He said: "As I speak, terrorists are methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in this country."

Check out clip #1579 on MEMRI (memritv.org). It is a propaganda cartoon, aimed at children, demonizing the Israelis. The hero is a little boy who travels from the United States to visit his cousin, Ahmed, in Jerusalem. The Arabs in Jerusalem live in a veritable war zone, where Israelis mow down civiilians with machine guns and/or beat innocents up in alleys. Ahmed and his fellows protect Al-Asqa Mosque from being sullied by the Israelis. There is a tribute to the many fallen child martyrs. And for those trying to learn Arabic, there are some REALLY catchy songs. The American boy returns realizing he needs to join the fight with his fellow Muslims.

Scary. Amazing. Watch it. Share it.

Posted by: former liberal WF at November 6, 2007 9:18 AM

"Terrorists are methodically and intentionally targeting young people and children in this country. They are radicalising, indoctrinating and grooming young, vulnerable people to carry out acts of terrorism."

...where are they doing this? In mosques in England? Well, how about making a law against diabolical subversiveness and outlawing Islam and mosques?...

Posted by: angryeagle at November 6, 2007 10:02 AM

And yet the immigration into the UK continues.

Posted by: Borg at November 6, 2007 10:03 AM

I'm shocked [yawn], shocked.

Not The Land of the Pure!

Noooooooooo!

('Wonder if there's some connection to the Koran?)

Posted by: profitsbeard at November 6, 2007 10:09 AM

borg

thats whole the crux of the argument! but we cannot mention this or we'll be branded "maggots" , "racists", "anti-semites", "fascists", "neo-nazis", "crazed cultists", "bigots", "monkeys", people who say 'nig' 'paki' 'jew boy' 'puff', "right wing extremists", "people with views similar to islam", "white supremacists", "racial obsessives", "losers" and "religious weirdos".

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 6, 2007 10:15 AM

All those children of cousins must provide plenty of "young vulnerable [no wait stupid] people"...

When you think that moslems I know with pHd's actaully can't escape the contradictions and plain stupid rhetoric of Islamists, how little hope there is for those young and vulnerable people...

In one survey the greatest fear of moslems mothers in the UK was that one of their children would become a stupid suicide bomber.

Anyhow, I know plenty of degree educated moslems that believe that Iraq and Afganistan are part of the Ummah and the west is killing civilians on purpose, etc, etc yet I never hear them criticising the taliban and the other moslem groups that actually kill moslems civilians on purpose...

The young mohammad lovers in the UK have the same hollywood history skills as the irish in america whose parents left ireland for better life and who funded the IRA because of those evil English 700 years ago, etc, etc...

Anyway, they loved an identity of being oppressed descended from the oppressed and funded death through the IRA.

Moslem youth here similarly seem attracted to the identity of being oppressed too.

(Mind you so do the scottish separatists.. It's all the rage to have a hollywood view of history and take on an oppressed identity and find an oppressor to hate)

I suppose the goverment will manage to use better propoganda that Pakistan and Saudi have, to give those 2000 a better understanding of history and identity and current politics.

In 20 years they have managed to make drink driving such an evil that nearly no one thinks it is acceptable to drink and drive....

oops... It seems they will spend 70 million on supporting the islamic groups instead and many times more in aid to moslem backwaters....

Who needs iranian demonstrations and chanters when we might as well just chant
"death to ourselves"?

Posted by: exposesithlords at November 6, 2007 10:15 AM

Polls say that around 50 Pct. of the Pakistanis'say Osama Bin Laden is more popular,than Musharraf,Bhutto,and Bush put together; that's about 70 million Muslims.

So what is the answer? Essentially it would be foolish at this point to play the Dhimmi and try to appease these folks. We don't want radicals getting nukes or Power in Pakistan. Is there any wiggle room here to keep Pakistan from becoming more and more radicalized? there inlies the biggest question because at this point most experts really can't say right now which way things might go in Pakistan.

The Middle east remains a giant and violent quagmire thanks to a self proclaimed prophet who took what he wanted from the Old Testament, and then claimed that the New Testament was corrupted by the Jews, and then wrote his own book incorporating everything that Jesus taught against..

Posted by: Mackie at November 6, 2007 10:48 AM

leon:

You didn't mention "knuckle-draggers" or "thugs" or make references to John Tyndall, Oswald Mosley, Hitler, Mussolini or the KKK.

Shame on you.

Posted by: watling at November 6, 2007 11:17 AM

"This year, we have seen individuals as young as 15 and 16 implicated in terrorist-related activity..."

No doubt these young men were groomed to be terrorists from infancy. Momma taught her boys how to brandish a sword before they could walk; and let me guess, the first words were: "allah candybar" (they're kids, and kids never get it right the first time).

Islams goal is peace, alright.

Posted by: champ at November 6, 2007 11:25 AM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the same area that Musharraf signed a peace treaty with the Taliban/Tribal Elders last year?

Well that worked out pretty good didn't it?

So now the obvious solution is for us to give more military aid to Pakistan, so when the Musharraf government falls to the Taliban, they will have plenty of weapons to use against us.

Will we never learn? End muslim immigration, invoke/enforce the sedition act and deport these people. And quit giving them weapons.

Better yet, push them from Afghanistan into Pakistan, and follow them until we meet up witht he Indian army ont he other side.

It worked in Germany, it'll work here. Assuming we actually fight the way we did in WWII.

Posted by: walterc at November 6, 2007 11:28 AM

It's a lovely day out today. The birds are chirping, the Muslim call-to-prayer towers are singing...

Posted by: Foehammer at November 6, 2007 11:36 AM

maybe if we gave the pakistani community more money and open ended immigration relief then they may not hate us?

surely we can do more for the pakistani muslim community?

we need to right?

i dont want to be branded a racist, we must allow more in, we must fund their mosques, maybe work more closely with the saudis to get more saudi funding of mosques in the UK.

oh and we need to allow the mega mosque to be built! that will appease them? right?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 6, 2007 11:46 AM

Leonthepigfarmer,

You running for Prime Minister?

Posted by: Elric66 at November 6, 2007 11:57 AM

You running for Prime Minister?

No, leon could never out-dhimmi this buffoon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5NjnqKUTa8

Posted by: watling at November 6, 2007 12:10 PM

Well lets dress up in burqa,s and see what happen,s no doubt we will still be called racists

http://illustratedpig.blogspot.com/2007/11/tea-cozied-shits-aint-racism.html

Posted by: shiva at November 6, 2007 12:21 PM

""This year, we have seen individuals as young as 15 and 16 implicated in terrorist-related activity..."

That should be easy enough to solve. Make it known to the Muslim community that any child implicated in terrorist-related activity, will be deported, along with his parents and siblings.

If Mama and Papa think that their asses will be sitting back in Pakistan, or other Islamic paradise, for little Mohammad's activities, maybe they'll pay a little more attention to how he's spending his evenings.

If they don't get the message immediately, they will when they see British police arrest a neighboring family, and bundle them off to the airport for a trip to their new home.

Posted by: rational at November 6, 2007 12:32 PM

I would be interested in any British commentator here, or someone who has lived in Britain and knows it well, to provide his or her assessment of just how much more the British people as a whole are going to take of all this Islamic rot ruining their country. What percentage of Brits have just had it with Muslims and their faith, what percentage are actually prepared to use the democratic process as actively as possible to do something about the menace which is Islam, and is there any really viable, sane, informed, capable British politician out there who can truly lead their nation out of this mess created by Muslim immigration to the Sceptered Isle? Surely there must be someone out there better than Gordon Brown? Surely. Thanks for any reply.

Posted by: Wellington at November 6, 2007 12:34 PM

This is an interesting Gallup poll.

Percentage of Iranians who believe that Sharia must rule: 13%
Percentage of Pakistanis who believe that Sharia must rule: 60%

http://media.gallup.com/MuslimWestFacts/PDF/GALLUPMUSLIMSTUDIESIslamandDemocracy030607rev.pdf

Iran-Axis of Evil; Pakistan-Ally

Posted by: pez at November 6, 2007 12:53 PM

"borg

thats whole the crux of the argument! but we cannot mention this or we'll be branded "maggots" , "racists", "anti-semites", "fascists", "neo-nazis", "crazed cultists", "bigots", "monkeys", people who say 'nig' 'paki' 'jew boy' 'puff', "right wing extremists", "people with views similar to islam", "white supremacists", "racial obsessives", "losers" and "religious weirdos".

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer "

.....yep....Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at November 6, 2007 1:01 PM

I wonder what Winston Churchill would say about Islam, oh wait here it is...

http://www.savage-productions.com/winston_churchill.html

WINSTON CHURCHILL ON ISLAM - IN 1899!

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries!

Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity.

The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities - but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome."

-Sir Winston Churchill (The River War, first edition, Vol. II, pages 248-50 (London: Longmans, Green & Co., 1899).

Posted by: Stinkyinfidel at November 6, 2007 1:01 PM

Wellington:

As a British person living in the UK, I can assure you that no "mainstream" British politician "can truly lead their nation out of this mess created by Muslim immigration to the Sceptered Isle". Having said that, what is now mainstream would have been regarded as crass stupidity 60 years ago.

The only solution is the BNP. Many JW commenters disagree, but they never come up with a viable alternative.

Instead, they think that by some miracle an anti-Islamic politician from the existing "mainstream" parties will suddenly materialise. Well, did you see what happened to a politician this week who dared to comment favourably on Enoch Powell's "rivers of blood" speech? He was forced to resign.

See: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/05/nmigrants305.xml

Posted by: watling at November 6, 2007 1:14 PM

...AND people complain the US is outsourcing too much....no comparison to Pakistani outsourcing...

Ban Muslim Immigration.,.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at November 6, 2007 1:17 PM

Watling: Thanks for your reply. My understanding of the BNP, limited as it is, is that it is tainted, fairly or unfairly, with non-democratic, far-right notions. As an American and a student of American history, I know that while no third party here has ever won a national election, many ideas which eventually both major parties adopted, began with some third-party organization. The Free-Soil Party and Populist Party of the mid-nineteenth and late nineteenth century respectively are two examples of this. Could this be the direction that British politics takes in the next decade or so? Or is it the case that the BNP or some other minor party can rise to major party status on its own? Or, God forbid, is Britain doomed?

Posted by: Wellington at November 6, 2007 1:35 PM

@Wellington

Did you see this video of Nick Griffin posted on another thread yesterday:

http://foehammer.vodpod.com/video/421406-nick-griffin-the-islamization-of-europe

It's well worth watching. Nick quotes Bat Yeor reverentially!

I would vote for Griffin if I were British.

Heck, I'd volunteer for the BNP.

Long Live the British National Party!!!!!

Posted by: Ynkedoodl2 at November 6, 2007 1:45 PM

The Republican Party started as a third party.

Any "minor" or "third" party can become a mainstream party. It just needs the people to vote for it. If the people of Britain believe in the policies of the BNP and are willing to vote their principles, it will become a major party very quickly.

The head of MI5 said that al Qaeda "was conducting a deliberate campaign against Britain". Given that Britain is a democracy, the question should be directed to the British people: what do you intend to do about this? Given that your leaders seem more interested in diversity than in defense, what will you do?

The American electorate faces the same choice next year. Like most democracies, we'll get the government we deserve.

Posted by: PMK at November 6, 2007 2:00 PM

PMK: The Republican party did indeed begin as a third party (and became one of the two major parties within a matter of months, not years) but it did not win a national election (the point I made above) as a third party. By even the end of 1854, and certainly by 1856, the Whig Party had been relegated to third-party status (almost obliterated actually) because of the debacle caused by the Kansas-Nebraska Act. I do agree with you, though, that a people get the government they deserve.

Posted by: Wellington at November 6, 2007 2:50 PM

Ynkedoodl2

- I watched the Nick Griffin video. He is saying what many here say every day.

Whatever his past may be, he is on target in this speech.

Posted by: Borg at November 6, 2007 5:19 PM

watling-
the comments are about 40 to one in favor of him and approving his stand on immigration.

Posted by: Borg at November 6, 2007 8:15 PM

Two matters here I state for my own conscience's sake (excuse the self-indulgence): 1) Islam is spiritual totalitarianism----the only major religion that is and I oppose it completely; 2) After several hours of reading and research (because I knew little of the matter), I have concluded that the British National Party (BNP) is indeed racist and the proof of this comes from its own web site. It denies admittance to its party by those of Mongoloid or Negroid descent. Don't take my word for it. Go to its web site and see for yourself. Therefore, whatever problems that have been created in Britain from Muslim immigration (and they are many), it's nothing the BNP can solve. I cannot in good conscience endorse any ideology which excludes people from fully equal participation in society (including a political party) on the basis of their inherited characteristics. I don't give a damn about a person's race, ethnicity or gender. All that matters to me is an individual's character and their ideas on a myriad of subjects. I would caution everyone who posts here and believes in freedom to keep their distance from the BNP.

I don't deny that the BNP has several good ideas, but it also has at least one truly atrocious idea and I, for one, cannot support it, even though I detest the Islamic faith through and through. To all Americans in particular who have taken the time to read what I've written here, I have to ask you if you would ever support a political party here at home that would deny blacks and Asians membership? Of all the statements I have made at JW over the past several months, this one is the most heartfelt.

Posted by: Wellington at November 6, 2007 9:56 PM

"I have to ask you if you would ever support a political party here at home that would deny blacks and Asians membership? "

the USA was and is built on a totally different concept than great britain has ever been. the USA is an immigrant country. the UK was not founded on. this for thousands of years until the last 60 years when the multicultural experiment came into effect the UK has been a british ethnic island race, similar to the japanese.

thanks to the relaxed open door immigration policy extremist islam has taken root within the UK. you cannot deny this. immigration is the problem. its a sad fact.

you're not even british so i dont expect you to understand this. robert spencer also fails to understand that a unique island people suddenly exposed to a violent immigration influx will react with nationalism.
england has not been successfully invaded for a thousand years, and even then it was by the normans, a viking people by ethnic origin, so now you may start to understand how we feel with this islamic invasion force! every invasion was met with spears, arrows and in recent years brave british pilots flying spitfires against NAZI scum.
we face this new invasion by peaceful means, and that means we will use democracy, the ballot and vote in folk, our kindred folk whom we trust, our brothers to turn back the tide and regain the UK.

is that hard for you to understand?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at November 6, 2007 10:40 PM

leon,
Agreed. The US, as an immigrant nation, has a different history than Britain and shouldn't be judged on the same basis. Wellington's point that "the BNP has several good ideas, but it also has at least one truly atrocious idea and I, for one, cannot support it" only illustrates the problems we face when picking our leaders.

We have to make choices. We have to decide what's important. Do we want to preserve the freedom that prior generations fought and died for, or is it more important to be politically correct? We can be steadfast, to the point of breaking, or we can be flexible.

Would we rather die for our principles or fight for them, even if that means we might have to do something others find distasteful, like holding people at Guantanamo?

Martyrdom isn't on my menu.

Posted by: PMK at November 6, 2007 11:17 PM

leonthepigfarmer: I count myself second to none as an admirer of Great Britain, even though I am of German and Polish descent. The British Empire is the most decent empire in history, bar none (not that Gandhi appreciated this fact). I suspect you and I would agree on much. I certainly don't think you and I would differ on the many inimical and parasitical aspects of Islam. I loathe Islam as I beleive you do (please correct me if I'm wrong here). And I'm also sympathetic to what you indicated about America having a vast and long-term experience with immigration that Britain does not. Again, I must state that I doubt we would differ on much.

BUT, irrespective of nation, whether the UK, Japan, Kenya, Argentina, America or wherever, for a political party to exclude individuals on the basis of race alone, which is what the BNP does (just check out its "Countering the Smears" post), is wrong. And it would be wrong if Japan did it, Argentina did it or any nation did it. Some rights are universal, irrespective of regionalism, national history, indigenous culture, tradition, etc. For instance, when the British ruled India (mostly decently and competently I would aver) they disallowed the burning alive of the Hindu widow at her husband's funeral, even though this was a long-standing custom in India. They were right to do so because there is a higher law than any constitution, national law or custom which compels all mankind to observe. William Seward, Abraham Lincoln's Secretary of State, maintained as much on the subject of the immorality of slavery while still a Senator from New York. St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century had anticipated Seward here when addressing the issue of a natural law that supercedes all man-made law. So it is with the matter of excluding someone from political participation (including a political party) on the basis of race alone. You know this or should know it. No amount of inexperience with immigration can mitigate or negate this universal and natural right.

I don't mean to quarrel with you. I have read many of your posts over the last several months and agree with much of what you say. But I can never, will never, go along with any ideology that says that you can't belong to us because you're of the wrong race. Won't happen. This isn't just because I'm an American. It's also because I'm a human being.

Posted by: Wellington at November 6, 2007 11:28 PM

The sidetrack from original subject has been profound..... (thanks Wellington)

But consider this: Musharraf appears to be our friend. Though tottering, he seems to be fighting jihad. As a Muslim, could he be following the rule of Islam that says it's alright to pretend sincerity, to lie and cowtow to infidels if in the long run it protects the Prophet and his religion?!!!!

Let's see now, how many millions of American dollars are we pouring into Pakistani coffers? Does the coffer have a leak that dribbles into the hands of the jihadists? Think about it. Can any Muslim, other than apostates, be trusted?

(This is tough on Christians, brought up as we were to turn the other cheek, love our enemies and our neighbor as ourselves.)

Posted by: youngtimer at November 7, 2007 2:40 AM