...and the terrorists from those mosques who have been caught exercising their Muslims obligations for violent jihad have been labeled by their neighbors as "good boys"....

Ban Muslim Immigration...

Posted by: exsgtbrown at January 22, 2008 7:54 AM

Barham Salih is a Kurd, and likely to be less fervent in his faith than those who, as Arabs, have an identity that reinforces rather than undercuts or provides an alternative to, the identity provided by Islam. He cannot, in Iraq, speak out openly about what he might call or choose to believe is "extremism" in the mosques --nowadays, that means mostly Shi'a "extremism" -- but he can visit mosques elsewhere, and his comments, also contain an element of oblique comment on the situation in Iraq.

Since, at this point, aside from Al Qaeda in Iraq, many of the old Sunni (and Ba'athist) elite are worried about the new power of the primitive Shi'a masses, shown in the forcible re-covering of women in Basra and the entire south, and those Sunnis who were used to the relative "secularism" of the Ba'athists, now recognizing the broad attack on the previous "secularism" (that Saddam Hussein had ruthlessly enforced, not because he was in any way against Islam or a free-thinker, but because he recognized that in Iraq, any Islam-based threat to his regime would come from mosques, and those mosques would be Shi'a, not Sunni), worry about, and despise, those primitive Shi'a masses and their leaders, those whom those secular Sunnis, and of course the Christians in exile, denounce as "the turbans" (which clearly means "the Shi'a" who, unlike Allawi or Chalabi, take their religion most seriously).

The comment of Barham Salih about the "extremism" of the mosque he visited in England is perfectly, uncomplicatedly truthful. But what led him to make the comment reflects his own position, and views, and background, and the current state of affairs in Iraq, where the Shi'a have won, and now, within the Shi'a camp, the fight is between the "turbans" and the others, the ones whom so many in Washington assumed, quite naively, would necessarily inherit power -- Chalabi, or Allawi, or others of that secularisant ilk.

Posted by: Hugh at January 22, 2008 8:18 AM

Jihadis, or in newspeak, known as "extremists", are acting in strict accordance with the Koran - this is what makes them invulnerable to criticism from within Islam.

But the Home Secretary Jacqui Smith states that these extreists are anti-Islamic. Logic then indicates that this would make Islam anti-Islamic. This is where it leads.

Posted by: DP111 at January 22, 2008 8:28 AM

Typical muslim response - instead of investigating the allegations, they launch straight into an attack against the Deputy Prime Minister.

Posted by: DJM at January 22, 2008 8:30 AM

"What I saw...would not be allowed here in Iraq - it would be illegal."

Salim Mulla, of the Lancashire Council of Mosques, reacted furiously to the comments.

He said Dr Salih spoke positively about what he had seen when they spoke during his visit.

Taqqiyah!

Mr Mulla said: "We are going out of our way to bring the community together.

Which "community"? The Brittish community or the Muslim one?

"Nobody is working harder than us at breaking down barriers.

Nonsense. Muslims haven't been shy in saying that Muslims should stay apart of the society.

"For Dr Salih to make these sort of comments is not very helpful at all.

It's called "blowing the whistle".

"I don't know where he's coming from.

If you did, would it change the fact that brittish mosques preach hatred of non-muslims? Stop motive-mongering, and deal with the facts: Mosques preach hatred.

"He was very co-operative when he visited, and took lots of photographs.

It doesn't change anything.

"How many incidents have we had in Blackburn?

"He is talking a load of rubbish."

Mosques are places where hatred of infidels is preached.

BAN MUSLIM IMMIGRATION

Posted by: Crusader at January 22, 2008 8:32 AM

RE:What I saw...would not be allowed here in Iraq - it would be illegal."

"And it shouldn't be legal in Britain. The idea of rampant immigration, combined with zero accountability for Muslim communities, all in the name of multiculturalism, is simply national suicide".

It's the road to fascism. I am convinced that there are some who have a hidden agenda in this matter and the Ken Livingstons are their "useful idiots". Not only Muslims have a "religion" that permits deception, there are some with an ideology similar to Islam that permits deception. All that is needed is a desperate economic condition and "democracy" will become a flash of blue smoke in many places.

Even if you are not a conniver Robert-better start thinking like one. Consult Hugh more re cynicism.

Posted by: Frank at January 22, 2008 8:33 AM

Just wondering when 'Lord Ahmed' (or that twit who went to Africa with him in the Teddy Bear affair) come out with a statement, how peaceful it all is, etc...

Interesting development in Hollywood of all places, here:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/01/22/hollywood-comes-out-against-kosovo-independence/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at January 22, 2008 8:41 AM

If someone brings you bad news..............kill the messenger!

Not only to Really Bad Radical Extremist Jihadist Islamofacist Sociopaths want to kill us, but they don't mind killing any other Muslim who disagrees with them.

Arguments in Islam end with a gunshot.

Posted by: tanstaafl at January 22, 2008 8:53 AM

"The idea of rampant immigration, combined with zero accountability for Muslim communities, all in the name of multiculturalism, is simply national suicide."

A gift from the purist Liberal mind which spawned a wild donkey called multiculturalism. It will be the west's greatest regret, someday.

Posted by: Sounder at January 22, 2008 8:57 AM

ah, the wonders and enrichment of immigration. But, seriously there must be about 50 000 max white muslims in the UK so I guess Islam is a multi-racial thing right?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 22, 2008 9:04 AM

Is this similar to the bogus story that Al queda had joined with MS-13?

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 22, 2008 9:07 AM

whoops sorry wrong post! shouldve been about hte iran south america story, not sure how that happened.

Posted by: leonthepigfarmer at January 22, 2008 9:07 AM

Nice breakdown Crusader. Almost no muslim statement or action, can survive a detailed analysis.
It just wrecks the heck out of taqiyya. The people who comment here regularly have their taqiyya wrecking ball at the ready. Few Islamic arguments can stand up against it...

Posted by: duh_swami at January 22, 2008 9:11 AM

Meanwhile, the UK's Home Secretary (i.e. equivalent of the USA's head of Homeland Security), Jacqui Smith, has said that she would not walk the streets of London alone at night.

Welcome to the real world, Jacqui!

Women - and quite a few men - have known this for years. The only difference is that it is you who are responsible for making the streets safe.

Fancy a walk around some Muslim no-go areas in your mini-skirt instead, maybe?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/20/nsmith220.xml

Posted by: watling at January 22, 2008 9:13 AM

Forget Blair skipping the world picking up thousands in loose change on speaking engagements, forget Brown with his accomodation speeches, think of demographics and the islamic challenge:

Britain you are screwed.

You are so asleep that even the warning by a muslim politician will not rouse you.

Requiem for a once great country and civilization.

Posted by: dgene at January 22, 2008 9:21 AM

I concur with Hugh's analysis of Salih's comments.

One must be wary though, for I do not believe that this "extremist" doctrine is not present in Iraq, nor is it illegal.

It could very well be another example of trying to seperate by obfuscation, Islamic teachings in mosques abroad in the UK from Islam, when they are discovered.

Since they are being monitored with greater prevalenncy in the UK and elsewhere than in Iraq, it is logical to assume that these discoveries will also be more prevalent.

At that point, the imam will be called out for being un-Islamic, or more accurately, engaging in "anti-Islamic activity".

Posted by: awake at January 22, 2008 9:33 AM

"Nobody is working harder than us at breaking down barriers."

In response, Crusader wrote: "Nonsense. Muslims haven't been shy in saying that Muslims should stay apart of the society."

I agree with your comment. But the way I read the original quote was that the mosques were busy, busy, busy "breaking down barriers" to the unfettered spread of Islam.

Either way, the typical Western audience is completely fooled by the doublespeak.

Posted by: Stendec at January 22, 2008 9:43 AM

If you really want to know how bad the situation is in the UK, watch this video.

http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2008/01/watch-this-and.html#comments

Posted by: Elric66 at January 22, 2008 9:56 AM

Elric - I watched your video.

Stupid Britain. Uh, yeah - "Islam is at odds with Western values!" That's a no-brainer!

You better start doing something NOW, Britain, or you are, excuse me, f*****.

Posted by: jennasmith at January 22, 2008 10:20 AM

Daniel Pipes reviews Philip Salzman's new book 'Culture and Conflict in the Middle East'.

Salzman's take is fascinating in that he eschews political-correctness, pulls no punches, and shows no reluctance to blame the Arab world for the conflicts engulfing it, including the I/P struggle. Yet, he appears to blame everything on tribalism and the tribal ethos. No mention of Islam...at least not in the review.

Check it out folks.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=FF611500-5EB5-4F36-A247-66F791EBD6CF

Posted by: Cornelius at January 22, 2008 10:42 AM

When there used to be about a half dozen English blogs written by Arabs which I perused almost daily I notice that the average Arab Internet poster - posting in English mind you - was less supportive of suicide bombing than the average British leftist at the Guardian. Not even close. The leftists would quickly take a market bombing of women and children and make it a brave strike on the American occupation.

Most of those blogs aren't active any more. Freedom on the march to a back room to hide from the religious police no doubt.

Posted by: Beagle at January 22, 2008 10:52 AM

"Yet, he [Salzman}appears to blame everything on tribalism and the tribal ethos. No mention of Islam...at least not in the review[by Pipes]."
-- from a posting above

Pipes has been named (he has been one of the namers) as one of the foreign-policy advisers of Giuliani on the matter of Islam. Others mentioned include Norman Podhoretz and Martin Kramer. If those advisers -- or at least Pipes and Kramer -- wish the candidate they are advising to win in Florida and elsewhere (and of course they do, for if he wins, they have future posts, future roles in which they may exercise their influence), then surely they should urge Giuliani to distinguish himself from McCain (and Romney) by stressing that unlike them (especially McCain), he will not countenance another "ten years" (McCain blithely refers to "50 more years") in Iraq, not five years, not two, but will instead remove American troops, not because he does not think that Islam is not a threat, but because he does (this can be stated in a less bald way, making maximum use of the word "Jihad"), and insisting that the United States instead devote the same resources and energies to defeating or checking all of the Instruments of Jihad -- the Money Weapon, campaigns of Da'wa, demographic conquest, and in Iraq, saying that "we have done what we can" and "it is up to the 'Iraqis' to take it from there" (no need to mention the fissures that you silently hope will expand, and cause the very thing that, for the past four years, the American forces have been working to avoid).

Will Giuliani so distinguish himself from McCain on McCain's weakest point -- that support for a continued large-scale presence in Iraq? Will, that is, those advisers who have such a stake in Giuliani being the candidate be unmoved by all that "the surge is winning" talk, see beyond it, see beyond any reliance on "moderate Muslims" and be eager to figure out ways to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam, even if that means a clear break with the Bush Administration policy in Iraq?

One never knows, do one?

Posted by: Hugh at January 22, 2008 11:13 AM

"What I saw...would not be allowed here in Iraq - it would be illegal."

And if Britain ever made it illegal, just listen to this same deputy PM rant and rave about how Britain was disregarding the rights of Muslim citizens of Britain.

Of course it would be illegal in Iraq. Freedom of religion is what that government says it is. It's also illegal for Christians in Iraq to proselytize their faith. So what's his point? That Iraq is an equal opportunity suppressor? So THAT'S what Britons and Americans gave their lives for!

Posted by: PMK at January 22, 2008 11:16 AM

Hugh,
Why can't Giuliani have his cake and eat it, too? Go with "the surge is winning" and say that, because the surge was successful, Iraqis now have the best chance they'll ever have to rebuild their society. Then tell them to get to it while we pack up and leave.

Without the courage to announce in public (forget the Arab pride nonsense) what a future attack on the US will result in, none of it will matter.
If our leaders aren't willing to read these people the Riot Act (figuratively, of course) and aren't prepared to back up those words, then nothing we do at home or abroad will matter.

MAD - Mecca's Assured Destruction

Posted by: PMK at January 22, 2008 11:38 AM

It will be the west's greatest regret, someday.

Posted by: Sounder

Greek Humanism of 6th century bred Liberalism of 1600’s
Liberalism of 1600’s gave America the concept of self-government.
Liberalism reached the submit in 1800’s during Renaissance
The period between 1600’s to 1800’s was called “the age of enlightment.”
At end of 1800’s Liberalism started downward slide.
In the beginning of 1900’s Liberalism began a wave of avalanche.
By mid-1900’s Liberalism cost Portugal, Spain, Holland, France, and England great lost of empire. Portugal lost Brazil, Macau, and etc; Spain lost Phillipines and its American colonies; Holland lost East-Indies, which now called Indonesia, France lost Middle-east and African colonies, England lost India, Malaysia, India, Burma, Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, etc.

Now, 2000’s, we called it the age of stupidity. England, France, Germany, Belgium, Canada dropped their pants, and Holland and America are still holding on to their underwear, though the pants keep dropping.

There was great cheer at Time Square, New York, on January 1, 2008.

World financial market is jittered.

Democrates dropped Iraq from their vocabulary.

US-Mexican border is opened wider. Immigration Office has been keep more busy than pre-911.

Liberalism has never been more popular in the House of Congress.

There’s almost none left. Why regret?

Posted by: ssa at January 22, 2008 11:39 AM

This has not made the MSM in Britain yet but use the link to take a look at the comments in the Blackburn Citizen. Most say Dr Salih is just Bush's poodle and does not know what he is talking about. One claiming to be from the US actually tells him stick himself back up Bush's a***, but this one is interesting,

"It wasn't long ago i watched a documentary about terrorist recruitment and they filmed it from the back of a black cab with an asian driver in the front pointing out all the taliban who were living in blackburn and he'd lived over here for 40 years and couldn't stand it never mind accept it. He had to have his face blacked out in case of reprisals and yet he'd proved his worth by serving the community its an outrage that they always deny any ongoings when most folk know whats going on but daren't touch them"

BTW the Blackburn Citizens circulation is about 80,000 and so very vunerable to pressure. Our thought police dont like this sort of reporting and I wonder if the editor will get to keep his job.

Posted by: Fred at January 22, 2008 11:41 AM

"its an outrage that they always deny any ongoings when most folk know whats going on but daren't touch them"
by Fred

Therein lies the problem. People dare not touch them. It's why our freedom has an expiration date.

Posted by: PMK at January 22, 2008 12:03 PM

Deport the mosque radcials in Britain to prisons in Iraq.

And encourage all of their followers to go there in a sympathy gesture.

It's Islam's schism. Let them sort it out.

We need a One-Way Hajj of Islam out of the West, since it is an anti-Constitutional, anti-Universal Declaration of Human Rights subversive movement trying to establish a theocratic tyranny.

We need them among us like we need termites in out rafters.

Posted by: profitsbeard at January 22, 2008 12:09 PM

Barham Salih is an islamophobe. ;)

Posted by: pr126 at January 22, 2008 12:44 PM

But of course the mosques in Britain, US and Canada are more extreme than in Iraq, Somalia or anywhere else for that matter!
Mainly because muslims who come here are those who are not wanted in their home countries, including but not limited to those who are terrorists, criminals and dissidents for whatever reason. We are getting the hose by allowing muslim immigration and refugees.

Posted by: Charles Martel at January 22, 2008 12:59 PM

Non-Muslim making the same comments as Dr. Salih = Islamophobe

Posted by: yadayada at January 22, 2008 1:00 PM

I have to admit, there is a bit of vagueness in Dr. Salih's comments....I do wish he would describe in detail what he saw in those mosques that made him say the things he said....maybe present the actual literature he said would've been illegal in Iraq.

Posted by: yadayada at January 22, 2008 1:09 PM

stendec

you wrote "the way I read the original quote was that the mosques were busy, busy, busy "breaking down barriers" to the unfettered spread of Islam".

I read it the same way.

Once one begins to grasp the way they use language - e.g. the special Islamic meanings that attach to terms like 'oppression' 'mischief in the land', 'corruption' 'justice' - it becomes child's play to run all Islam-speak through the jihadwatch/ dhimmiwatch Enigma machine.

Now all we need is some journalists who know how to use it too.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 22, 2008 3:18 PM

It doesn't much matter what Mr. Salih says. What matters is what the Clergy, multiculturalist, social engineers, academics and politicians say. If they say there's no problem, there's no problem. If they say Islamophobes are spreading vicious lies about Islam, then Islamophobes are spreading vicious lies about Islam.

They are the real enemies of Britian and Western civilization, not the Jihadists.

Posted by: rational at January 22, 2008 3:22 PM

Beagle:

The Leftists in the U.S. almost had a collective orgasm when the Muslims blew themselves up in London as they saw it as a strike against America. This was especially evident at blogs like DailyKos and several other well known ones such as SteveGilliards.

They thought the British people deserved those attacks.

When I pointed out their collective chortling over the murder of innocents they went batshit crazy.

The Left is just as bad as the Muslims, they may not blow up people themselves but they do aid and abet those that do by creating a environment in which they thrive.

Posted by: waltc at January 22, 2008 3:40 PM

Hugh,

National Security and immigration are the most important issues of the campaign from my vantage point. Giuliani scores well on the first, poorly on the second.

Personally, I'm not thrilled about any of the Republican hopefuls...I lean towards Romney simply because he is sufficiently conservative and at least conveys the appearance of being 'presidential'.

With the exception of Ron Paul, ANY of the Republicans are preferable to Hillary, Barak or that primping panzy of a blood-sucking trial lawyer who insists this war for ciovilization is a merely "law-enforcement matter."

As for Iraq, I'm going to leave the issue alone for awhile; I'm still nursing my wounds from Robert's chastisement last month. Let's just agree to disagree.

Posted by: Cornelius at January 22, 2008 3:42 PM

Britain really needs a ministry of religious affairs like they have in Turkey.
The purpose is to uphold the secular republic by putting constraints on politicised Islam.

What political party will create such a ministry?

It won’t be the Labour Government, to say they are incompetent is an understatement, they are traitors.

And it won’t be the BNP either.

Will the Conservatives please step up to the challenge?

Posted by: Odyessus at January 22, 2008 4:46 PM

wow

http://www.phonyrev.com/

Posted by: Unbridled at January 22, 2008 5:49 PM

"He is talking a load of rubbish."

And your talking a lot of Taqqiyah

Posted by: Silly Allah at January 22, 2008 7:54 PM

"Nobody is working harder than us at breaking down barriers.

Yes exactly. The barriers we infidels have erected against the saracen invaders.

Posted by: interestinconundrum at January 22, 2008 9:08 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7200514.stm

Islam-West rift widens, poll says

Most Muslims hope for better times with the non-Islamic world
Most people in Muslim countries and the West believe divisions between them are worsening, a Gallup poll for the World Economic Forum (WEF) suggests.
The poll also suggested that most Europeans thought more interaction with Islam would be a threat - though most Americans disagreed.

WEF chairman Klaus Schwab said the poll pointed to "an alarmingly low level of optimism" over dialogue.

It surveyed about 1,000 people in each of 21 countries, mostly in mid-2007.

The annual meeting of the World Economic Forum begins in Davos, Switzerland, on Wednesday.

Cartoon controversy

Respondents were asked how they thought relations were now and how they thought they would develop.

Describing the position now, majorities on both sides said they did not believe the two sides were getting along.

This belief was strongest in the US, Israel, Denmark - where the publication of cartoons about the Muslim Prophet Muhammad caused worldwide controversy - and among Palestinians.

WEF experts examining the poll data put this down to the effect of the Iraq war and the Middle East conflict.

By contrast, there was a less gloomy response in Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh and Pakistan.

According to WEF poll, neither the West nor the Muslim world believed the other side respected it.

But while Muslims said they believed their world did respect the West, Western respondents agreed that the West did not respect the Muslim world.

An alarmingly low level of optimism over dialogue

Klaus Schwab,
World Economic Forum

Looking ahead, the poll paints a somewhat gloomy picture.

"In all but two countries surveyed... a majority believed the interaction between Western and Islamic communities is getting worse," said Mr Schwab.

Europeans apparently feared more interaction with Islam - according to the report, they saw it as a threat to their cultural identity.

But people in the US, Canada, Israel and the Muslim world said more contact would be a good thing.

"Although some might expect the United States, Israel and the Middle East to be more likely than Europe to be threatened by the 'other', the opposite is the case," the report said.

But there are some rays of hope among the gloom:

Most respondents said they did not believe violent conflict was inevitable

Most respondents said the quality of the relationship between the West and the Muslim world was important to them personally
The WEF says the report is intended to be the first in a series tracking the state of relations between Islam and the West.

Posted by: Borg at January 22, 2008 10:02 PM

"WEF chairman Klaus Schwab said the poll pointed to 'an alarmingly low level of optimism' over dialogue."
-- from the article above

Why that adverb "alarmingly"? Why is it not heartening that reality is breaking in? Why should WEF chairman Klaus Schwab, the entrepreneur of Davos, instead say of the poll that it shows "a hearteningly sober level of mistrust in the West for 'dialogue' with Islam" or some such?

Why "alarmingly"? Would he prefer that the people of the West, and especially Western Europe, continue to offer pollyannish sentiments forever, when it is getting a little late for such nonsense to continue?

Posted by: Hugh at January 22, 2008 10:10 PM

And yet muslim immigration continues....

Posted by: Borg at January 22, 2008 11:24 PM

Hugh - what you would call "a hearteningly sober level of mistrust" is gathering strength at street level.

At least, that's what I see in the following 'report from the grassroots', namely, from a bluecollar non-Muslim factory floor in Scotland, as posted by one 'jihadtobejoking', right here on this website, as part of the discussion of Karen Armstrong's sugary spin, in April last year.

I re-post it here in full, edited and annotated a little, as a straw in the wind; a clue that a thoroughly healthy mass 'islamophobia', or rather, 'islamosavvy', may be subterraneously brewing among the western masses.

It reads as follows:
"During a tea break last night at work I was rather surprised to hear that there had been a heated debate, which I missed, on another shift. The subject of which just happened to be Muslims and their presence in our country. This of course began yet another debate on my tea break.

"Now this may shock and stun many of you here but the truth is, believe it or not, the views that were expressed during this debate were not formulated on any of the in-depth information or writings found on this site nor on any highbrow literature on the subject of Islam.

"So take note Ms Armstrong you are pissing against the wind as far as the common punter is concerned, they’ve never heard of you. [NOTA BENE] Common we may be but there are many of us out here, growling. (Bordering on seething too I might add).

"Now I have to say that I have heard some really nasty things said about ‘management’ and certain members of staff in the past but what I’m hearing on the subject of Muslims pales by comparison. There was genuine hatred being spewed and nobody could find opposing arguments to what was being said; truth is there were no opposing arguments, it was total agreement.

"Muslims have been put in social pariah status either by design or intention and that’s all there is to it.
?{Observe: ordinary Infidel westerners displaying what James Surowiecki calls 'The Wisdom of Crowds'].

"I’ve seen it stated here on some posts that the Mainstream Media don’t cover or highlight particularly significant incidents, the premise being that it would perhaps be a catalyst for trouble amongst the citizens of our respected ‘Multi-cultural Societies’, well that may be true and you could be correct but this alleged tactic of keeping secrets and dumbing down the population doesn’t seem to be working very well, nor does the leftist apologist approach seem to have much effect either. The troops are getting restless and vicious irrespective of the efforts to keep a lid on things (if that be the case).

"I should explain that those taking part in the discussions at work are ordinary folk who just batter on trying to get from day to day, feed the kids and are more interested in TV soap operas and sport, politics is NEVER a topic of discussion. [I.E. THEY HAVE SKIPPED THE PROPAGANDA – THEY HAVEN’T BEEN TO UNIVERSITY – THIS IS PROVING ELLUL’S POINT ABOUT PROPAGANDA, that it is the intellectual elite who are most vulnerable, in spades].

"But the fact is they have come to despise Muslims. None of them have been on internet searches looking for information on Islam, none had heard of JW/DW so their present position of malice and disgust is being fuelled by what they see and hear in the MSM.?"I heard no mention at all of ‘Moderate Muslims’ or ‘Good Muslims’ not a word, as far as this lot are concerned Muslims are bad and that’s that. No sounds of tolerance whatsoever...

"The workers here don’t seem to be particularly interested in what Mohammed did or said, they show little knowledge of the Koran or the Hadiths; they don’t need to know any of that stuff. They just hate Muslims. Why? [and the poster offers some concrete examples of dots that have been connected, at least by Mr and Mrs Sandy Mac, in Scotland]:

"Recently two terrorists in the UK have escaped the horror of being sent back to Libya, as this would infringe their human rights apparently, good for them! This is one reason to hate Muslims, because they get away with murder……?
"It takes years to get convictions against preachers of hate and we are entertained on TV by seeing these people parading themselves espousing venom and spite, another reason to hate Muslims, they get away with promoting murder….

"We read about police protection for these terrorist sympathisers on their marches in the centre of London as they celebrate murder.

"We read about demands from and submission given to Muslims on subjects ranging from school food to segregated swimming sessions, this list as you know is practically endless...

"I wonder if Hitler and his propaganda machine could have done as good a job on the Jewish population as the Muslims are perpetrating upon themselves at the moment. They just can’t help themselves and it looks as if the Government is giving them plenty of room to play. (or rather: things are backfiring big time)

"It should be noted that this was just one little tea break in an nondescript factory full of people of no great importance, how many other tea breaks up and down the length of this country [BRITAIN] are having similar discussions?..." (And add: in pubs, on sports grounds, in veterans' associations, and cops' watering holes, all over the western world; in Australia, Canada, NZ; add in, the little hints and horror stories people are hearing when they befriend Sudanese Christian refugees, or Hindu and Sikh Indian migrants - more dots to connect).

The poster then expresses a properly PC alarm:
"I find it worrying that in the space of a few years a small segment of our society has been set up in such a way that they could be the subject of serious hatred. Could we be brought to the point where our intolerance for these people results in terrible actions here at home?"

But he then goes on to say something quite different:

"It matters not what I read about Islam or its past. I, like many others, have no great tolerance for long pedantic writings on the minutiae and the intricacy of the Islamic teachings and how they can be twisted...

"What does matter to me and is a major decider on my opinions on this religion [NOTE WELL!!] is the actions of its adherents and followers, in particular the occasions where I hear Muslims born and bred in my country refer to our armed forces as “Your armed forces” and when I hear it said that “You have invaded our lands”, when referring to Iraq and Afghanistan, this coming from some sad Pratt who was born in Middle England and speaks with the conviction of a true Taliban.

"It may go some way to explain why Islamists hold these views to read deeper but at the end of the day it’s their actions that are ultimately going to decide my position.

"I couldn’t care less about understanding ‘why’ someone hates me it’s sufficient that I know that this is the case and to know what I’m prepared to do about it, if it requires me to leave then so be it, or if retreat is not an option I’m looking for a big stick matey!"

"When I see someone like Karen Armstrong taking a stance of defending or explaining Islam and delving in to historical issues I feel that a really good slap on the chops is in order because the simple truth is this NOBODY GIVES A TOSS, it’s irrelevant, it means nothing to the common punter.

"I just don’t see John Doe rushing out to buy into this rubbish [Armstrong, Esposito, et al]. It’s too intense and academic, too wordy, too smartypants. Too many written words to explain what Mohammed said and what he meant by them and what day he said them on and who was standing beside him when he spoke, it’s all bollocks.

"Lets be honest here, they probably make this nonsense up as they go along the merry road of depravity on a daily basis knowing full well that the Infidel isn’t too bothered about checking up on the actual truth in their damned book and even if you take the time to so, as many here have they’ll argue the point with you yada yada yada..

"There are children running about carrying Ak47’s and children being used to behead people, who gives a flying toss over what Mohammed said….. The sucker is dead meat now; it’s the nut jobs that are in place now that have to be attended to. (Note I say ‘attended to’, not ‘listening)’.?
"John Doe and his wife Mrs Doe just find it difficult to erase the multitude of images that they’ve been bombarded with over the years, beheadings, hangings, bodies mutilated in the streets, children marching in Palestine armed with AK47’s, pictures of children with bomb belts strapped on their bodies.

"These images do not frighten or intimidate me as perhaps they are intended to, they disgust me and that being said I have to state that it is totally pointless producing literature that tries to cover or explain away the actions of what is at the end of the day as a particularly sad ideology of intolerance and craven barbarity. To say that “300 trillion flies eat shit, who’s to say they’re wrong?” is perhaps a suitable analogy. It’s perfectly ok for the flies but I’ll pass on that thank you.?
"Their culture and mindset is alien to me I have no need to ‘understand’ it, I have no need nor desire to spend endless hours checking up on obscure verses in their damned book to find a way to argue why they are wrong in their assertions or accommodate any further this insidious cult, in fact it would be safe to say that on these points Islam and I are in agreement.

"The Islamists don’t want western interference ‘over there’ and I don’t want them or their Islamic interference ‘over here’ on my street, so now that we are in agreement on that it’s just a simple matter of arranging the removal vans and the QE2 for a long voyage ‘home’.

"One has to wonder though and I’m being serious here, how would a ‘repatriated’ Muslim born and bred in Bradford or Birmingham be welcomed by his Muslim brothers in the likes of Somalia or Sudan? “Hey Brother, I’m home!”...

"Please have a look at this version of The Religion of Peace, sums it all up really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYdcAnHoew
I apologise in advance for this rather long diatribe but sometimes it’s good to rant, perhaps someone just might agree with me on some of this.
? I should state now that I have great respect for the attention to detail shown by the posters on this site and their dedication to the exposition of the sham of Islam.
Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at April 28, 2007 5:37 PM

And he added:
"It will perhaps come as a surprise to you that I'm referring to discussions that took place in Scotland, not England! I am Scottish.?"I have great sympathy for the situation in England as they, at the moment are for want of a better word, 'infested' with Islamists.
"What the hell they are doing up here in the cold, cold north beats me but I should warn any potential Islamic invaders that there is nothing more vicious and depraved than having a live Haggis rammed up your burka in mating season. You have been warned".
Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at April 28, 2007 6:43 PM

Says it all, really.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at January 23, 2008 12:08 AM

dumbledoresarmy

Thank you for re posting that brilliant summary from Scotland but sadly I have to point out how different things are in the factories in England.

A relative works in a major factory in an area where there are “some” Asians. About 3 years ago during a lunchtime discussion a new man who was moving into the town mentioned he was looking for a home in the XXXX area. One of the locals said, “You don't want to buy a house there mate there’s a lot of trouble (Fighting?) between the Blacks and the Paki’s down there".

An Asian worker overheard him say “Paki” and reported him for making a racist remark. His plea that he had simply said “Paki” without attaching any abusive terms whatever was not allowed in mitigation of the “offence”. In accordance with the company's zero-tolerance policy on racism he was fired from quite a well paid blue-collar job which he would probably not get anywhere else in the area never mind the town.

Things are different in England.

Posted by: Fred at January 23, 2008 5:52 AM

The story's made the MSM now front page of todays Daily Express

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/32400/British-Muslims-are-too-extreme-

Posted by: TrueBrit at January 23, 2008 4:32 PM

“Britain you are screwed.”

Feck off colonist, the day Britain falls to the jihadists is the day your nation faces a world full of them. We will sink or swim together.

But if we are talking about sexual positions then I think you lot are looking at a good Baraking or a shifty cigar. Either way you look screwed from this stand point.

Posted by: The Other Mert at January 23, 2008 6:14 PM

“Britain you are screwed.”

Feck off colonist, the day Britain falls to the jihadists is the day your nation faces a world full of them. We will sink or swim together.

But if we are talking about sexual positions then I think you lot are looking at a good Baraking or a shifty cigar. Either way you look screwed from this stand point.

Posted by: The Other Mert at January 23, 2008 6:16 PM

Robert can I ask when you last came to Lancashire?

Posted by: The Other Mert at January 23, 2008 6:19 PM

How about you Hugh? Been through Bolton recently, how about Chorley?

I'm not denying a problem, just you need to be here to know the feeling on the street.

Posted by: The Other Mert at January 23, 2008 6:24 PM