Why didn't he say this when he had the power to actually do something about it?

Posted by: Josephine at July 1, 2007 8:26 PM

It's the mad mad world of Islam, insanity.

Stop the world, I want to get off!

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at July 1, 2007 8:27 PM

NOW??!?! AND HE SAYS THIS NOW?!?!??! LET ME TELL YOU MR BLAIR YOUR TIMING SUCKS!

Posted by: Theyloveus at July 1, 2007 8:29 PM

Welcome, and doubly welcome if he begins to expand upon the theme. And in deciding to say something about the idiocy of Muslim claims to mistreatment in Great Britain, Blair finally starts making sense. But it is also a little late -- he had more than five years to begin to make sense, and he didn't. He still doesn't, is prepared not to, in his new portfolio of that "peace process" which so distorts our common understanding of the Lesser Jihad against Israel.

His many comments on the wonderfulness of Islam and the Qur'an, which he used to carry around, were never helpful, just as Bush's similar vacuities in this country did nothing to instruct the population -- which needs instruction in "order to arrive at offering its support for measures that for reasons of legitimate civilizational self-defense need to be considered.

Here is one posting about Blair, by way of reminding readers of Blair and the damage he helped to inflict on Infidels and their right understanding of what menaces them:

Fitzgerald: A tribute to Tony Blair

Greatly misunderstood, and therefore overrated, in this country, just a few years ago Blair was depicted by many as our Churchillian ally, sending troops to Iraq, and what's more, able to utter two or three consecutive sentences that seemed to make a kind of sense -- thus distinguishing himself from the confused, yet obstinate in his confusion, American President.

It was all nonsense. Few in the United States knew about Blair the trimmer and Blair the schemer, and Blair the man who carred a Qur'an about with him and was even more fervent than Bush in his expressed admiration for that book and for Islam. Blair soon after 9/11 was ostentatiously carrying a Qur'an around, telling one and all that he was reading it, or had read it, and that there was nothing worrisome about its contents. Whether he has discovered that the Hadith and Sira are equally inoffensive, and that the entire history of Muslim conquest has been one of almost uninterrupted sweetness and light, is unclear.

To take his measure, read the little chapter devoted to him in Rory Stewart's The Places In Between, entitled "Blair and the Koran." It shows most, if not quite all, of Blair's fatuity. It stops short of completing the job, because Stewart does not let loose with the real contents of Qur'an and Hadith. In fact, he fails to mention that Blair overlooks, or appears not to know about, the Hadith and Sira, as if the Qur'an were all that mattered. I would guess that this is not Stewart's fault, but that his publisher did not want him to be too explicit on the subject of Islam. Nonetheless, he does a good job of blowing up Blair, his pretensions, his claims to understanding Islam, his everything. And Blair is not the worst political figure England now has to offer; he is one of the semi-acceptable ones.

Then think of what he is doing now. From southern Thailand across all of Asia to Iran and Iraq and Lebanon and in Gaza and in Egypt and in Algeria, and in France, Spain, the Netherlands, Great Britain, and then to North America, where we are not fighting them here (so all those people arrested, those "charities" shut down, those plots uncovered, are figments of perfervid imaginations) because, you see, we "are fighting them over there," despite everything that is happening he still prates about the importance of a settlement between "Israel" and "Palestine." (Yet this in itself is a toponym which, nowadays, as referring to precisely the same territory, or much of it, sinisterly reifies what does not now and should not exist.) He thus echoes all those who believe this to be true not because there is evidence that it is true, but because the Arabs tell them that it is true -- they wouldn't lie, would they? And it is so much more pleasant to keep avoiding the nature of Islam, the tenets of Islam, the attitudes of Islam, the atmospherics of Islam, to ignore the texts, to ignore the jurisconsults, to ignore the Qur'anic commentators, to ignore everyone from al-Ghazali to Ibn Khaldun, to ignore all the scholars from Schacht and Snouck Hurgronje to Arthur Jeffery and Ignaz Goldziher, and to substitute for all of those the My Weekly Reader-level treatments of self-deluded Karen Armstrong and the venal John Esposito. It is so much more pleasant to ignore, in short, everything -- and to concentrate on mighty Israel, and its mighty threat to the Arabs and Muslims, and to somehow pretend that the Taliban will be soothed if only the "two-state solution" is implemented. Yet “two-state solution” is itself a farcical phrase that can only be used by the unthinking, for it is no "solution" to feed Islamic triumphalism. It is no "solution" to visibly weaken Israel so that the Arab rulers feel in some cases that they can, and in other cases that they must, go in for the final kill.

Blair is Everyman, or rather Everyleader in this Iron Age. He invites comparison with Bush and gains by the comparison. But on any other scale, his silliness, after so many years when he has had every chance to learn about Islam, is striking and unnerving and grotesque.

He and Bush, and most of the other leaders, and the members of respective parliamentary bodies, and the most important radio and television stations (including the BBC there and NPR here), and the major newspapers, are all determined not to study, not to think, and certainly not to instruct others, in the real nature of Islam.

And the danger is not an abstract one. The longer Infidels do not understand, the more likely it is that they will continue to permit Muslim immigration into their countries. The longer Infidels do not understand, the more likely it is that they will assume that the "murderous ideology" which Bush has referred to with his usual vagueness, can indeed be defeated by offering a counter-ideology of "compassion and hope."

Some of that new ideology of "compassion and hope" can be seen in Iraq today, in such places as Basra, where Shari'a rules are being established through force, in Iraq, our friend full of friendly Iraqis, where the Iraqi government has just signed an agreement for the training of some of those friendly Iraqis by no doubt equally friendly Iranians.

Everything begins with understanding the nature of the enemy, what prompts that enemy, what inspires or per contra demoralizes that enemy. If that is not understood, the nation will not know where to put its feet and hands. That's what Confucius say. And so do I."

[Posted by Hugh at December 22, 2006]

Posted by: Hugh at July 1, 2007 8:38 PM

"Shortly after the former British prime minister stepped into his new job, he assured Russia and the Europeans that he did not mean to adhere to the US-Israeli boycott of Hamas. One of his first tasks would be to establish ties with Hamas representatives in Gaza and Damascus."
..from Debka

Posted by: Madduck at July 1, 2007 8:39 PM

‘The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we’re not actually fighting it properly. We’re not actually standing up to these people and saying, “It’s not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn’t justified."’

-Tony Blair

Once again, Tony Blair demonstrates his incredible ignorance of Islam.
To describe the widely held Muslim feelings of grievance as absurd is itself absurd.
One might as well describe a shark as absurd for biting people.

‘Persecution is worse than slaughter"- or “persecution is worse than killing” (Al-Quran; 2:217) goes hand in hand with “fight them until persecution is no more, and all religion is for Allah. (2:193).
According the the Quran, Muslims slaughtering infidels for hindering in any way the spread of Islam is fully justified.

According to Muslim logic, “persecution” would cover hindering the spread of Islam by telling the truth about Islam; or not converting to Islam; or not allowing Islam to dominate.

Islam creates a way of thinking in its followers that truly is alien.

Posted by: Mike_W at July 1, 2007 8:39 PM

And here is Blair rejecting out of hand the reasonableness of attacking Iran's nuclear project:

"Tony Blair has declared himself at odds with hawks in the US Administration by saying publicly for the first time that it would be wrong to take military action against Iran. The Prime Minister’s comments came hours before the UN’s nuclear watchdog raised the stakes in the West’s showdown with Tehran.
[...]

Condoleeza Rice, the Secretary of State, is also opposed to using force, while Steve Hadley, the President’s National Security Adviser, is said to be deeply sceptical.

The hawks are led by Dick Cheney, the Vice-President, who is urging Mr Bush to keep the military option “on the table”. He is also pressing the Pentagon to examine specific war plans — including, it is rumoured, covert action.

But Mr Blair, in a BBC interview yesterday, said: “I can’t think that it would be right to take military action against Iran . . . What is important is to pursue the political, diplomatic channel. I think it is the only way that we are going to get a sensible solution to the Iranian issue.”

[Posted by Robert at February 23, 2007]

Posted by: Hugh at July 1, 2007 8:43 PM

And another, in which Blair, in December of last year, thought it possible to have the Sunni "moderates" help to "rein in" Iran, and what's more, to help make peace between Israel and the "Palestinians" in whose existence Blair, who ought to know better, so devoutly believes. And he ought by now to understand that the war against Israel is a classic Jihad, and that it is not about boundaries, nor can the Arabs be assuaged by any change in boundaries: it is the existence of an Infidel state, on land once ruled by Muslims, that is once part of Dar al-Islam (and, furthermore, in the middle of that region, which makes it galling), that is at stake. If you are indifferent to the survival of Israel, of course, and of any Western (i.e., Christian) access to the Holy Land, and indifferent as well to the triumphalism and the whetting of Arab and Muslim appetites that further concessions by Israel, which will only favor, and speed up, the Slow Jihad, then by all means do what Blair appears to want to do, and work for that "one-state solution."

Here is another example of Blair:

DUBAI (Reuters) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair will call on Wednesday for Middle East states to rein in what he calls the threat from Iran and to help advance peacemaking between Israelis and Palestinians.
Speaking in the United Arab Emirates, he will underline what has been the theme of his Middle East tour: moderate leaders must be empowered against extremists.

"We must recognize the strategic threat the government of Iran poses, not its people, not possibly all of its ruling elements, but those presently in charge of its policy," he will say, according to extracts of his speech released by his office.

Iran seeks "to pin us back in Lebanon, in Iraq and in Palestine," he will tell business leaders in Dubai.

"Our response should be to expose what they are doing, build the alliances to prevent it and pin them back across the whole of the region."

He says to do this "we need the open and clear backing of the countries in this region that know better than me what is happening and why."

Blair's spokesman dismissed suggestions his comments on Iran were designed to pit the region's Sunni Muslims against Shi'ite Iran, saying the prime minister worked with all faiths."

[Posted by Robert at December 20, 2006]

Blair should long ago have begun to study -- not parrot platitudes -- about Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at July 1, 2007 8:54 PM

Blair is suddenly growing a pair? I don't quite understand the timing, which means that it's all politics. He'll change his tune again when it suits.

OT: The Anvil is back online. DOS attacks be damned.

Posted by: Foehammer at July 1, 2007 8:58 PM

Better late than never. Now a fatwa.

Posted by: mustang65 at July 1, 2007 9:07 PM

My exact thoughts, why now?

Posted by: MZ at July 1, 2007 9:28 PM

Blair doesn't get it.
They are "oppressed" because they are not in control, because Islam is not the sole or at least the dominant religion in the UK. The kuffur is still in control of the UK and Muslims are not.
That is why they see themselves as "oppressed".
They will continue to whine and cry that they are "oppressed" and discriminated against until every Englishman bows whenever they enter a room and kisses their arse while reciting from the Qur'an.

Posted by: Timur at July 1, 2007 9:41 PM

Why now MZ, why not? He has free reign to say what pleases him now, same as President Bush will at the end of his term. Could it be the legacy thing, appear tough to the true Brits. Cause as far as all else goes their appeasement(Blair=Bush)has olny made islam a stronger force to be dealt with. As President Bush as stated befor this war will last for years to come. And the islamists are not fearful of our responces now.

Posted by: AMartinez at July 1, 2007 9:43 PM

I'm feeling that some fanatical nutter is going to put a fatwa on Blair's head... Like they did on the innocent Sir Salman Rushdie, just because of a nice book...

I will be lying if I said I'm not afraid of them, I am... I wish the British government would do something, but so far, with what Brown has said... I'm afraid not...

Posted by: Dr.CancerMan at July 1, 2007 9:55 PM

Hassan Butt, former member of Al-Muhajiroun, writes an interesting column in the Guardian. He sounds legit to me because, like every other genuine ex-terrorist, he sees Islamic theology to be the main player in extremism:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html

I wonder if Dr. Spencer could contact him. I'd like to know what he thinks of JihadWatch and Dr.Spencer's work, as well as other mavericks like Ayan Hirsi Ali and Walid Shoebat.

Posted by: Jimmy the Dhimmi at July 1, 2007 10:06 PM

Is Blair showing his true colours now he is out of office and free from the constraints of the job, time will tell.

Posted by: LivingVictory at July 1, 2007 10:32 PM

Is Blair showing his true colours now he is out of office and free from the constraints of the job, time will tell.

Posted by: LivingVictory at July 1, 2007 10:33 PM

Is Blair showing his true colours now he is out of office and free from the constraints of the job, time will tell.

Posted by: LivingVictory at July 1, 2007 10:33 PM

He woke up and a backbone was where islams hand used to be.

I guess when you sit on top of the world you don't really notice how upside down it's become,huh Tony?

Welcome to our world.

Now lets start kicking some islamic tail!

Or do we have to wait for the sack to grow too?

Brown circle the wagons.

Posted by: Dar al-harb at July 1, 2007 10:37 PM

What What What !!! Must get that triple mouse finger twitch looked at. LOL

Posted by: LivingVictory at July 1, 2007 10:40 PM

Here's part of that link to Hassan Butt

READ IT!

[-]
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2115832,00.html

My plea to fellow Muslims: you must renounce terror

As the bombers return to Britain, Hassan Butt, who was once a member of radical group Al-Muhajiroun, raising funds for extremists and calling for attacks on British citizens, explains why he was wrong

Sunday July 1, 2007
The Observer

When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology.

Friday's attempt to cause mass destruction in London with strategically placed car bombs is so reminiscent of other recent British Islamic extremist plots that it is likely to have been carried out by my former peers.
And as with previous terror attacks, people are again articulating the line that violence carried out by Muslims is all to do with foreign policy. For example, yesterday on Radio 4's Today programme, the mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, said: 'What all our intelligence shows about the opinions of disaffected young Muslims is the main driving force is not Afghanistan, it is mainly Iraq.'

He then refused to acknowledge the role of Islamist ideology in terrorism and said that the Muslim Brotherhood and those who give a religious mandate to suicide bombings in Palestine were genuinely representative of Islam.

I left the BJN in February 2006, but if I were still fighting for their cause, I'd be laughing once again. Mohammad Sidique Khan, the leader of the 7 July bombings, and I were both part of the BJN - I met him on two occasions - and though many British extremists are angered by the deaths of fellow Muslim across the world, what drove me and many of my peers to plot acts of extreme terror within Britain, our own homeland and abroad, was a sense that we were fighting for the creation of a revolutionary state that would eventually bring Islamic justice to the world.

How did this continuing violence come to be the means of promoting this (flawed) utopian goal? How do Islamic radicals justify such terror in the name of their religion? There isn't enough room to outline everything here, but the foundation of extremist reasoning rests upon a dualistic model of the world. Many Muslims may or may not agree with secularism but at the moment, formal Islamic theology, unlike Christian theology, does not allow for the separation of state and religion. There is no 'rendering unto Caesar' in Islamic theology because state and religion are considered to be one and the same. The centuries-old reasoning of Islamic jurists also extends to the world stage where the rules of interaction between Dar ul-Islam (the Land of Islam) and Dar ul-Kufr (the Land of Unbelief) have been set down to cover almost every matter of trade, peace and war.

What radicals and extremists do is to take these premises two steps further. Their first step has been to reason that since there is no Islamic state in existence, the whole world must be Dar ul-Kufr. Step two: since Islam must declare war on unbelief, they have declared war upon the whole world. Many of my former peers, myself included, were taught by Pakistani and British radical preachers that this reclassification of the globe as a Land of War (Dar ul-Harb) allows any Muslim to destroy the sanctity of the five rights that every human is granted under Islam: life, wealth, land, mind and belief. In Dar ul-Harb, anything goes, including the treachery and cowardice of attacking civilians.

This understanding of the global battlefield has been a source of friction for Muslims living in Britain. For decades, radicals have been exploiting these tensions between Islamic theology and the modern secular state for their benefit, typically by starting debate with the question: 'Are you British or Muslim?' But the main reason why radicals have managed to increase their following is because most Islamic institutions in Britain just don't want to talk about theology. They refuse to broach the difficult and often complex topic of violence within Islam and instead repeat the mantra that Islam is peace, focus on Islam as personal, and hope that all of this debate will go away.

[-]

Posted by: Borg at July 1, 2007 10:47 PM

"It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."

You're wrong, Mr Blair. Muslims are most definitely oppressed. You just don't understand what constitutes oppression in the Muslim mind.

So long as the British people will not acknowledge that there is only one God, Allah, and that Mohammad is his Prophet, and so long as Britain requires that Muslims live by the laws passed by a democratically elected Parliment, and not the Sharia laws of God, And so long as Britain protects freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion, Muslims will consider themselves oppressed.

In other words, when Britain is an Islamic state, and Muslims are free to oppress others, Muslims will no longer feel oppressed.

Posted by: rational at July 1, 2007 10:50 PM

And this

[-]

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=3336148

A secret U.S. law enforcement report, prepared for the Department of Homeland Security, warns that al Qaeda is planning a terror "spectacular" this summer, according to a senior official with access to the document.

"This is reminiscent of the warnings and intelligence we were getting in the summer of 2001," the official told ABCNews.com.

[-]

Posted by: Borg at July 1, 2007 10:52 PM

rational- exactly

did you see Robert answered your questions?

[-]

If the Koran is an eternal book, always present in heaven with Allah, did it always have contradictory suras. Did it always have nice guy verses in the first part, and reverse itself in the second part?
Yes, the abrogated verses were applicable for a particular time only.

Secondly, when this eternal book was transmitted to Moses and Jesus -- whose followers subsequently corrupted it, did it include verses about Moses when Moses received it, and did it include verses about Jesus when Jesus received it?
They didn't get the Qur'an. They got, respectively, the Torah and Gospel, which both taught the oneness of Allah and the future coming of Muhammad, but they were not the Qur'an.

In other words, did both these men read about themselves upon receiving the Koran? If the Koran is eternal and unchanging, it seems to me they would have had to. They would have also have had to read about Mohammad and and all the events relating to his life, including the abrogated verses, and including Allah's attitude towards Christians and Jews.
See above.

Maybe I'm mistaken in thinking that the Koran was supposed to have been transmitted to the earlier Prophets, and was later corrupted.
Yes, they all received books with a message that was identical to that of the Qur'an, but these books were not the Qur'an.

If the old and new testaments were transmitted seperatly, were they also supposed to have been eternal and unchanging revelations from Allah, or is the Koran the ony holy book that has the distinction of being eternal?
The OT and NT as we have them today are considered to be corrupted versions of the Torah and Gospel given to Moses and Jesus. And no, only the Qur'an is eternal.

Added question by BORG: "And Mohammad answers questions of his followers in the koran. If it is eternal shouldn't it just be statements, not changed by his followers questions or by Mo's actions.
In the Muslim view, all of the questions were foreordained by Allah in order to allow for transmission of the answers.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at June 11, 2007 6:59 PM
[-]

under blogging the quran the cow June 10

what a great feature.

Posted by: Borg at July 1, 2007 11:01 PM

'The reason we are finding it hard to win this battle is that we're not actually fighting it properly. We're not actually standing up to these people and saying, "It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."'

Hummmm, something is not right here -- why am I agree with blair?

It's unnatural; or was he somewhere close to the car bombs or the airport?

It must be an emotional fit; I'll believe this after more such comments in the future.

Posted by: witness at July 1, 2007 11:03 PM

Tony knows he is not the Prime minister anymore. So, now he can talk all the junk he wants. He is irrelevant in the British politics.

Posted by: progressive at July 1, 2007 11:33 PM

Good heavens will this chap Blair speak so forcefully when goes to the Middle East and speaks w/the Palestinians regarding thier agenda or does he think they are "poor humiliated folk" like Condi does .

Posted by: DetectiveArbogast at July 2, 2007 12:01 AM

Good heavens will this chap Blair speak so forcefully when goes to the Middle East and speaks w/the Palestinians regarding thier agenda or does he think they are "poor humiliated folk" like Condi does .

Posted by: DetectiveArbogast at July 2, 2007 12:02 AM

Mr. Spencer

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions relating to the Muslim view of the Torah, Gospels and Koran.

I feel a bit more educated on the subject now.

Thanks again.

Rational

Posted by: rational at July 2, 2007 12:18 AM

Mr. Blair, with all due respect to your oratory skills and leadership, telling Muslims that they are not oppressed is not the answer to this problem, because they will always feel oppressed by our presence, and freedoms, until they have dominated the land of the 'infidels'. Telling Muslims that they have more freedom in Britain (or any western modern state) than in their home countries is not the answer either, because our freedoms run counter to their Sharia, a law they believe was given to them through their prophet Mohammed by Allah, so that our freedoms are oppressive to them. Telling Muslims their sense of grievance isn't justified only enrages them more, since they feel fully justified in railing against our freedoms, our constitutional laws, and our democratically elected government, all in defiance of their Sharia. Da'wa, us to join them in their worship of Islam, is offered continuously, and yet to their frustration we fail to be 'submissive' to their Allah. There is the real grievance. We are free men and women, and this by its inherent nature is already offensive to them. Islamic Jihad is their natural response to having taken offense by our freedoms (in our own countries), only acceptable to them either as 'reverts' to Islam, or subservient to them in dhimmitude. Either choice (in our own countries) destroys our freedoms. There is no other conversation here without offending them, since we are not allowing ourselves to meekly and calmly obey their Sharia as Mohammed told them to in his Koran. They are desperate to make you, and all of us, to understand that we are in the wrong (in their minds) because we are not succumbing to their invitations to join Islam, and its Sharia laws. The real question here should be how did this come about to become like this in the first place? Who let them into our countries trailing behind them their aggressive attitudes, their Jihad, their multiple wives, and now their multiplying broods who become radicalized by the imams at the mosques into Jihadi fighters? Why was this allowed to happen? Lack of forethought? Ignorance of this 'religion' of peace? Obviously, there needs to be a complete audit of the whole government apparatus, a complete systems check, to see where freedom failed to reign in these imports of hostile masses who now wish us ill. So your questions, or statements, are not to be directed at Muslims, since they are cast to be as they are, as they had been for 1400 years, and our challenging their ideology will not only fall on deaf ears, but will be misunderstood in its entirety. The real questions should be asked of us, ourselves, of both the electorate and our leadership: What are these hostile people doing here? And who let them in?

That is the question, Mr. Blair, not asked of Muslims, but asked of us. We let this happen on your vigil, and your predecessor's vigil, and now we are reaping the dubious benefits of bad policy. How can this be reversed? Ask us.

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at July 2, 2007 12:34 AM

What about the "sense of grievance" all the Christians in Saudi Arabia have?

Oh, wait...what Christians...?

Posted by: Foehammer at July 2, 2007 1:29 AM

A hint for posters with a lot to say but apparently unaware that it's harder to read on screen:

*paragraphs*

:)

Posted by: Lili at July 2, 2007 1:50 AM

Blair missed the bus.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 2, 2007 2:24 AM

What Mr. Blair said was absolutely right, however this is more proof of political ignorance than anything else. It shows the world he only has the guts to speak his mind when he has nothing to lose, sorry Mr. Blair too little, too late.

Too bad you didn't have the guts to say this and act on this when you could have done something about it.

Posted by: The fanatic at July 2, 2007 2:45 AM

Funny, Blair says something which needed saying and which we all agree with in essence, but all people can do here is pick holes in it! Why not give credit where credit’s due? Oh, I forgot, he’s a British dhimmi, isn’t he, so he can’t say or do anything right

Posted by: JFGR at July 2, 2007 4:58 AM

The sometime leader of the Liberal Democrats summed Blair up quite well saying "He believes what he is saying at the time he says it".
Which explains why a red hot Guardian reader calls him Baloney Blair. Blair thinks he is so clever he can fool all of the people all of the time.

Posted by: Fred at July 2, 2007 5:25 AM

He's a tit - he can say this now cos he has nothing to lose.

I am SO ANGRY right now. The attacks have got me so wound up, Islam needs to be stopped, the power people need to stop pussy footing around and get it out of our country asap, BAN ISLAM COMPLETELY!!

Posted by: Demvaril at July 2, 2007 5:47 AM

Borg; Benny Hill theme song please.

Posted by: mustang65 at July 2, 2007 5:57 AM

AlMartinez: I was agreeing with statements made.
Tony now doing this when he could of done this along time ago! It is better late than never. Even though I felt he knew, or do not do his homework, to busy. It just should of been done before and alot more..! Yet!

Posted by: MZ at July 2, 2007 9:02 AM

sorry AMatinez: The islamist better be fearful! We cannot reward ourselfs for creating a problem then 1/ass fix it and pat ourself. I want more resolve! The muslims should not even be allowed there or here! We cannot go there on their "land!" I have never got that! They should visit and leave! Not control our lifes!
I cannot believe we let them stand on corners and say right to our face "WE ARE GOING TO KILL YOU!"
Freedom of speech?! I don't think so! It is about time. More has to be done! They are to catered to!
-The people of that land our land first!-
I do not want to pay to wash their feet nor pay for their hate speeches or mosque that breed hatred and hide their deciet! House of God? They showed me it is a blood bath and weapons area. These people present no good! None I have seen!

Posted by: MZ at July 2, 2007 9:18 AM