilitation program” and join up with terrorist groups

Jaw-dropper: 25 former Gitmo detainees “return to militancy” despite Saudi rehab program!

Graduate from Saudi jihadi rehab program killed in Syrian jihad: “killed a large number of Christians before his acceptance by God”

Flight 253 jihadist wasn’t cured by Saudi anti-jihad art therapy

Former Guantanamo detainee now top al-Qaeda ideologue — “He was transferred to Saudi Arabia in 2006 where he was placed in a national rehabilitation project.”

Indonesian government admits that its jihadist rehab program is a failure

The British government is living in a fool’s paradise.

“UK Government Agrees Forced ‘De-Radicalisation’ Schools for Returning Jihadis,” by Nick Hallett, Breitbart, September 1, 2014 (thanks to Jerk Chicken):

Britain’s governing coalition has agreed that potential Jihadis who return to Britain from abroad should be forced to undergo a de-radicalisation programme when they arrive back in the UK.

The proposal is one of a series of measures agreed by the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats who form Britain’s coalition government. Also proposed is a new law to force airlines to share full passenger lists with police and security agencies, and plans to temporarily suspend to passports of UK citizens fighting for ISIS, preventing them from coming home.

According to the Sun, talks over the measures were “tense” and going on well into the night last night, ahead of the Prime Minister’s emergency statement in the House of Commons this afternoon.

The proposals come after the UK’s offical terror threat level was raised last week to severe, meaning that an attack is “highly likely”. Security sources have also said that there is a risk that ISIS sympathisers may perform a “marauding terrorist firearms attack” (MTFA), which involves opening fire in a crowded place with automatic weapons.

Although the Prime Minister is determined to plug any gaps in the UK’s defences, Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg is under pressure from senior members of his own party block any further clampdown. One former leader, Paddy Ashdown said that is was “the job of politicians to act but as jealous protectors of our liberties,” while another, Sir Menzies Campbell, said that stripping UK jihadis of their citizenship could “constitute illegality”.

Tight terror controls were scrapped in 2011 after the Deputy Prime Minister demanded that the government abolish Control Orders, replacing them with the less severe “Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures” (TPIMs).

Senior Labour MP Hazel Blears said: “Nick Clegg should get off his high horse and do something to protect the British people”.

UK Muslim: "If Britain follows the United Snakes of America in their attack against the Islamic State, the U.K. will become a very unsafe place."
UK: Prosecutor "branded a racist" for prosecuting Muslim rape gang
FacebookTwitterLinkedInDiggBlogger PostDeliciousEmailPinterestRedditStumbleUponPrint


  1. pongidae rex says

    A century ago, Europe lurched into WWI due to a system of interlocking international ‘security agreements’ that made any alternantive to a continental war impossible once an isolated event triggering hostilities had occured.

    Today, we confront lurching into chaos yet again due to a system of ‘multicultural sensitivities’ that not only make it impossible to deport violent 5th Column Jihadisits from Western countries, but have brainwashed politicians to the point that they cannot deduce rational conclusions from facts if the conclusions do not conform to ‘multicultural sensitivities’.

    • Shane says

      The only cure for the mental disease of jihadism is death! Either execute these cockroaches or take away their passports and do not let them return.

    • Bamaguje says

      Indeed… a wasteful exercise in futility.
      British Jihadis should be stripped of their citizenship and never allowed return to UK.

      • Abdul Razaq says

        yes, this is the best solution British Jihadis should be stripped of their citizenship and never allowed return to UK. otherwise not only UK but Europe will pay the big price. these people move to UK but still love their home country and religion and terrorism. what they are doing in UK? they must be sent back to love their countries and religion. I think it is not a wisdom to teach a dog about human right.

  2. Unapologetic American says

    “De-radicalization program”? “Rehabilitation process”? Just what caliber bullet is to be used in this campaign?

    Hopefully once UKIP wins it’ll be a .45 behind the ear of every Muslim Jihadist and their sympathizers in the UK and across the globe.

    • Vapourking says

      Yep I’m with you UA, if they claim it’s Allah’s job to judge them then it’s our job to arrange that interview.

  3. Jo says

    Wait and see. Cameron’s speech today has teeth. The de nazification program was successful.. so why not make muslem’s get back under their rocks for the next seventy years too?

    • thomas_h says

      “The de nazification program was successful…

      It was successful after Nazism itself was defeated, destroyed, condemned and forbidden. That’s why it was called de-nazification, not “de-radicalization”, program.

      You analogy would made sense if the program were de-Islamisation, not de-radicalisation, and introduced after Islam, like Nazism, were defeated, destroyed, condemned and forbidden

      • gravenimage says

        Very important point, Thomas.

        The Fascists respected the Allies after they got their asses so soundly whipped—and most of them were ready for de-nazification.

        They also understood the consequences if they weren’t…

        But Muslims have almost *no* respect for Infidels now, and are becoming steadily more emboldened as we speak.

    • An Unhappy Camper says

      Nazi Germany was totally defeated. Six years of bombing war and horror brought the German people to their knees. You can’t say the same of Jihads in general or UK Jihads in-particular. Any observer will see these guys are winning. Cameron’s speech was just more PC inspired half measures that simply wont work. In the medium to long term the UK and Europe are doomed.

        • says

          Yes; but even in that case it would not be a good analogy, because the brainwashing of Germans under Nazism would have been much easier to deconstruct than the uniquely fanatical brainwashing Muslims operate under (and by “much easier” I mean so much easier that it would be misleading to think the analogy would be useful for our problem with Muslims).

    • Wellington says

      Not to pile on, Jo, but thomas_h, An Unhappy Camper and Daniel Triplett pretty much eviscerated your support of Cameron’s woeful and silly plan.

    • Free Speech says

      I listened to a Cameron speech late last week. It was really nothing but one big, long apology for Islam. Cameron is a dhimmi to the core. He wants London to be the sharia banking capitol of Europe. He’s not going to do anything, but talk.

  4. Tom says

    The only de-radicalisation that works, after a lifetime of indoctrination, is a lead injection. The sooner those in charge, gain insights such as that,the better for everyone.

  5. Daniel Triplett says

    If all Muslims believe the Quran is the literal word of Allah, then that makes his words non-negotiable to them.

    Reforming Islam is impossible, for that would challenge the word of their god.

    The only “de-radicalization” program that will work is forced apostasy. Muslims must divorce themselves entirely from the crime of Islam.

    Honesty, strategic vision, and the stomach to inflict mass casualties will be required for a Western leader to do what really needs to happen here:

    End and criminalize Islam Worldwide.

    • kikorikid says

      “Forced Apostasy” probably will not work, “Martyrdom” and all that.
      Massive airstrikes, often, will change their ability to practice Jihad, later,
      Boots on the ground. “There is just no other way to be sure”(Aliens)

      • Daniel Triplett says

        The reality is even if we kill every ISIS tomorrow, it’s just a matter of time before another disciplined Muslim group with different letterhead resumes the Caliphate campaign.

        And what about Hamas, Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Boko Haram, or all the different Muslim groups across the World in a hundred countries? Especially Iran? We have big, big problems here, way beyond just ISIS.

        The problem is ISLAM. I think we can all agree on that. So what’s the endgame here? Where are we going with this? It’s not going away unless we do something about it on a scale like the Earth has never seen before. Islam promises to annihilate the rest of us.

        Consider what we had to do to destroy the Third Reich. Now consider we’re talking about 1,600,000,000 Muslims in every corner of the Earth.

        If we don’t end this problem, who will? What are we leaving for our children?

        • says

          The West will likely be able to avoid getting dragged into conducting a hot war in the West (which is where the — or at least one major — theater of that war would have to take place), but probably only at some point (hopefully before a few million of us get mass-nurdered by Muslims through various modes of WMDs and other creative techniques to mass-murder we haven’t even imagined yet) by initiating mass (if not total — not perfect; but total) deportation. But it this likelihood is not set in stone; its chances could minimize precipitously the longer we dither around.

        • Daniel Triplett says


          Deportation of enemies from within certainly has benefits, but perhaps at the end of the day this just delays the problem to a later date.

          It delays the confrontation. We can see how most of our enemy is well displaced from us now. But that doesn’t stop their evil, and in many regards, this simply offers them refuge to build their offenses with which to attack us later at a time of their choosing,

          Point being: Doesn’t matter where the enemy is in the World. Whether they’re in our front yard, our back yard, or 5000 miles away, eventually we’ll need to face them.

          Perhaps detaining the enemy among us would be better than deporting them, which gives them the opportunity to regroup, assemble, and attack us in mass.

          IMHO, internment of Muslims, with apostasy a condition of release, would be a better option than deportation if we could possibly justify this Constitutionally. Better to maintain control of them than allow them to regroup and attack. In the same way releasing Gitmo prisoners to freedom (deporting them) has always come back to bite us.

          This is war time now. Time to adjust the ROE drastically. Our survival is at stake.

        • Daniel Triplett says


          ” The problem with a war is that we don’t have a plan. ”

          That’s for sure. BO doesn’t want to advance a plan (ignorant or calculating?). What do you think FDR and Ike would do? They’d no doubt be prepared to fight and win.

          ” IS has the initiative and it appears that our responses will develop only as a result of multiple contingences, some of which, may well have nothing even to do with a war. ”

          Agreed. Our worthless CINC is reactionary. He hasn’t a clue how to wage war, and is too arrogant to listen to his Military Commanders (the ones who have the balls to tell him the truth, that is).

          ” This is how we get into messes and then look for “exit strategies” instead of winning or just not getting involved, in the first place. ”

          Standard B Hussein Obama. Look for more of the same from Hillary.

          ” America really doesn’t have a military class, like Europe once had. ”

          I’m a Major and spent six years in the War. I’d like to tell you you’re wrong, but you’re not. There are many fine leaders in our Military. However, there are just as many who climb to power because they crave it and are champion ass kissers. Kind of like cops–the kind of guys who really want to be cops are the kind of guys who shouldn’t be cops.

          As in the military–the kinds of guys who really want to be in charge are often (not always) the kind of guys who shouldn’t have any power. I don’t want to throw all our Commanders under the bus here though. There are many good ones, but there are also an obscene amount of worthless ones these days.

          The kinds of Military Officers who usually make the best leaders are the ones who are asked to be in command, not the ones who lobby to be in command.

          ” It’s all make shift and has become way more political than professional military. ”

          Yes, see above.

          ” I really don’t think there’s much predicting what will happen, especially during the next two years, which is a long time, in this regard. ”

          Agreed. We have a long time to wait until our next POTUS. WWIII will be well underway by then.

          I think the best we can do is elect anti-Islam leaders in the upcoming mid-terms who will levy significant pressure on the White House to end Islam.

          Frightening for sure.

        • says

          @Daniel Triplett,

          “Deportation of enemies from within certainly has benefits, but perhaps at the end of the day this just delays the problem to a later date.”

          I agree with Hugh Fitzgerald: Islam is not a problem to be “solved”, but to be managed:

          When It Comes To Islam, Please Stop This “Problem” And “Solution” Nonsense

          I don’t agree with Hugh because I want to; but because the data forces me to.

          I have gotten the impression over time that many (or most?) in the Counter-Jihad seem to have another conception of the problem than I do — they seem to be talking about some other Islam, and some other collective of Muslims, where mine is the least forgiving, with zero benefits of the doubt, while theirs is as full of benefits of the doubt as plums in a Christmas cake sometimes — even while they continue to maintain an apparently no-nonsense and often blustery toughness. And it’s not merely about a coldly realistic appraisal of the deadliness of the threat (even if that realism is indeed coldly faithful to the grim data of Muslims actually waging a hot war against us now, and not rather hedging pockets of nougaty soft warmth); it’s also about a realistic awareness of all the unique factors of this war, distinguishing it from all other wars in our historical memory (and in our imagination, apparently).

          “It delays the confrontation. We can see how most of our enemy is well displaced from us now. But that doesn’t stop their evil, and in many regards, this simply offers them refuge to build their offenses with which to attack us later at a time of their choosing,”

          We’re not talking about one or two nations (like a Germany or a Japan); we’re talking about some 50 nations all over the globe, with its 1.3 billion soldiers of different types (most deceptively camouflaged as non-combatants) united by an ideology to a degree that makes this a dangerous problem, and with millions of those soldiers inside most nations of the West, deeply ensconced in nearly every sociopolitical nook and cranny of our societies, enjoying an ongoing process of unilateral assimilation (by our gullibly naive and anxiously deferential consideration and respect massively enabled by our dominant and mainstream culture of PC MC).

          And we’re also talking about the protracted and metastasizing emergency of terrorism enabled by the infiltration of those millions. This isn’t some abtract Clausewitzian chess problem; this is an emergency where we must take measures to evacuate the source of terror attacks on us. To dismiss such measures as “delaying” some larger strategy is strangely to minimize the danger of the terrorism itself.

          “Point being: Doesn’t matter where the enemy is in the World. Whether they’re in our front yard, our back yard, or 5000 miles away, eventually we’ll need to face them.”

          The West doesn’t need to court and exacerbate a rampant multi-national domestic conflagration when we can avoid it. Relocate the problem to the Dar-al-Islam, set up a quarantine of the Dar-al-Islam (which quarantine, pace the JW Softies (who also think the Dar-al-Islam doesn’t exist), doesn’t have to be perfect to be useful for minimizing and managing the problem) — chiefly by relocating the problem away from our House). As Hugh Fitzgerald argued many times, this is a problem of too great a magnitude to “win” in the ways we have known throughout history. This fixation on “winning” and “solving the problem” seems actually to obstruct more practical exigencies. But again, if people have a different Islam in mind, and a different collective of Muslims in mind, they may well be able to imagine (or fantasize) a “victory” that is a “solution” to the problem.

          “Perhaps detaining the enemy among us would be better than deporting them, which gives them the opportunity to regroup, assemble, and attack us in mass.”

          If the West is able to deport, it will then be able to cooperative in a quarantine and isolation of the Dar-al-Islam (again, imperfectly): when Muslims are cut off from the support of the West, their wherewithal to muster military materiel will be drastically reduced. And for the last 300 years up to the present, Muslims have been unable to mount and wage a frank military assault: that’s why they haven’t done it in the 20th and 21st centuries — not because they don’t want to, but because they can’t. Their ability to do so will not be strangely increased after we deport them (much less after we isolate them economically).

          “IMHO, internment of Muslims, with apostasy a condition of release, would be a better option than deportation if we could possibly justify this Constitutionally. Better to maintain control of them than allow them to regroup and attack. In the same way releasing Gitmo prisoners to freedom (deporting them) has always come back to bite us.”

          Talk about “delaying” the problem! Such a mass prison population (dwarfing the Japanese-Americans only one nation (the U.S.A.) interned — with no Constitutional problems, by the way — by millions</i in nearly every nation of the West) would inflame the Muslim world to go even more apeshit than they are now (and should never doubt that Muslims can always get worse than they are, no matter how bad they seem to be at any given moment). That multi-national prison population is not going to magically apostasize and deradicalize. It’s reasonable to suppose it will get worse, more inimical and hostile, not better. While we then wage a world war against Muslims, that prison population of millions throughout the West won’t be going away. It will remain there like a throbbing, pulsating mass tumor ever capable of metastasizing. Meanwhile, we have to support them to keep them alive in relatively humane conditions. It’s an odd situation to be creating for ourselves. One suspects that pragmatism is not the real reason why deportation is forever deflected from consideration in these important discussions about the problem.

        • says

          And speaking of Hugh, here’s a recent excerpt from his blog:

          There is not a single thing that the members of ISIS (or a hundred other groups, smaller and given less attention) do that does not have deep Qur’anic justification, and justification too, in the recorded behavior, that is the Sunnah, of the earliest Muslims, as recorded in the Hadith and Sira. And intelligent Muslims know this perfectly well, but do not wish that you, the non-Muslims of this world, come to understand this. For if you do, logically you would move heaven and earth to diminish, or to remove, the Muslim presence in the Western midst. For that large-scale presence of Muslims in the West has led to a situation that is far more unpleasant, expensive, and physically dangerous, for all non-Muslims, than would be the case without that large-scale Muslim presence.

          I’ve been posting that last line, in a thousand posts, unchanged, for at least the last ten years.

          At this point, can anyone of sense disagree?

          Can anyone, at this point, possibly disagree?

          [I appreciate his rhetorical questions at the end there; but, alas, many if not most in the Counter-Jihad still seem to disagree.]

  6. abad says

    Only the liberal mindset can come up with something as absurd as “de-radicalize.”

    What the UK should do is ban these Muslims from ever returning to the UK after their stint in Iraq

  7. Santos2 says

    The best “de-radicalization” process involves a blindfold, cigarette and maybe a couple of last words.

  8. Kepha says

    These shmoes will reform only if the bulk of the Middle East is under outside occupation, there is mass conversion to Christianity in those lands, and someone’s occupying army has barbecued whole hogs in a barbecue pit lined with stones from the Ka’aba itself.

    • says

      Your speculative hypothetical is flawed on at least one point: the bulk of the Muslim world was under massive occupation (and more often than not, intrusive management) by the West for some 300 years, until the West deconstructed its entire Colonialist apparatus beginning in the wake of the two World Wars. The result? Muslims in the late 20th and now our early 21st century are worse than ever, and their menace is metastasizing as we speak.

      • SpiritOf1683 says

        None of the Muslim world was occupied by the West for 300 years. A fair chunk of it was part of the Ottoman Empire. The British ruled India for 190 years, but as for the Muslim world, its closer to 100 years than 300.

        • says

          I didn’t mean that the colonial occupation was uniform from 1700 till now; but the beginnings of Western intrusion — with many wars against local Muslims here and there (e.g., cf. the “Pepper Wars” mostly naval battles between the Portuguese and Muslims off the Horn of Africa into the Indian Ocean) — did begin in the 18th century, and increased in invasiveness and “meddling” with each passing century.

          Philippines from the 16th century (Spanish)

          Dutch in Indonesia and parts of SE Asia, beginning (in earnest) in the 18th century

          Portuguese and Spanish East Africa, Indian Ocean littorals in the late 17th forward (until other Western powers later competitively elbowed their way in)

          Maghreb increasingly horned in on by English, French, Italian, German from the late 18th forward.

          My more important point is that this demonstrates that mere occupation is not enough to make Muslims change.

  9. Vapourking says

    Australia’s got the right idea, anyone stupid enough to return faces a lengthy jail term. Introduce that law Britain and they simple won’t return. Dah.
    Just on this topic whilst I’ll never understand the Muslim mind, I thought the whole purpose of going was to help create the Caliphate, so to me returning defeats the purpose of going.

  10. FatherJon says

    Cameron thinks that deradicalisation of these people will be similar to the de-Nazification programs post WW2.
    Not so, the Germans were thoroughly demoralised by 1945 and many of them hated Naziism anyway. These young radicals have been completely brainwashed into the cult of religious murder. They’re ideologues of the worst kind. They may appear to go along with this nonsense if only to get the focus off them, but their views and ambitions are unlikely to change.
    Cameron’s just being foolish, and as usual, playing for time by promoting this form of self-deception for the liberal public.

    • John Evans says

      If you take the trouble to look at both Judeo/Christian and Islamic eschatology you wil find they are appallingly similar.

      Moslems are looking for the arrival of the Mahdi and the setting up of the world wide Caliphate,when this happens ( and happen it will ), all Muslims will be obliged to put aside their murderous differences and concentrate on eliminating the Infidels ( that’s you and me ). The Muslim Christ will return and convince many of his Divinity by assorted miracles and demonstrations of power. He is known in Biblical eschatology as the False Prophet ” deceiving if it were possible, the very elect”.

      Who is this Allah?

      Nowadays it is difficult to find Christians who believe in a literal Devil or Satan, yet he is the source of evil and deception. An honest look at Islam and its prophet through history and in the present day would seem to lead one to believe he is Allah, who revealed his message through Mohammed’s writings.

      Muslims love to disarm us by claiming to be a religion of peace, quoting from the early parts of the Koran written in Mecca when Mohommed’s power was very limited, as he gained wealth and power in Medina through conquest and general banditry his writings became more savage and aggressive.

      How can these conflicting “revaluations ” be reconciled? After all these are claimed to be the direct revelations from Allah, which are infallible and perfect.

      It seems they are both correct, it’s just that the later ones are better and replace the early ones!

      To me it seems that attempts to stem the rise of Islam by legal and even military means is doomed to failure, it will grow and become very powerful, it will only be terminated by the return of our Saviour Jesus Christ as foretold in the books of Daniel and Revelation. He will return to save those who follow him and terminate evil forever.

      There is plenty of information out there for those who want to know.

  11. Almach says

    they are desperate, they don’t know how to handle the issue and at the same time keep appeasing the muslim community. Ultimately, they are being cornered by the reality.

  12. Ron Coleman says

    Of course this “de-radicalization” will not work. However, it might buy Cameron and his party a little time until the next election. Cameron’s number one problem, in his mind, is not muslims terrorists blowing up London, but UKIP.

  13. duh_swami says

    It’s not possible to de-radicalize Allah. Once the malevolence that is Allah enters the mind as a shahada meme, an Allah wrench is needed to get it out. Allah cannot be defeated, but he can be evaded by apostasy. But I don’t see where the UK is demanding that…As with the Saudi program, finger painting temporarily suspends the desire to jihad and kill, but it is not a cure all. Tennis and volley ball are also good deterrents.
    I’m sure the UK kuffar with a little help from their Mahoundian friends (Maybe Choudary can give them advice) can come up with a good plan and turn these murderous jihadi’s into model citizens.

  14. Ben says

    Well, the passport thing is a good one, they should not come back to the UK (and I hope the rest of Europe, like my country Germany will do the same), they have lost their citizienship with their decision to become a satanic murderer and beheading-master.

    But de-radicalisation program? Please! Do they really think these guys will come back to the real world when they get a puppy-version of Islam, which they KNOW is not the true Islam at all?

    The UK-government is very naive. They should learn and study more about islam and wahhabism, then they will probably understand that islam is evil and definitely not “a religion of peace” (LOL).

  15. Michael Copeland says

    “De-radicalisation”, as defined by UK government “Prevent” strategy (a free download) “usually” consists of “activity” (unspecified) INTENDED TO effect change. It is NOT A RESULT: only a process. There does not have to be a change: only “activity”. If that activity is performed, with the required intention, that is all that is expected of it. No doubt the activity involves much taxpayer money. The use of the word “usually” means it also covers, less usually, instances where there is not the same “activity” (but, no doubt, the same taxpayer funding).
    Here is the definition:
    De-radicalisation usually refers to activity aimed at a person who supports terrorism and in some cases has engaged in terrorist related activity, which is intended to effect cognitive and/or behavioural change leading to a new outlook on terrorism and/or disengagement from it.
    The hard-pressed British taxpayer will be funding this delusion.

  16. Linda Rivera says

    UK leaders are traitors who have sold their souls and sold out our people to Islam. UK ruling elites adore Islam and muslim terrorists. They are eager to lavish lots of love and attention on the barbarians — make sure they live in the best homes – get lots of infidel money and devote all their waking hours to jihad activities and teaching their fellow muslims the satanic atrocities they perpetrated on innocents in Syria and Iraq.

    Vile Pakistani muslim Choudary brags that he receives “Jihad Seekers Allowance” from the government. Islam-lover UK ruling elites ADORE Muslim terrorists.

  17. says

    De-Radicalization can only by the same methods these borderline humans use, throat slitting and or ditch execution squads, eye for an eye and all that, it’d work in an infidel kind of sharia law, burn the leftovers and cover with rancid bacon fat.

    • gravenimage says

      Here’s someone else, claiming that the only way to beat the Jihad threat is to become every bit as savage as pious Muslims are.

      The idea that your only choices are to supinely roll over for Jihadists or else embrace all their barbarism is an utterly false one.

      After all, we didn’t have to become Fascists to defeat the Nazis.

  18. gravenimage says

    UK to force returning jihadis to undergo “de-radicalization” program

    Yeah—that’ll work. Maybe they can try finger painting like the Saudis did…

    Really, why don’t they just pull their British passports and refuse them reentry?

  19. Mrs Sherringham says

    I don’t feel safe in Britain anymore. I’m an American, married to a Brit, but I’d feel at least as unsafe in America. We’re seriously considering emigrating to Australia. It seems to be the only country standing up to these fanatics.

    • Aussie Stew says

      Sorry, to disappoint you Mrs Sherringham, but our ruling elites over here in OZ are doing the same thing as your elites have done in Western Europe and in the United (not for much longer) Kingdom.

      In Australia, they are just a few years behind in deconstructing our society.

      The future does not look good.

      A pox on Intellectual Idiots and Multiculturalism.

  20. Petey says

    And the best part is if we tell them were going to nerve gas a city before hand they will truck, fly, and train thousands of victims for the attack just to make sure there’s lots of people to cry about. More bang for the buck! (A lesson learned from Hamas for future reference)