Sadly the begining of the end of the UK as we know it.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at December 30, 2007 8:23 AM

Denial will not prevent the UK's slide into further dhimmitude!

Posted by: Always On Watch at December 30, 2007 8:39 AM

The British government is blind, deaf and thick as a brick, but I really don't think you can blame that on John Lennon.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at December 30, 2007 8:58 AM

The term "Islamic terrorist" will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities....

... from the article above.

This is like saying that "The term "Nazi ideology" appears to directly link ideology to the holocast......" then again, Nazis had not infiltrated UK like muslims have. This, after Amjem Chaudhry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary clearly declared "At the end of the day, when we say "innocent people" we mean "Muslims". As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.[29]".
How cleverly the Islamic ideology hides behind the mask of a "religion", with definite benefits, is apparent.

Posted by: Alert at December 30, 2007 9:06 AM

The words "war on terror" will no longer be used by the British government to describe attacks on the public...

Well, I should hope not. How is bombing a commuter train a "war on terror"?

Let's hope they no longer use the words "war on cancer". After all, the cells within our own bodies are not soldiers. Why are we waging war against a natural occurrence?

Then there's "war on drugs" (plants aren't soldiers!), "war on obesity" (a natural result of overconsumption) and many more. The "war on Communism" would never have been waged by Brownie. How do you wage war on an idea? Let's even forget that war that some guy named Churchill led Britain through. Let's eliminate "war" from the vernacular, shall we? It makes too many people uncomfortable.

/sarc off

I guess the Laborites don't care that radical Islam declared war (oops! I meant "fatwa".) on the West long before 9/11. But then again, the radicals are not soldiers. They were just having fun, letting off steam, etc.

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2007 9:10 AM

That's right, pretend that it's not happening. Can't have a religious group thinking that you think they are linked to terrorist activity. That wouldn't be British would it? Queensbury rules and all, old chap. Where is Winston Churchill?

Posted by: Dsinc at December 30, 2007 9:14 AM

The term "Islamic terrorist" will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities....

... from the article above.

This is like saying that "The term "Nazi ideology" appears to directly link ideology to the holocast......" then again, Nazis had not infiltrated UK like muslims have. This, after Amjem Chaudhry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anjem_Choudary clearly declared "At the end of the day, when we say "innocent people" we mean "Muslims". As far as non-Muslims are concerned, they have not accepted Islam. As far as we are concerned, that is a crime against God.[29]".
How cleverly the Islamic ideology hides behind the mask of a "religion", with definite benefits, is apparent.

Posted by: Alert at December 30, 2007 9:22 AM

Dsinc,

Churchill is turning over in his grave, no doubt.

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2007 9:23 AM

Language is of paramount importance. Especially fake language, especially in a political context. George Orwell, the great Englishman, showed us the way on that. Now here we are.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at December 30, 2007 9:29 AM

One step forward, two steps backward?

Whenever I start to fear for the fate of Britain, I like to watch this guy talking about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhN6CG1zCRc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7iBoq_yC4k

Posted by: Goob at December 30, 2007 9:30 AM

When the religious texts used by a particular religion link terror and their religion I don't see how it's a problem when the recipients of the terrorist activities link them.

Wishing they weren't linked or pretending they are somehow not linked only makes the recipients of the terrorist activities more vulnerable.

Posted by: eve_anne_gelical at December 30, 2007 9:33 AM

It's interesting to me that you'd post a photo of John Lennon.

Just the other day I remarked to my husband that if Lennon was still alive, he'd probably be on the side of Islam.

Posted by: darcy at December 30, 2007 9:41 AM

While we readers of JW/DW desperately struggle to connect the dots, the leaders of the West desperately DISconnect the dots.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at December 30, 2007 9:51 AM

I welcome this move. It is not a war, they are not soldiers.

They are criminals, members of a criminal gang of substantial size, posing as a religious community.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at December 30, 2007 9:53 AM

The leader of our country is an unelected Scottish fool, he wasnt even elected as leader of his party, let alone the country...

This news is something we already knew, we cannot rely on our government to do what is required to even acknowledge the threat we face, let alone defeat it...

So the situation remains the same as it was yesterday.

Happy New Year Infidels!

Posted by: MrTommyAtkins at December 30, 2007 9:57 AM

Anyone think they might replace it with "The war on islamic Jihad"?
yes and pigs will fly!
'War on terror' was a useful way of avoiding mentioming the religious origins of the terror.
It also promised a solution - a few years would solve the problem of those extremist murderers and if mentioning the M word would imply that only a tuny minority were abusing their religion of peace.
I doubt if there is any Islam without Jihad or any moderate Islam, if so why have none of the so called moderates challenged this?
Could it be that they know that Jihadists are in fact the truest and purist Muslims and can not even be criticised?
Moderate muslims- yes. Moderate islam no.

Posted by: fRIDA at December 30, 2007 9:58 AM

Good day my dear chaps, I do believe I have an ear of corn lodged in my arse!

Posted by: americanmadestrat at December 30, 2007 10:13 AM

Don't forget is was Lennon who wrote, "...nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too".

I very much doubt he would have been on the side of islam. Advocating peace is not necessarily a weakness. Not to mention, he has now been dead for 27 years. The world is a very different place now, than it was in 1980.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at December 30, 2007 10:26 AM

I doubt very much if John Lennon would support Islam, in life he did not suffer fools gladly like most Liverpudlians and Islam is FULL of fools. He was also anti-authoritarian and Islam is the ultimate anally retentive control freak religion. In fact as Imagine proves conclusively Lennon was of the opinion that ALL religions were harmful. He would I don't doubt have opposed the Iran invasion but that would not be out of misguided support of Islam more a hate of war as a solution to anything. Personally I believe that there are some things that HAVE to be fought and Islam is one of those things.

Posted by: Realist at December 30, 2007 10:31 AM

I think the cat has been out of the bag for sometime now, short of those that still continue to drink the Kool-Aid.

Most of us know by now who the real culprit is in our war on terror and they are easily able to add another adjective or a certain identifiable name to the words "Death Cult".

No doubt, even the use of the term "death Cult" as it will most assuredly relate to a particular ideology will be challenged as unfair,racist,and discriminating, just as any other negative terms have been bandied about to describe this particular ideology.

Will this term play in the rest of the EU Countries, will it play in Australia,,Canada,and a host of other Western Countries? At this point I'm not sure that it really matters unless the term is designed to isolate our thinking away from the specifics of the ideology that brings it all to us through its teachings---namely --ISLAM.

Posted by: Mackie at December 30, 2007 10:42 AM

I think the cat has been out of the bag for sometime now, short of those that still continue to drink the Kool-Aid.

Most of us know by now who the real culprit is in our war on terror and they are easily able to add another adjective or a certain identifiable name to the words "Death Cult".

No doubt, even the use of the term "death Cult" as it will most assuredly relate to a particular ideology will be challenged as unfair,racist,and discriminating, just as any other negative terms have been bandied about to describe this particular ideology.

Will this term play in the rest of the EU Countries, will it play in Australia,,Canada,and a host of other Western Countries? At this point I'm not sure that it really matters unless the term is designed to isolate our thinking away from the specifics of the ideology that brings it all to us through its teachings---namely --ISLAM.

Posted by: Mackie at December 30, 2007 10:42 AM

Darcy,
Are you sure about Lennon being on the side of Islam? Don't forget "Imagine". Either he renounces his dream of nutopia or he calls Islam what it is: tyranny. For that matter, how could Islam abide his support? No heaven, no hell, all the people together? Very un-Islamic.

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

Then again, this is Islam's view of the world isn't it? No countries, everyone living in the "peace" afforded by Allah. Although, if Lennon had still been living in Manhattan at 9/11, would his view have changed at all?

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2007 10:42 AM

Islam is a violent religion. The news headlines prove this on a daily basis. If muslims do not want to change it and make it peaceful and compatable with the rest of the world, then why am I wrong for wanting to end the practise of islam? Muslims want to subgegate the entire planet, I just want them to stop killing.

Posted by: iwillnotsubmit at December 30, 2007 10:44 AM

Atop the colossal steaming heap, through the smoke and ash of 9/11, Pres. Bush declared "You're either with us or against us in the 'fight against terror'."

It appears the UK has chosen it's side - officially.

Using a phrase clearly designed to obfuscate, 'fight against terror', for surely his aids informed him, we cannot possibly declare war against an entire religious group numbering a billion+.

At the same time, ignoring the counter fact that the enemy has no compunction in declaring war against the remaining global population numbering 2 to 3 times it's size.

Despite the fact that we have superior technology and numbers, we have open source research available on demand to isolate and identify the source of all this madness & turmoil, - our leaders intentionally blindfold and restrain to appease a lethal minority bent on destroying civilization as we know it.

Suicidal insanity is forcibly being imposed upon us - all in the misguided notion of avoiding massive bloodshed - that of the jihadist, at the expense of willfully allowing the slaughter of innocents on the altar of PC/MC fantasy.

Posted by: miira at December 30, 2007 10:48 AM

I don't know about John Lennon's religion, but I believe Paul McCartney wrote music for the consecration of the new Liverpool cathedral.

Posted by: ebonystone at December 30, 2007 10:53 AM

The fake war on terror is over but not the real war against Israel and the Jews.
In this war ,the weat and Islam are united and working together !

"They make shrewd plans against Thy people,
And conspire together against thy treasured ones.
They have said ,"come and let us wipe them out as a nation,
that the name of Israel be remembered no more"
pslam83
"Bin Laden's comments offered an unusually direct attack on Israel, stepping up al-Qaida's attempts to use the Israeli-Arab conflict to rally supporters. Israel has warned of growing al-Qaida activity in Palestinian territory, though terror network is not believed to have taken a strong role there so far.
"We intend to liberate Palestine, the whole of Palestine from the (Jordan) river to the sea," he said, threatening "blood for blood, destruction for destruction."
"We will not recognize even one inch for Jews in the land of Palestine as other Muslim leaders have," bin Laden said."
What is really happening in spiritual realm which blind Christian's and Jew's cannot see(Psalm83)

We very much appreciate our brother George who will not find me in Pakistan but finds the time and money to help with our jihad against the Jews,but his way is too slow for us and we will finish his Road Map to Dar Al Islami at a quicker pace.
-------------------------
exerpt:
Bush isn't coming to Israel in a couple of weeks to vacation in the Eilat sun. He's coming over to exert as much pressure as he possibly can to receive more and more Israeli concessions, in an attempt to force the 'piece-process' down our collective throats.

Israel will have a hard time saying no. Bush is putting too much prestige on the line for Israeli leaders to be able to ignore or refuse his demands. Bush is, today, leading the frontal attack against Israel, using not nuclear bombs but statesmanship as his primary weapon. This is, perhaps, even more dangerous than a nuclear bomb; with such a bomb you know what you're up against; with statesmanship you can only guess at the significance and implications of the intended results. If this isn't an enemy, I don't know what is.
david wilder

http://www.hebron.com/english/article.php?id=369

Posted by: rocketman at December 30, 2007 10:58 AM

The Islamic Republic of Britain has spoken.

Posted by: jewdog at December 30, 2007 11:05 AM

Goodbye, England...!

Posted by: Yos at December 30, 2007 11:18 AM

Hurray - Peace in our time - it's all just been a cultural misunderstanding - it's just their way of telling us they love us – Oh PEACE PEACE PEACE 10,000 expressions of PEACE. I just want to vomit.

Posted by: LivingVictory at December 30, 2007 11:20 AM

How can one side in a war declare anything?

The other side is still at war with the infidel dogs.

Until the flag of Islam flies over London.

Bangers and mash, out.

Sheeps' eyeballs and hummus, in.

Posted by: profitsbeard at December 30, 2007 11:20 AM

Are their no leaders anywhere with guts? How did it happen that weak wristed cowards got in charge, everywhere all at once? The biggest problem the west has, is it has no hero's, or very few anyway.
And the ones we have like Robert Spenser as an example, are battered constantly by weak, but persistent, opposition. We see that here, where Islamic gunslingers show up, hoping to out draw the master. In Americas old west, the graveyards are full of over confident challengers. In the JW/DW archives lie the intellectual remains of those who chose to shoot down the master, but could not even get by his worshippers, as Doctor what's his name, referred to commenter's here. If the commenter's on JW/DW held political power, we might get some where.
One of the things that JW/DW and some similar sites do, is manufacture infidel hero's, who in most cases have not had the opportunity, or circumstance to act out their heroics. At some point, in some way, the hero's of the world are going to have to rise up and seize power from the weak, cowardly and ineffectual.
If we maintain leaders who are cowardly and weak, defeat will be the result...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 30, 2007 11:28 AM

14 They have also healed the hurt of My people slightly,
Saying, ‘Peace, peace!’
When there is no peace.
"My people" refers to Israel.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 30, 2007 11:33 AM

Spencer...Spencer...Spencer. Sorry, I keep making this same mistake. Spencer not Spenser. I am gong to write Spencer on the blackboard a thousand times till I get it right....

Posted by: duh_swami at December 30, 2007 11:33 AM

Are their no leaders anywhere with guts? How did it happen that weak wristed cowards got in charge, everywhere all at once? The biggest problem the west has, is it has no hero's, or very few anyway.

Powerful delusion. The stage is set for the false hero to appear.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 30, 2007 11:38 AM

John didn't die in poverty, he was a capitalist.

I believe he would have followed the path he followed during his life; the golden one that leads right to the bank.

It wouldn't matter to him, or his record companies, where the money ultimately came from as long as he got the money.

He would support whoever paid him and would market whatever image was necessary.

Posted by: witness at December 30, 2007 11:48 AM

Why am I not surprised with this?

We should all know by now that Britain is ruled by muslims. We can all pretend to vote for Labour or Tories or, God forbid, the Liberals, what we end up with is islam.

Once her Majesty the Queen kicks the proverbial bucket, we will be living in a Republic - an islamic Republic of Britain.

Posted by: Hermit at December 30, 2007 11:50 AM

America is left alone now that the Ausies are becoming dhimmified. England has been on its' way for years, as the above article shows once again. We have to maintain our stance now more than ever. If we do, maybe, just maybe, in time, we can turn the tide against the evil of islam and its' killers and thugs.

Posted by: countywolf at December 30, 2007 11:54 AM

Powerful delusion. The stage is set for the false hero to appear.
Posted by: interestinconundrum

Well I hope appears soon. I want to invite him over for beer and wrestling, before I get too old. :)

Posted by: duh_swami at December 30, 2007 11:55 AM

We should use "the comfy chair" instead of waterboarding the terrorists.
Too bad Granny Weatherwax is no longer posting.
http://people.csail.mit.edu/paulfitz/spanish/script.html

Posted by: interestinconundrum at December 30, 2007 11:59 AM

Sorry Mr. Lennon...we gave peace a chance. Didn't work out too well...sorry I ever listened to your music, for it helped me see things with pot-smoke colored glasses for far too long. I thought he visited India a few times to get to know Ravi Shanker(?). Did he not notice muslim atrocities then?

Posted by: AmericanTiger at December 30, 2007 12:07 PM

Every year fewer and fewer words, and the range of consciousness always a little smaller. Even now, of course, there's no excuse for committing thoughtcrime. It's merely a question of self-discipline, reality-control.

I’d believe that England is destined to end in a whimper, but I’ve met too many Englishmen.

Posted by: pez at December 30, 2007 12:10 PM

Not too long ago Liverpool got caught up in the desire of the PC crowd to eliminate street names that referred to the nasty slave trade days.
They ran up against a real problem when they realized that "Penny Lane" had more economic/tourist value than anti value.
So much for being PC.

OT Guilianni just lost a campaign volunteer because he told the Guardian that "Muslims should be chased back to their caves"

Posted by: Aunt Bea at December 30, 2007 12:24 PM

It seems as if they're saying, "We won't honour you by calling you soldiers of Islam. You are common murderers united by a death cult [Islam corrupted] and we'll treat you as such."

With this new, improved approach, the government is demonstrating that:

- it is not pro-U.S. or pro-Bush (so the nameless, murderous death cult won't target the UK)

- they're not anti-Islam (so their friends, the moderate Muslims, don't get upset and turn into terrorists)

- Islam is a religion of peace which has been corrupted by the likes of bin Laden

- they're taking back the power by naming the enemy and defining the terms of the fight [Not the war, definitely not that, although maybe the word "fight" is too strong. Perhaps we'd better strike a new committee to study this one...]

I've been reading Jihad Watch long enough to know that this approach is, at best, meaningless and, at worst, dangerous. So they call it something else and continue to deny that, when followed seriously, Islam is incompatible with democracy and with our definition of peace.

Our governments can call it what they want but, as Robert Spencer points out, it is more important to know and understand what the jihadists are saying about their mission.

If a man is pointing a gun at me and saying, "Give me all your money or I'll shoot," I can stand there and redefine his lexicon all I want (although probably not for long) but the wise move would be to take him at his word and act accordingly.

Posted by: Josephine at December 30, 2007 12:24 PM

About Lennon - Well, we're very "conservative." I just can't see him being on our side. But, who knows, as someone remarked "the world is a very different place than in 1980." No one even thought about the Mohammedans or Islam, then.

I suppose we could ask Yoko what she thinks he'd think about Islam.

Posted by: darcy at December 30, 2007 12:24 PM

So they're not soldiers. Are they, perhaps, "unlawful combatants"?

Posted by: The Heresiarch at December 30, 2007 12:36 PM

"Well I hope appears soon. I want to invite him over for beer and wrestling, before I get too old. :)"
duh deadswami

His appetite is for blood ,not sport.
He will invite himself over and not bother knocking and have you for lunch is what the agenda is.
No beer !

Posted by: rocketman at December 30, 2007 12:39 PM

After 9/11, Yoko Ono placed a full-page ad in The New York Times. (My husband and I used to subscribe to the Sunday edition.)

http://music.yahoo.com/read/news/12052524

"(9/26/01, 5 p.m. ET) -- A full-page ad with a simple message in the words of John Lennon--'Imagine all the people living life in peace' --ran in Sunday's (September 23) edition of The New York Times. The ad ran anonymously, with no photos or corporate signage and just eight words on the page, but a spokesman has confirmed the ad was placed by Lennon's widow Yoko Ono as a message to New Yorkers in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Ono didn't sign the ad because 'she felt it would be more effective if her name wasn't on it.'"

Keep in mind that Yoko Ono is (and John Lennon was) an artist. Many of her statements are intended to provoke thought, discussion and possibly action.

I don't think it's fair, or even possible, to state with any certainty what John Lennon would have said or done regarding Islam and jihad. I have the impression that he loved New York.

Posted by: Josephine at December 30, 2007 12:41 PM

I smell hippies.
I should know,i was one

Posted by: alexb at December 30, 2007 1:12 PM

Here's a quote from Winston Churchill on Islam, written in his book "The River War" about the Sudan campaign against 'the Mahdi", the 19th century version of Osama. Churchill had knowledge and experience of Islam and Muslims from his time in India, Egypt and the Sudan.

What he wrote is no less true today, with only stylistic writing differences:

“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. 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. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die. 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 proselytising 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 civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

Posted by: DavePA at December 30, 2007 1:19 PM

John Lennon may have agreed with Islam. After all, didn't he write

God is a concept by which we measure our pain
You can say it again

Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 30, 2007 1:37 PM

Sorry Rocketman...I set the agenda, none of what you said applies in my beer/wrestling emporium. If hostiles show up unexpected, they have to get past barbed wire and broken glass, then the moat and gators, if they get past Jaws, there are a pack of vicious dogs, and then...the snakes.
No hostile has ever made it through the snakes.
My ex mother in law, the mother of all hostiles, almost made it once, but was driven back by some incalcitrant rattlers, and a large Boa.
So you see Rocketman, there will be no dead swami's only chewed up hostiles, rabid mother in laws, and losing Mahdi wrestlers. Mahdi won't make it past Jaws, unless he show up invited, alone, and unarmed.
Then we will see how much beer he can drink and how well he can wrestle...

Posted by: duh_swami at December 30, 2007 1:49 PM

About Lennon - Well, we're very "conservative." I just can't see him being on our side.

Darcy,

Neither do I.
But on the other hand neither would I want that egomaniac on our side. I have a Liverpudlian friend who knew Lennon quite well and according to him the man was in many ways ruthless, nasty, callous and cynical.

Posted by: thomas. h at December 30, 2007 2:10 PM

It is hard to believe that this is the same land that brought us the Magna Carta. It is now 792 years since this document was written and today's British "leaders" seem to be well on their way to allowing 8 centuries of progress to be wiped out under the jack boots of the jihad.

Posted by: FirePig at December 30, 2007 2:13 PM

"I smell hippies. I should know,i was one"
Posted by: alexb

alexb -- If you're referring to me, please let me know. I could use a good laugh.

Posted by: Josephine at December 30, 2007 2:19 PM

Hi everyone,
I can understand how you all can be pessimistic about this development in the UK. However, I disagree. I believe the government is changing it's language for legal reasons.
A quote: "The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way."
"Murderers and criminals" can be prosecuted and locked up in jail. "Fantasists & narcissists" can be locked up in mental institutions because they have mental illnesses. I had the pleasure of reading an article recently at www.bullyonline.org wherein a psychologist outlines that narcissistic behaviour is bullying. Threatening your fellow man with killing him for disagreeing with your opinions on religion sure sounds like bullying to me!
Yes, Joe Public UK will still be paying for it all, but I believe that Joe would rather pay to see these killers go to jail than go free because of some legal technicality.

Posted by: RedSkyatNight at December 30, 2007 2:43 PM

"War on terror" was always an unhelpful phrase, but the British government's decision to drop it is for the wrong, not the right, reasons.

The right reasons are to identify not a tactic of the war ("terror") but rather, the nature of the war, the ideological promptings of that war, the varied instruments of that war now being waged -- because after centuries of weakness oil revenues and Muslim migrants settled deep inside the West provide the main wherewithal -- on Infidel peoples, Infidel legal and political institutions, Infidel states, all over the world.

Islam inculcates in its adherents the belief in the duty of a "struggle" or Jihad to spread Islam, and then to insure the dominance of Islam, everywhere. The means chosen may vary. At the moment the most effective means is not "terror" but, rather, deployment of the Money Weapon (which can do a lot, including buying real weapons), campaigns of Da'wa, and demographic conquest within the Infidel lands. Islam, in other words, insists that between Believers and Unbelievers, Muslims and Infidels, there must be a state of permanent war -- though not necessarily at all times of open warfare -- until all barriers to the dominance of Islam, and rule by Muslims, have been swept away.

How should this be described? The word "Jihad" exists. The problem is that Infidels are not making war on Islam. They are lavishing every kind of benefit on Muslims, in the vain hope that those who are impoverished (but what of all the Muslims who are fantastically rich, and yet seem even more hell-bent on supporting the Jihad?) will somehow be less rigorous in their beliefs, and in also attempting to transplant democracy (for "ordinary moms and dads" as Bush said in his best saccharine manner) to the stony soil of Islam.

But apparently we have all agreed that under no conditions must be call this a "war against Islam" even though the Jihad is a central duty of Muslims. Very well then. Call it a "war of self-defense against the Jihad." Call it a "war against Islamic supremacism." But for god's sake call it something that makes clear that the war is one being waged on us, and that war has been prompted not by a search for new resources and markets and Lebensraum (Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan) but by a search for more places that can be forced to succumb to Islam.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2007 2:58 PM

About Lennon - Well, we're very "conservative." I just can't see him being on our side. But, who knows, as someone remarked "the world is a very different place than in 1980." No one even thought about the Mohammedans or Islam, then.

by Darcy

1980 was the first year (in my memory) of Islam's war against the West. It started in Tehran toward the end of 1979. For a year it was "Death to America". We saw it every night on television. It was hard to avoid thinking about Islam.

It was the first year we learned that Iranians were "radicals" but that our great allies, the Saudis, were the conservatives, the "true" Muslims. This courtesy of the American press.

1980 was the year we were hit over the head with Islam.

Posted by: PMK at December 30, 2007 3:12 PM

Sorry Josphine.
No attack intended a complete rehtoric to the title thread

Posted by: alexb at December 30, 2007 3:51 PM

"The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way."

Another spokesman for the Ministry of Truth.

What do you call a collection of fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals who organize to kill people and overthrow governments?

Sir Ken said the term Western "leaders" will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link "officials" to decision making and leadership.

There's no place like home...click click... there's no place like home... click click...

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 30, 2007 3:51 PM

John Lennon was very Leftist in his thinking (although he didn't mind making money in that dreadful economic system known as capitalism) and so were he alive today I should think he would be apologetic for Islam because Islam is anti-Western in a myriad of ways and Leftists disrespect and even hate the West and so embrace the enemy of their enemy as a friend. It's dopey thinking but that's what you get from Left-think all the time. Lennon, I believe, would be no ally in the war against Islamic terror.

Posted by: Wellington at December 30, 2007 4:13 PM

This was linked to some time ago.

http://www.timeout.com/london/features/print/2993.html

Is London's future Islamic?

Posted by: Dsinc at December 30, 2007 4:32 PM

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24176

Another good take on multicult-ism, and its devestating tag-team effect on Western values.

What a shame.

Posted by: antishock8 at December 30, 2007 4:42 PM

London Times, January 1, 2008.

Headline: "Someone Somewhere Bombed Something for Some Reason Sometime Last Night"

I feel for you guys in the UK, and fear for you, too.

On the other hand, maybe RedSkyatNight has found the silver lining, when he/she points out:

""Murderers and criminals" can be prosecuted and locked up in jail. "Fantasists & narcissists" can be locked up in mental institutions because they have mental illnesses."

Posted by: Abscedere at December 30, 2007 5:05 PM

The term "Islamic terrorist" will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities....

Uhm, no. What links the religion to terrorist atrocities is the Quran.

Posted by: Lori B. at December 30, 2007 5:12 PM

The term "Islamic terrorist" will also no longer be used. Officials believe it is unhelpful because it appears to directly link the religion to terrorist atrocities....

Yeah...and the words "water soaked" will no longer be used to describe things that have been immersed in water, because it appears to directly link water to things getting wet.

Morons.....

Posted by: Alaskan at December 30, 2007 5:14 PM

"The term "Islamic terrorist" will also no longer be used."
Instead we may now with authorization from the British Government call the Muslims "Death Cult terrorists".

Posted by: Osmund Bindalen at December 30, 2007 5:21 PM

rocketman: Above you refer to President Bush as "idiot in Chief." On a previous post you were even more juvenile when you spoke of him as "smelly." Can you not see that disagreement, including vigorous disagreement, does not have to be demeaning to another person, especially when it is the President of the United States? Such discourse can only bring disrepute to a fine web site like JW. Ordinarily the tone here is a respectful one, even though opinions vary greatly at times by those who post here. You represent a kind of lowest common denominator, a weakest link. I too have many reservations about what Bush has done, but he's no idiot and he is not a bad man. In fact, I think history will be much kinder to him, just as it has been to so many other Presidents thought ill of while serving as Chief Executive----Truman, Eisenhower and Reagan come foremost to mind here (and all were thought stupid by many of their contemporaries). Finally, I close with this statement and that is that I would far rather have Bush, whatever his limitations, sitting in the Oval Office than yourself. Have a nice day.

Posted by: Wellington at December 30, 2007 5:34 PM

alexb -- Thanks for clarifying. ; )

Posted by: Josephine at December 30, 2007 5:36 PM

Give me a break...Call things what they really are: A terrorist is a terrorist!

If people want to join a "death cult" and end their own lives, then so be it.

A terrorist on the other hand would want to destroy other people's lives/ways of life in hope his allah will get excited and send him deep in heaven.

Posted by: Satanic at December 30, 2007 5:37 PM

John Lennon would not have supported Islam, or any other organized religion for that matter. He would have condemned suicide bombing. What the hell is wrong with you for saying that? John Lennon was for PEACE. Were you not paying attention? How many more 'messiahs' have to die to be heard?

ALL WE ARE SAYING IS GIVE PEACE A CHANCE

IMAGINE NO RELIGIONS

IMAGINEJOHNLENNON: I wish he were here to speak for himself....

Posted by: David Holmes at December 30, 2007 5:57 PM

"The people who were murdered on July 7 were not the victims of war. The men who killed them were not soldiers," Macdonald said. "They were fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals and need to be responded to in that way."
-- from a statement by Sir Ken McDonald, Great Britain's chief prosecutor

"Fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals."

Isn't that a perfect description of the men who ran Nazi Germany, the main country with which Great Britain was at war, from September 1939 to May 1945? And were the sympathizers with Nazi Germany watched by agents, and sometimes picked up in Great Britain, and in the United States, and sometimes interned, and sometimes charged with treason, for their sympathies and their plots, and their working to undermine -- in whatever way they could -- the war effort -- not agents of the enemy but merely "members of a death cult," and not to be prosecuted by special courts or charged with treason, for their support of a mortal enemy, and though they may not be guilty of participating directly in terrorist acts, by working to aid or protect or support those who do, and working to confuse or distract or demoralize the rest of the populace, can be considered enemy agents, guilty of treason.

You don't hear that word much anymore. The very idea seems old-fashioned, in this anything-goes-world. Treason. Bring that word, bring that idea, back.

Posted by: Hugh at December 30, 2007 6:17 PM

David Holmes: You assert that "John Lennon was for PEACE." Don't you see that's part of the problem? Those who push peace above all, as Lennon did, ordinarily fail to understand that civilization must not only be decent and sophisticated, but tough and muscular as well. I would put Lennon down as clueless here. Hey, give war a chance.

Posted by: Wellington at December 30, 2007 6:28 PM

"Fantasists, narcissists, murderers and criminals."

From Hugh:
Isn't that a perfect description of the men who ran Nazi Germany, the main country with which Great Britain was at war, from September 1939 to May 1945?

Seems like a perfect fit to me.

Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 30, 2007 6:44 PM

The West cannot possibly prevail as long as the violence perpetratd by Islamic Purists (terrorists) are treated as criminal acts. They must be classified as something else, calling them enemy combatants was a good start. Someone who is in a country under false pretenses and commits or plots to commit a violent act must be turned over to the military. Laws need to be changed.

A declaration of war is needed, and war can be declared on the adherents of an ideology. The German saboteurs that landed on Long Island and Florida during WW2 were tried by military court; some were executed. They carried out criminal acts, but they were agents of a foreign power.

Posted by: Pelayo at December 30, 2007 8:26 PM

Dear Hugh,

I also love the word treason, gunpowder treason plot , resonates in my brain it is a part of my History.It meant that there were laws in place to punish anyone who tried to destroy my country. Unfortunately Blair got rid of it in Britain in I think 1997. All done under the radar. I didn't find out myself until a couple of years ago. It seems it offended his masters in Brussels which offended their masters in Saudi, so it had to go. Now these Moon loons have carte blanc to do what ever they like. What ever they do, to try and destroy what freedoms my ancestors fought and died to protect, they now get a get out of jail free card.If the new laws against Xenophobia and racism that that unelected body in Brussels, which by the way has immunity from prosecution, they made sure of that, become law, then my country Great Britain, which I love dearly, as well as Europe,is to put it bluntly F**ked. I weep from anger and frustration, as do many here in Europe.We have been defranchised, there will be no referendum to stop the E.U.s decent into lunacy. Like many utopian visions (delusions) it is a blueprint for suicide.

Deep Regards

Holger Dansker

Posted by: Holger Dansker at December 30, 2007 9:14 PM

Sir Ken Macdonald said terrorist fanatics were not soldiers fighting a war but simply members of an aimless "death cult."

No, the "fanatics" are hardly members of an "aimless" death cult. The death cult in question, islam, has very specific "aims" but Sir Ken McDonald obviously hasn't bothered to find out what they are.

After the next attack or arrests of dozens of muslims, I suppose they will not be identified as muslims since religion is irrelevant to terrorism. I may be wrong, but I think just about everyone in the world knows that muslims are responsible for 99% of all terrorist attacks.

Political correctness strikes again! Let's all play pretend-- If we call terrorism by another name, nobody will know peaceful muslims were responsible! How clever!

Posted by: Susanp at December 30, 2007 9:19 PM

The Picture of Lennon is quite appropriate for this article. He seemed to become little more than a drug induced Utopian Hermit living in a fantasy world. Kinda like Britain is today.

Posted by: flowerknife_us at December 30, 2007 10:10 PM

Gordon Brown does not speak for me. He does not share my hopes, dreams, beliefs or fears. His appeasing attitude towards Islam chills me to the bone.
Gordon Brown is the unelected Prime Minister of my country. HE gave away sovereignty of my country to the E.U. He refused to give me a chance to vote on this issue. THIS IS NOT DEMOCRACY. This is piracy.

Posted by: U.K. TODAY. at December 31, 2007 1:46 AM

Powerful delusion. The stage is set for the false hero to appear.
Posted by: interestinconundrum

Well I hope appears soon. I want to invite him over for beer and wrestling, before I get too old. :)

Posted by: duh_swami at December 30, 2007 11:55 AM

Would the 'false hero' be the 'Antichrist'? Answer = Yes!!!

Posted by: amalteser at December 31, 2007 7:12 AM

....must be a lot of holes in the sand at the beaches from all the politicians and magistrates sticking their heads there.....

Posted by: exsgtbrown at December 31, 2007 8:00 AM

Thanks, David Holmes. I agree with you. No way would Lennon have been on the side of islam.

Posted by: ImNoDhimmi at December 31, 2007 8:32 AM

In part I agree with the British Gov't, calling it a war on terror was like calling WWII a "War on Blitzkreig". Terror is the weapon, islam is the enemy. As WWII was a war on Naziism/Fascism, this is a war on Islam.

Call it what it is Gordo (and GW, Condi etc. etc. etc.) it's a war on Islam. And until you face that fact, it's a war we can't win.

Posted by: walterc at December 31, 2007 12:38 PM