Yet another infantile moron who chooses to live in the West but never stops complaining about the evils of human rights, democracy and modern standards of living.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at June 28, 2006 9:46 AM

I have said it before and I will say it again.

I am pleased that such hateful no-marks have the opportunity of free speech in the UK.

I do not want his words or music banned or supressed giving, them some underground cred.

I would like the records played on national radio, reviewed and discussed on prime-time television and the bitter little toe-rag cross-examined live, so the population can be given some understanding of where such arrogant hatred comes from.

Come on.....lets be having it Jeremy Paxman. Do your stuff!

Posted by: Turbinehead at June 28, 2006 10:07 AM

So he compares Bin Laden to Che Guevara? How appropriate to compare scum to scum. Here's hoping Osama meets the same fate as Che. MUERTO!

Posted by: Proud Infidel at June 28, 2006 10:07 AM

Well, this is a question of freedom of speech. And by voicing these opinions he may help in opening the eyes of others to exactly what is going on in Muslim 'youth' culture in this country. The 7/7 bombers swam in a sea of at least tacit approval. From my memories of his earlier work, it was always deliberately provocative and rooted in identity politics in the manner of Public Enemy.

Of course, any attempt at a response in kind - say a well funded documentary on the life of Mohamed would receive far more criticism than this will, along with the threat of violence.

Posted by: QueeQueeg at June 28, 2006 10:25 AM

Jeremy Paxman is a time server. A mere performer.He plays the game of and perpetuates the illusion of challenging and confronting but never really delivers a single punch to dissemblers.He's there to reassure and mollycoddle the viewer into thinking that the BBC can contest---but it's all cosmetic. Nothing shifts. He's just a presenter. He's a dhimmi.

Posted by: johndoe at June 28, 2006 10:30 AM

D - d - d - duh - duh - deport the Muslims

Duh - duh - duh - deport the Muslims

It's the least we can do. Plus, you can dance to it. Any Islamic Enlightenment must come from concentrating them together without any western support.

My next song: Sympathy for the Parasites

Posted by: Beagle at June 28, 2006 10:50 AM

Du'a dhimmi, dhimmi dumb, dhimmi do.

Posted by: Shinoliite at June 28, 2006 10:56 AM

I can't quite work out what the tie in is with Nation records and Beggars Banquet as Nation records are not part of the Beggars Group mentioned on their home page. The label started 25 years ago with a mainly punk reportoire. I think G-had must be a bit of a shock to the system for them. Fields of the Nephilim he ain't.
But I agree with Turbinehead, this is an ideal opportunity for some consciousness raising (as we said in the 70s) about Islam, although I nominate Tony Parsons to do it, he being more knowledgeable about both music and Islam than J Paxman.
Here is the latest on a current consciousness raising project.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 10:58 AM

I nominate Tony Parsons to do it, he being more knowledgeable about both music and Islam than J Paxman.

Or his ex, Julie Burchill, who certainly tells it like it is about Islam.

Du'a dhimmi, dhimmi dumb, dhimmi do.

Dhimmi dhimmi dhimmi a man after midnight.

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 11:07 AM

Just been doing a little googling in a field of music unfamiliar to me.
Aki Nawaz set up Nation Records himself. One of the few acts I recognise is the earliest work of the Asian Dub Foundation, who if I recall correctly are a mixed band with a few Hindu musicians. They have gone to to bemuch more sucessful since they left Nation. I wonder why they split? We need an expert in the field, I would value Vikrant_kamberleykar's opinion on this.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 11:18 AM

Boycott the record. Boycott any store that sells the record. Boycott any station, or any advertiser on a station, that plays the record. And make known that boycott in advance. And while you are at it, start changing your ways. A taste for curry? Make sure you buy the ingredients, including the chutney, from Hindu-owned companies. Indian restaurants and take-aways? Ditto. And take it from there.

Posted by: Hugh at June 28, 2006 11:24 AM

I would value Vikrant_kamberleykar's opinion on this.

So would I. Sadly he no longer visits this site, and has stated on Pickled Politics that this is because of the BNP apologists/supporters who comment here.

A loss, I think. Hindus have a lot to tell us about Islam.

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 11:28 AM

Du'a dhimmi, dhimmi dumb, dhimmi do.

Posted by: Shinoliite

LOL :-) Manfred Mann

Posted by: Celsius at June 28, 2006 11:50 AM

Ah well Hugh, that counts out most of my favourite Tandoori restaurants. Does this mean bye bye to Chicken Tikka Masala? Still, there's always South Indian food, which is great and guaranteed to be Hindu

Posted by: johndoe at June 28, 2006 12:26 PM

Maybe the Brits will include the song in Anglican Church services. Proposed intro:

"Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Infinite Acceptance.

"Let us make room for those who intend our humiliation.

"Let us ignore our heritage and accept subordination.

"Let us hasten the day of Muslim elevation."

Was Churchill the last gasp for these people?

Posted by: StillBreathing at June 28, 2006 12:27 PM

"G-had and suicide bombers: the rapper who likens Bin Laden to Che Guevara,"

Actually, Bin Laden and Guevara are a lot alike. Both were a rich boys who got their heads stuffed full of notions of revolution for a bad cause; and both ended up as bloodthirsty goons. Hopefully, some of the people Bin Laden thinks he's "liberating" will call the local gendarmerie when they know where he is and watch him get shot to rags--or, better yet, to get taken alive, handed over to the USofA, tried, and sentenced to death. He'd look good in an orange jump suit and lying on a gurney.

Posted by: Kepha at June 28, 2006 12:39 PM

Boycott the record. Boycott any store that sells the record. Boycott any station, or any advertiser on a station, that plays the record.

Quite easy actually considering the state of British Music broadcasting. Leaving aside the jihad lyrics a rap record might just get on to the very small playlist for BBC Radio 1 which caters these days only for teenagers of limited taste.
It would be played on the specialist stations, rap, hip hop, clip clop, houseie houseie or whatever the kids call it,(I have turned into my Mum, this only took 30 years to achieve) which only specialist enthusiasts listen to. The mainstream commercial stations would not touch it with a 10 ft pole, even without the controversial words.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 12:52 PM

The bin Laden / Che Guevara connection in this rapper's mind (not to mention the mind of Castro himself from what he has said and done in the past few years) is yet another indication of the still incipient and inchoate nebula wherein elements of ultra-Leftism, Communism, Leftist Trotskyitism & anarchism mingle with elements of ultra-Right Trotskyitism, white supremacy & neo-Nazism, and some or all of the aforementioned mingle with Islamic jihadism. To the extent this still amorphous and uncrystallized nebula should catalyze, it would follow the logic analyzed by Alexandre Del Valle in his essay on the "Axis of Red/Brown/Green" (Red = ultra-Left; Brown = ultra-Right; Green = Islam).

Posted by: Television at June 28, 2006 1:07 PM

This crapper G-Had says it's about his freedom of expression. 'Ya think he respects the freedom of expression of those who drew the infamous Mohammed cartoons in Denmark? Will we see large demonstrations from the dhimmi British against his freedom of expression like we saw against those Danish cartooninsts?

The hipocrisy of Muslims and dhimmis knows no bounds.

Posted by: Proud Infidel at June 28, 2006 1:34 PM

I'm sad to see from Granny Weatherwax's above link that the Islam Expo at Alexandra Palace in London is timed to coincide with the anniversary of the 7/7 bombings.
Truly appalling and downright provocative. How do they get away with this? Why was this allowed?

Posted by: johndoe at June 28, 2006 2:31 PM

I'm sad that Vikrant is gone. For a while, he was a lone voice of Hindus here. However, despite disagreements about the BNP, it's no reason to leave this site - I've never seen anything that suggests that R,H&R support them. One is always free to either disagree with pro-BNP posters, or ignore them altogether. And like I've said before, despite their thin coverage of India, J/W and D/W do a better job covering Jihadi and Dhimmitude activities in India than do most of the mainstream Indian media.

Interested

I have counted a handful of Hindu posters here, although Vikrant was probably the only Brit-based Hindu posting here. There's Arjun, tjwork, Razdan, thehindu and a few others, including myself. Other than what you know from your Hindu neighbors, feel free to ask us what you want to know about Islam vis a vis us.

As for the music, where's our favorite rap star, Sheikh Yermani? I never found the lyrics to the 30-minute marathon "Global anti-Jihad".

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 28, 2006 2:37 PM

Unfortunately, I think things have progressed to the point that if given wide play in England this crap will be praised by all the "smart" people.

Deport this scumbag to someplace deep in the umma, say, the Sudan or Saudi Arabia, so that he can absorb even more of them Islamic vibes. Best place to drop him is preferably far out in the desert so he can do that "Dune" thing.

Posted by: GaryK at June 28, 2006 3:31 PM

I'm sad that Vikrant is gone. For a while, he was a lone voice of Hindus here. However, despite disagreements about the BNP, it's no reason to leave this site - I've never seen anything that suggests that R,H&R support them.

No, and all three have said on different occasions that they do not support them. An unequivocal ex cathedra condemnation of this white supremacist party would have been helpful, however, and this was not forthcoming.

Vikrant was understandably exasperated by the boundless ignorance of some of the American advocates of the BNP, who know nothing of its history, or its agenda beyond the sanitised version on its website, which was believed rather too eagerly.

Hindus, but also apostates from Islam, who are nearly all non-whites, are almost certainly alienated by any advocacy of the BNP. Of course comments here are unmoderated, but it is the responsibility of commenters to think about the effect of their words on such key groups as apostates from Islam.

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 3:44 PM

It's good to hear people soundoff who have lived under the muslim boot. I like to hear from the posters in India. They have a long history of dealing with them.

There was an egyptian, possibly Copt, who posted here a while ago. I'll bet there's some interesting stories there.

Posted by: squire at June 28, 2006 4:05 PM

Rappers in France are as bad:

"Currently, a Zaire-born black rapper, called Monsieur R, aka Richard Makela, is being sued for obscenity for depicting, in a video, naked women writhing on a French flag. The lyrics of one of his CD tracks, from a 2005 collection called Politikment Incorrekt run: "France is a bitch, don't forget to fuck her - to the point of exhaustion. Like a slut, she should be insulted." The case, carried out in the southern Paris suburb of Melun, is the 12th incident of French rap music being tried in the courts for insulting French identity."
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/002240.html

Vikrant: please come back!

Posted by: Silvester at June 28, 2006 4:17 PM

Vikrant: please come back!

Maybe he has other things he wants to do right now. There are several other Hindu posters here, anyway, and they'll doubtless help with anything they have specialist knowledge about.

Posted by: Yojimbo at June 28, 2006 4:30 PM

The Islam Expo has been "allowed" because Ken Livingstone the Mayor of London supports the project, believing that it will "build bridges"
Advertising for it is very low key at the moment, a few listings on some event, university and Islamic websites, a photo of a taxi on same. Nothing on the tube, nor on the events pages of the better papers. Flyers from the blog are makingtheir way around London and hopefully will have an effect.
From little acorns do mighty oak trees grow.

Silvester - the exam season has only just ended.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 4:43 PM

I wonder if there will be large posters advertising the "Islam Expo" placed at major London Transport Underground and bus terminals?

Posted by: MP at June 28, 2006 4:59 PM

Maybe he has other things he wants to do right now

No, that is not the reason - the BNP supporters should not escape so lightly. Vikrant has explicitly stated, in no uncertain terms, that he will not visit this site because of them:

i’m no longer associated with JihadWatch those imbelic BNP supporting rednecks...Most posters there are down right racists. JW these days sounds more like LGF and FR…

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 5:07 PM

I doubt it now. It opens in a week and will run for 4 days. Most of the posters up on the underground now are advertising events for August.
What I do expect are some reviews, especially in the Guardian, and some fluffy news items on the regional magazine programmes.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 28, 2006 5:07 PM

Hindus, but also apostates from Islam, who are nearly all non-whites, are almost certainly alienated by any advocacy of the BNP. Of course comments here are unmoderated, but it is the responsibility of commenters to think about the effect of their words on such key groups as apostates from Islam. Posted by: Interested

Why is it a responsibility of the commentators to post gingerly so that group X or group Y doesn't get offended? Using that logic, people who are turned off by Sal, John Howard or even Naseem could move on. Or so could people who don't like Kafir Nonbeliever's advocacy of gay rights. Or those devout athiests who get turned off by copious quotations from Biblical passages.

As for the BNP, I recall Vikrant once saying that the VHP (Vishwa Hindu Parishad, or World Hindu Conference) had officially endorsed the BNP in UK. Anybody knows the background behind that? I know that Labour is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Jihad, but has there been a lot of things the Tories did to turn off Hindu support? Or was it simply John Major's snub to LK Advani in 1992 after the Babur mosque got demolished by VHP supporters?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 28, 2006 5:13 PM

QED

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 5:38 PM

Hi folks.

I'm a Hindu poster currently based in Buffalo. I don't post much as I'm too lazy and usually things I'd like to say are said by other posters anyway. Just announcing my presence. As regards Vikrant, he had interesting things to say but I agree with Infidel Pride. I loathe the evangelical-types here who heap scorn on Hindus for opposing dubious missionary activity and indulge in taqiyya and jihad-type disinformation perhaps unknowingly (case in point: Informed Christian). But those are few. Naseem provides comical entertainment.

Thats it for now.
Ciao

Posted by: Tushar Saxena at June 28, 2006 5:42 PM

Tushar - good to hear from you. You live in the USA, not in the UK. Are you aware that, if you did live in the UK, the BNP would support your "voluntary repatriation" on the grounds of your skin colour?

Posted by: Interested at June 28, 2006 5:47 PM

Personally, I enjoy hearing from all sides on a forum like this. I'm not very religious, but welcome hearing from folks with other viewpoints. One of the great advantages of the internet is the (current) ability to debate with others, or ,like Tushar Saxena, sit back and check things out. Actually, I find posters who disagree with my own point of view to be extremely engaging. It's always good to have your beliefs challenged. Occasionally, I'll (gasp) even change my mind.

Posted by: MP at June 28, 2006 5:51 PM

As someone said above, a comparison to Che Guevara is not that out of place. Its amusing that we are expected to see such a comparison as positive.
My take on this.

Posted by: Popovich at June 28, 2006 6:38 PM

Good point. I wonder whether Commies will be flattered by the Che Guevara comparison.

Or for that matter, Mohammedans.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 28, 2006 6:40 PM

Personally, I prefer the G-spot.

If this Islamic Imperialist pismire despises the West so well, the Brits should repatriate him to the infidel-free, Sharia utopia of Mecca, and let him sing the fulsome praises of clothing laws and the religious police.

To whit, (my reply to his drivel):

"MEKKA FUKKA"

"O', da shortz dat I wuz wearin', yeah, got me smacked upside da haid
By the ministry of holy stuff's policemen who den said:
'Yooz a noisy little cretin, and we do not like your rappin',
So puts socks inside your yap, dear chap, or you'll end up just crappin'
In those self-same pants of infidels that we do not allow'.

Hell, I thought I would find paradise, instead, I laid a cow."

Don't argue with this daft doofus in the U.K. media and accidentally promote his nihilistic puke to the naive knee-jerk 'rebellious' "yoot" of England, -but just fly him to where he wants to be-

Rotating around a smooch-smudged meteorite with women dressed like hefty bags.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 28, 2006 6:59 PM

"Me, I miss dem slutty womens! Me I miss dat Burger King!
Me, I want dat big tv screen, indoor plumbing,Everything!

Posted by: MP at June 28, 2006 7:13 PM

Robert> this kind of "music" should not be legal
Robert> in Britain: we are in a war

Because, of course, if British citizens cede whatever remaining rights to freedom of expression they may still enjoy to their government, it will all get better. (But like they have much of a choice anyway.)

Come on, Robert; you're smart to realize by now that Western governments are enablers in the spread of Islamofascism, not inhibitors.

Posted by: Mike Schneider at June 28, 2006 8:46 PM

YEAH INFIDEL PRIDE I AM GAY

Big deal. Such a shock, is it? I don't care who likes it and who does not. It's who I am. Why is it that it bothers you so much? Gays are human beings too.

RE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES

As for the comment about Christian missionaries in India, you Hindus need to realize that Christians consider you heathens. However, they are not violent like Moslems. But that doesn’t change the fact that they would like you to change your religion to theirs. I don't care what your religion is so long as it doesn't adversely affect me or society, like Islam.

RE G-Had

This is certainly pushing the limits of free speech. I gave this a lot of thought today, and I have to say I believe it is best to allow it to be sold with one proviso. The media needs to jump on the opportunity to point out what the Sharia is in detail, including the provisions relating to music. The Telegraph did that to a certain extent, but much more needs to be done.

In addition, I wholeheartedly agree with Hugh about boycotting companies that sell this product.

MORRISEY

By the way, I was reading Slate magazine the other day (one of the ones I frequently read). I came across an article about Morrissey. See: http://www.slatetv.net/id/2140918/?nav=navoa
Apparently Morrissey, an artist I had long admired for his years in the Smiths, wrote a song glorifying a disturbed Pakistani young man. I have not actually heard it, but if true, I would be very dismayed.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 28, 2006 9:26 PM

The BNP is the only political party in the world today that would address islam in the way it needs to be addressed. For that, they get my full support even though I don't live in Britain. If some non-white wants to run away from that, crying racism, then they might as well jump in with Galloway, the ACLU, and the rest of the Left who make the exact same hue and cry. Race, or someone's aversion to YOUR race is not the paramount consideration here. Stopping islam is the paramount consideration. Being accepted and liked for who you are, is nice, but not necessary, and is indeed, undesirable, if it gets in the way of combating islam.

The BNP, or some other fascist-type party is exactly what is needed. Fight fascism with fascism, fire with fire, terrorism with terror. That is my approach. And that is the only approach that the islamic world fears. That is the only approach the would work with them. Step on them, crush their organizations, burn the mosques, terrorize their jihadists, and they will flee faster than a bullet flees the barrel of a gun.

It would be nice if there was a Churchill in this fight, or a Patton, or at the least, a Goldwater. But there isn't. Your choice is Tony Blair or the BNP. Choose your weapons, people. Tony Blair isn't much of a weapon.

Now the liberals argue that it does no good to replace one evil with another evil. Sophistry. One evil wants to convert your religion, put a burka on your wife, rape your daughter, destroy your art and history, burn your libraries, and kill your dog. The other "evil" wants to do none of that but makes the trains run on time, and close the immigration borders to people it doesn't like. I know which "evil" I choose. And if anyone here can't stomach that terrible "evil", even if it means getting rid of islam, then I say your liberal ideology is more important to you than the fight against the greatest threat the world has ever faced. That is a principled position, but it is also the principles espoused by the Left. Choose the side you want to be on. I chose my side a long time ago.

I think there are some on this board, who may come here because they are feminsist, or they are gay, or they are Hindu, and as such, islam offends them, but ultimately, they are instrinsically liberals at heart, and as such, the right-wing also offends them and therefore can never support the right-wing draconian measures required to defeat the menace of islam. That's too bad, because everyday islam creeps a littler closer and one day soon those people will have wished they had chosen the lesser of the two evils.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 28, 2006 11:09 PM

"I think there are some on this board, who may come here because they are feminsist, or they are gay, or they are Hindu, and as such, islam offends them, but ultimately, they are instrinsically liberals at heart, and as such, the right-wing also offends them and therefore can never support the right-wing draconian measures required to defeat the menace of islam."

-Above

Do you really think that's the reason those sorts of people come here - Islam offends us? Come on now. There is more than simple offense here. Does our presence here bother you? If so, why? Fascism is hardly the solution. It is as simplistic an answer as Islam is to its followers.

BTW, the Torries did not have anything to offer in the last election. I watched the UK election coverage for months while I was overseas. There was Howard, whose father came to the UK as an illegal immigrant from Romania, now calling for an end to immigration. Credibility zero. In addition, the Torries backed Labor on Iraq. You call the BNP an option, but it is a racist organization. Racism is a cancerous scourge. Racism would adversely affect innocent Britons, not the Islamists. Wake up.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 28, 2006 11:25 PM

The BNP are Brownshirts Lite, trying to re-tool and make their craziness look less looney by concentrating on one aspect of their rancour- Muslims.

Using them to fight Islam is like hiring a child molestor to evict a pimp.

You don't end up with anything better once you have 'won'.

The real allies we need are ALL those who love life, relish creativity, stand for broad-mindedness, TRUE tolerance and REAL freedom of conscience, intellectual liberty and an open future.

Not merely the illusory advantages of the timely trains of the fascists or the broad autobahn avenues of the stormtroopers.

Posted by: profitsbeard at June 29, 2006 12:42 AM

Somethingaboutislam

I'm a feminist and have many gay friends. I'm not passive or blind on this issue. You may recall that I recently actively supported your site against Google's apparent censorship.

I also believe that SOME strict measures against islamism are necessary and am supporting such steps in New Zealand. However, you won't find me supporting racist anti-gay parties, and I don't think that will be necessary. Even the BNP now realises that they need to become more mainstream and their policies are edging away from open racism. Their website keeps proudly mentioning their Jewish member! Yes, I check out their site quite often, because the developments there are pretty interesting.

Don't lose hope of the whole 'liberal' population - we are waking up. Keep the information coming and give Nawaz and similar idiots enough rope to hang themselves with. Let them use free speech to condemn themselves, except for actual statements encouraging violence. Let's not underestimate young people: I don't think any modern girl would be keen on lyrics that condemn mini-skits (with the whole sick concept that western women dress 'immorally'), nor will any non-muslim enjoy being called a dog and parasite. Yes, the lyrics might whip muslim youth into a frenzy - and if they start acting on it a backlash could result.

Let's start thinking about ways some strict measures could be made palatable to people who want to protect human rights. After all, some human rights organisations are providing very honest information about FGM and other abuses.

If even the Netherlands can start scrutinising and 'informing' immigrants, other countries can surely start similar measures without much outcry. Have you tried to contact gay groups to inform them of islam's threat to gays? I'd be interested in their response.

Posted by: Lili at June 29, 2006 12:44 AM

The BNP are Brownshirts Lite, trying to re-tool and make their craziness look less looney by concentrating on one aspect of their rancour- Muslims.

sing them to fight Islam is like hiring a child molestor to evict a pimp.

You don't end up with anything better once you have 'won'.

This is just rhetoric, the kind the left uses to disparage those that will fight the good fight. The same rhetoric that we usually mock here. Of course, indeed, you will have something better after you have won. You will have a society free of the tyranny of sharia law and the backward culture it brings.

To equate that with the right-wing is hyperbole of the worst kind. That is like Nick Berg's father equating George Bush to Zarqawi. Moral relativism is the enemy of the west, and when I read it here, it proves that I am right on the money about there being people here who are care more about "enlightened liberalism" than ridding the world of islam. Those people need to take sides. There is no middle ground as some of you believe. If you are not willing to squash islam under a jackboot, because you don't like jackboots, then you might as well drop out of the fight now because that is what it comes down to. I will squash them under my jackboot, if you give me one, and you can thank me later. The feminists, the gays, the Hindus, all those that wish to remain morally above the dictates of the situation. Thank me later.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 1:17 AM

"I would value Vikrant_kamberleykar's opinion on this"

"So would I. Sadly he no longer visits this site, and has stated on Pickled Politics that this is because of the BNP apologists/supporters who comment here. "
Quote:
"i’m no longer associated with JihadWatch those imbelic BNP supporting rednecks...Most posters there are down right racists. JW these days sounds more like LGF and FR…"

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That is a pathetic reason if I ever heard one.

I am no BNP supporter but if they ever decide that only Islam IS the enemy and act accordingly I do doubt that we are so far ahead in this war that we can reject them as allies.

With due respect to each individual having his own agenda I am sure that I can disagree with the stance of probably 90% here if we go into the detail but that is NOT why we are here . We are here to be united versus islam and to discuss our concerns.

Erudite or not his decision to leave is akin to a childish "spitting the dummy" tantrum and it is obvious to myself that Islam is regarded by him as a lesser threat than the BNP, which is total rubbish.

By this standard the UK should have declared war on the USSR when it invaded poland as well as Germany which would have been military suicide.

I considered leaving this site also for what was, upon reflection, just as childish a reason and in my opinion Vikrant should grow up and realise that not everyone has to agree with you, here or elsewhere and that YOU CANNOT ALWAYS CHOSE YOUR ALLIES in what is ultimately a war of extermination as if the west falls India will be back on the agenda.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 1:45 AM

When I said I would value Vikrant's opinion I was thinking that he would be more familiar with the "music" (I am a classic rock/folkie dinosaur - I know nothing of rap) and the ramifications of the record labels, likelihood of the label folding due to withdrawal of sponsorship, how genuinely popular Aki Nawaz is etc.

And in his absence I am not going to talk about him behind his back.

But consider this. Lets turn the BNP round for a moment. I have lived all my life in areas where the BNP are active, before them the National Front (who raised their heads again recently), the British Nazi Party under Colin Jordan. I have seen and heard them all, on the street corners of Brick Lane, Walthamstow High Street, the pubs opposite the football grounds. In the 30s the racism was directed against the Jew and my parents had stories to tell of Mosley and his Blackshirts. My father was in the demonstration against them that became known as the Battle of Cable Street in 1936. During the 50s they turned on the most prominent wave of immigrants which were the black West Indians. During the 60s we had a wave of Asians from East Africa, thanks to Idi Amin. Those Asians were quiet hard working people, while some West Indians were perceived as having a role in the rising crime wave.

Now imagine if the BNP, when they decided in the 90s, after the NF fell into disarray, that the way to reinvent themselves for the new millenium was to ally with Islam against the Black Africans and West Indians. The prejudice is there in the Koran. We have all seen the references here, and know of what is happening in the Sudan. It could have gone that way, quite easily.
I heard it said often "I can handle Pakis, they keep quiet and run their handy shops, but its them b**** n** n**s causing all the trouble"
At the moment they are anti Islam and so sanitised they have a Jewish councillor (in Epping, just on the Essex border to east London) and 2 or 3 Sikh members in the Midlands.
But if, make that when, it suits them they would, will, turn.

Which is why we have to get the information about what Islam really means out to the general public ourselves. I continue to invite any UK readers to visit this site and copy and paste the text of the flyer they see there, dated Monday 19 June, into a handbill for distribution wherever they think would be useful. You don't have to stand on a street corner handing them out. Pop one on your seat on train or bus as you sit down. Leave it noncholently behind as you get off. Slip one into the courtesy newspaper in the cafe. Leave a dozen in the leaflet stand in the libary.
I think the author has plans to adapt the flyer for general use once Islam Expo(sed) is over. The comments are interesting and hopefully will develop further.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 4:11 AM

Granny, when the Bulgarians and the Italians turned against their former ally Germany the USSR and the allies were quite happy to accept them.

So, while the BNP are antiIslam I see no need to condemn them nor to like them although their credentials are a little slimey. However you do not have to go and kiss their babies,nor shake hands with them and if they turn pro-islam then they will become the enemy once again.

I just think that we are in no position to bicker over why someone is on our side. This is an old argument here and one which drove not a few agnostics and atheists away from this site because of the evangelical needs of some posters.

I see no difference between his attitutude and theirs and if he did not wish to be discussed here he should never have posted here, nor said what he said, which is quite OTT and a total exaggeration IMO.

The air around high moral ground is very rarified and everyone who thinks that he should be on its pinnacle is often alone, without allies or friends.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 4:50 AM

For that, they get my full support even though I don't live in Britain.

You don't live in Britain and know nothing at all about the BNP, their real agenda or their history. But as with the other American BNP supporters, your ignorance does not stop you pontificating about them.

If you don't know about something, you should keep quiet and learn from somebody who does. Granny W in particular has a great deal of first hand of experience of these fascists, and should be listened to. I would not dream of talking through my - er - hat about some American political party that I knew nothing about.

Still, carry on, why don't you? Alienate yet more Hindus, Sikhs, black Christians, Jews and ex Muslims, particularly over here, where they know about the BNP.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 5:12 AM

Morrissey, an artist I had long admired for his years in the Smiths, wrote a song glorifying a disturbed Pakistani young man. I have not actually heard it, but if true, I would be very dismayed.

More to the point, Morrissey and the Smiths were crap.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 5:24 AM

That's right interested, you make a great argument there. The old argument of 'why don't you shut up and listen to me'. I don't need to live in Britain to understand the concept of the lesser of the two evils. If you want to pontificate that the right wing in Britain is a bigger threat than islam, you are out to lunch as much as Michael Moore. Or should I say that you don't know anything about Michael Moore because you don't live in America?

Obviously, you have an issue with the BNP that seems to far exceed the issue that everyone here has with islam. That is your problem with which I can not sympathize nor respect because it lacks logic and it motivated by a personal hatred of the right.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 6:06 AM

At least you realise that the BNP are evil.
We are trying to do what the BNP has been doing, to raise consciousness among the British public of the evil of Islam, without resorting to the evil of colour prejudiced racism that is the BNP.

I'm not arguing any more, I have people who still think Islam is a religion of peace hijacked by extremists to talk to.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 6:25 AM

Being fussy about allies means that one is not serious about winning and this is a variant the same old ethical discussion(the high moral ground) that we have had before.

The whole point of the war vs Islam is to win after that you can go back to hating your former ally , be he protestant, catholic, Sikh, Jew, Hindu, atheist or agnostic. I repeat that Vikrant might be intelligent but he is being very myopic with his stance and it is attitudes like this which WILL destroy us.

Beat the COMMON enemy then hate each other.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 6:40 AM

The fact that you refer to the BNP as "the right wing", as if they were Tory ladies, shows, if further proof were needed, that you know nothing at all about them.

If you know nothing about something, then it is wise to keep quiet and learn from those who do.

As with all American BNP supporters, ignorance is compounded with arrogance. It would not occur to me to tell you to vote for any American political party, as I realise the limits of my knowledge of the American political system, and it is none of my business. Go figure, as you say over there.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 6:55 AM

I don't have a problem with the BNP, or any party that wants to shut the immigration doors or any other "racist" policies. I'm all in favor of that. Those are my politics by nature any way. In addition, it will also put the boot to the islamic menace. I wish we had a political party like that in my country. But we don't. In canada, we have left, far left, and center. And the center party, wouldn't dare have a single bad word to say about Islam. I would give my right arm for a political party to say, "islam is crap, muslims are a menace, third world immigration is a disaster, kick them all out, and close the borders for good." Any party that has that as a platform gets my support. When such a party also wants to behead me for being a Christian, or cut my daughter's clitoris off, or kill my dog, or enslave women in a burka, then I will reject that party as surely as I reject islam.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 7:31 AM

I don't have a problem with the BNP, or any party that wants to shut the immigration doors or any other "racist" policies.

Again, you show that you don't know anything about the BNP. Stopping immigration is one thing - UKIP wants this too. But the BNP supports repatriation of non-whites. Yvonne Ridley, a Muslim, would have nothing to worry about. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Ali Sina, Ibn Warraq, black Christians, Hindus, Sikhs, Jews and so forth would be out on their ear. In a city like London, this would mean ethnically cleansing a huge proportion of the non-Muslim population.

But you're fine with that?

Seriously, do a little research and think before you post.

I was not aware of the information about Canada that you have just given. But note that I did not hold myself out as being in the know.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 7:55 AM

To be fair, to my knowledge, the new current BNP leadership have not, or not recently, endorsed this sort of thing. But on the strength of his face alone the BNP would have this man, Dr John Sentamu, the Archbishop of York who has said some very sensible things about we English, the meaning of Englishness, and our history, on the next boat out.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 8:09 AM

The BNP may want to crack down on non-whites, because that seems to be where the social problems these days come from. Immigration from non-white countries is always problematic. There is no divorcing the issue of race and the issue of social problems like islam represents. Even in the United States, the mexicans have refused to assimilate and have shown strong marxist, anti-american, even pro-islamic tendencies. The demonstrations in the US recently illustrated this. This is not just an issue of islam, it is an issue of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism started this whole thing in the first place.

I have long ago given up any pretenses to political correctness in this matter. Race is a factor for the west. Naturally if I was a Hindu, I wouldn't want to support the BNP. But therein lies the problem. They put their racial solidarity ahead of the menace of islam to Britain. If Britain has to kick them ALL out, to be fair to ALL, then the Hindus should go as well, for the greater good. I have no problem with that. Then again, I am not Hindu. Do I understand the BNP correctly, now?

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 8:46 AM

Interested I think the point is that the BNP for all of their Past History are not a real threat to the stability nor the survival of the west.
Islam is such a serious threat.

So it makes no real difference whether they are for or againsrt islam. However, seeing as they currently are against Islam then they are an ally. Yes,a disreputable ally, but an ally nonetheless and people who reject allies in times of need must be very assured of success or hell bent upon defeat.

IMO Hindus who are more antiBNP than anti-Islam should read up on their Indian history as the BNPs body count is almost nonexistent by comparison. To compare them is PC at its most excruciating worst and stupidity at its most suicidal.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 9:05 AM

Zathras, please take the trouble to read and consider what Granny W has posted from her extensive knowledge and direct experience of the BNP. She has extensive knowledge and direct experience which you do not have.

It is not sensible to post about something that you know nothing about. Nothing at all. What direct knowledge or experience do you have of the BNP? Go on, tell me, for I would love to know.

Your last paragraph was particularly fatuous. Of course the BNP body count in India was non-existent. Their body count in ancient Rome was not very high either. But their mentors, the Nazis had a pretty poor record, now didn't they?

So they claim to be anti-Islam as a way of getting votes. The fact that they would re-patriate non-whites, including Muslim apostates, doesn't bother you? Read Granny W's post carefully, if possible without moving your lips.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 9:26 AM

There is no divorcing the issue of race and the issue of social problems like islam represents.

Thanks for your honesty.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 9:28 AM

They put their racial solidarity ahead of the menace of islam to Britain. If Britain has to kick them ALL out, to be fair to ALL, then the Hindus should go as well, for the greater good. I have no problem with that.

What a surprise.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 9:29 AM

Interested you can sneer as much as you like and it does change my main point which you conveniently ignore.

Are the BNP running a world jihad?
Do the BNP infiltrate other states with the aim of outbreeding the native population?

etc., etc., etc.

Whatever you think that I know or do not know of the BNP they are miniscule as a threat by comparison with Islam.

My point, and I daresay you will ignore it as you already have above, is that in war you cannot pick your allies and to do so is fraught with danger.

NO ONE WANTS THE BNP AS ALLIES...but that is besides the point....they ARE currently for whatever reason and that is the point.

Why does the detail of Granny Fairweather's post matter. yes I did read it , Yes the BNP is unpleasant. But do you really think that if islam is defeated then their views will be important and considered relevant?That the BNP will get what they want in the end. How fatuous is that? If victory occurs they will be back in the gutters and ignored by the mainstream once again.

For all of the posts you make this is the most stupid. I am NOT defending the BNP I am simply saying that in a war you do not reject allies no matter how unpleasant they may be. In WW2 the US made large use of Mafia connections in Sicily, Calabria and even in Rome. But then we know that the Mafia re nowhere near as bad as the dreaded BNP.

Why dont you read my posts in toto before you answer then you will not make a fool of yourself?

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 10:19 AM

I see a lot of claims about the BNP from opponents here, but no actual evidence to substantiate those claims. Any time evidence is requested, the reply is, "you should know they are evil -- you must be either blind or evil yourself for even daring to request such evidence." If you expect people who don't know about this alleged evil of the BNP to recognize what you recognize, at least provide some evidence. The onus of evidence is on the people who make condemnatory claims.

Granny's posts above do not constitute evidence; they are anecdotal, conflate other groups and other previous decades with the present, and are intermixed with "could be" and "must be" types of locutions.

Don't insult my intelligence by berating me for failing to fall into submissive line with your condemnations of a group without evidence.

Posted by: Television at June 29, 2006 10:22 AM

I am NOT defending the BNP

That is precisely what you are doing, with no direct knowledge and experience of them whatsoever.

Granny's posts above do not constitute evidence; they are anecdotal, conflate other groups and other previous decades with the present, and are intermixed with "could be" and "must be" types of locutions.

Unless you believe Granny W is lying, then her posts are evidence.

The "evidence" that the BNP are OK comes from their own website which a depressing number of Americans are very eager to believe. I'd like to put this down to ignorance and arrogance, but I suspect the truth may be more sinister.

Don't insult my intelligence

That would be difficult, as I've yet to see evidence of it.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 10:34 AM

What would make eye witness accounts of what BNP members, some of them senior in the party have been seen to say and do cease to be "anecdotal" in your eyes?
Would you like me to submit affidavit evidence, as would be acceptable in a court of law to Mr Spencer?
Because I could. I have already given Mr Spencer the details of the names, their position within the party, the time and date, the places and what was said and done. If I don't post it here it's because I don't want unwanted visitors to attend at either my home or the homes of my friends and family.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 10:36 AM

I thought this was going to be a thread about the rapper Aki Nawaz rather than a discussion about the BNP. Thank goodness that Granny Weatherwax has provided some common sense in relation to the BNP based on her long experience. I wonder if she and I have ever unknowingly seen each other in the past as I too have memories of the National Front meetings in Brick Lane (and on the corner of Bethnal Green Road) and the earlier Mosley-led Union Movement soap-box meetings in adjacent Cheshire Street on Sunday mornings. I entirely agree with Granny Weatherwax. American supporters of the BNP who comment here appear to know very little about it beyond what the US-based Friends of the BNP publish there. At the moment it is not going to win a national election and not going to 'solve' the problem of the creeping Muslim takeover of England/Europe. It isn't only Muslims who are capable of deception strategies. However, I'd like to get back to the subject of this thread: the rapper Aki Nawaz. This loathsome overweight character was interviewed on the BBC TV morning programme this morning and to say he had an easy ride from the two interviewers, Sian Williams and ??, would be an understatement. Nawaz (who for a singing jihadi strangely has no beard, or even a moustache, but has lots of long hair a la Che) was not asked - unless I missed it - what he thought about the Danish cartoons or his attitude to white power Blood & Honour songs/rap but was instead allowed to witter away about his right to free speech. Any evening now I expect to see a cosy interview with him on Channel 4 (London) TV News. Finally, yes, I too miss Vikrant and hope he will come back.

Posted by: moris2 at June 29, 2006 10:49 AM

Sorry - my fault for derailing the thread.

Coming back to the rapper, a really brave, really anti-establishment rapper would do an anti-Muslim song.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 10:56 AM

Interested.. quote:"That is precisely what you are doing, with no direct knowledge and experience of them whatsoever"

Rubbish!!

How did you deduce the above from what I posted?
I was discussing a general case scenario and fitting in the BNP into it and you deduce from this that I am defending them, whereas I am defending their right to be our allies and our right to see them as such unpleasant or not. Then you sneer about how little I know about them as if this was some vital point. I know enough to know that what I say is valid, whereas you just keep nitopicking.

My general point is quite valid but, of course, you ignore it and then tell me what and how I think about the BNP I had no idea that you were a mind reader. You have no idea of my politics, nor my views on any political group and yet you can know my mind.

I suppose by your standards we should reject China and Russia as erstwhile allies vs islam as I think that their track record is a little worse re human rights than that of the BNP.

Answer that one please if you reply

No futher discussion with you is worthwhile as you will only snipe at the odd point and disregard the main point. That is no way to debate but it obviously suffices for you.

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 11:07 AM

nitopicking

Well there are just so many nitos to pick.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 11:11 AM

How clever of you to comment on the typo and disregard all else. However I am not surprised
although I am disappointed in you, but that was my own fault for expecting too much.

I am sure that the BNP represent a far greater threat to humanity than Islam is and communism ever was. I am convinced of this by your constructive argument and your sound debate.

BTW Granny I do not disagree with anything that you say about the BNP, nor do I sneer at your knowledge. But that detail was totally irrelevant to my point which I shall not bother to repeat.

Good Night All!!

Posted by: Zathras at June 29, 2006 11:48 AM

Unlikely allies: Churchill 'n Stalin

Posted by: MP at June 29, 2006 11:52 AM

Yes, people make dubious alliances in time of war, Churchill and Stalin being an example. But there was no question of Britain becoming communist. Had the communist country been a greater threat, Britain might have allied with a fascist country against it, but would not have become fascist.

The BNP, on the other hand are an enemy within, though not as significant a threat as Islam. As Moris says above, however, they are no use in the fight against Islam and are intrinsically nasty.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 12:05 PM

Hi Moris, yes we do seem to have experiences in common. They also used to hand out their leaflets at the top of Walthamstow High Street on a Saturday afternoon when the market was on.

Following what you said about this rapper I didn't imagine him to be overweight. You expect them to be lean and hungry down on the mean streets. Still anybody who hangs around with Ian Astbury is going to be a little strange.
To lighten the atmosphere a little I do have a soft spot for things and people named Morris, and this is the type of rapper I prefer.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 12:32 PM

Apparently a typical British activity is "Morris dancing to Morrissey".

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 12:44 PM

RE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES As for the comment about Christian missionaries in India, you Hindus need to realize that Christians consider you heathens. However, they are not violent like Moslems. But that doesn’t change the fact that they would like you to change your religion to theirs. I don't care what your religion is so long as it doesn't adversely affect me or society, like Islam. Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

First of all, I didn't make any comment about Christian missionaries in India - I was referring to the posters here who cite copious amounts of the Bible. My underlying point, since you missed it, was that that was no reason to leave this site, as wasn't your being gay, as wasn't some posters here supporting the BNP.

Anyway, on that topic, since you brought it up, Christian missionaries, annoying as they may be, don't constitute an iota of a threat to Hindus in India that Muslims do. To pretend that they are even worth sweating over is ridiculous

The BNP is the only political party in the world today that would address islam in the way it needs to be addressed........I think there are some on this board, who may come here because they are feminsist, or they are gay, or they are Hindu, and as such, islam offends them, but ultimately, they are instrinsically liberals at heart, and as such, the right-wing also offends them and therefore can never support the right-wing draconian measures required to defeat the menace of islam. Posted by: somethingaboutislam

Oh, get a grip! Hindus are pretty much split down the middle, just like every other religious group. You think Hindus can never support right-wing draconian measures? Look at India - those parts where they run things. When Muslims rioted in Gujarat 5 years ago, they got a bloodbath. When they rioted in Bombay in 1992, the Shiv Sena had them strip-seached (to check for circumcisions, which out there only Muslims do) and "executed" accordingly. I don't pretend to know much about the BNP, but anyone who thinks they are the worst when it comes to dealing with Islam should look at the Sena. And while I am on record condemning Bal Thackeray's endorsement of the holocaust and his support for Hitler, his approach towards the Muslims is the right approach.

That is a pathetic reason if I ever heard one.
I am no BNP supporter but if they ever decide that only Islam IS the enemy and act accordingly I do doubt that we are so far ahead in this war that we can reject them as allies.
With due respect to each individual having his own agenda I am sure that I can disagree with the stance of probably 90% here if we go into the detail but that is NOT why we are here . We are here to be united versus islam and to discuss our concerns. Posted by: Zathras

That was precisely my point above. It's one thing to have disagreements with different people about a variety of issues. Like Granny, I don't want to berate Vikrant when he isn't around, but while it's any poster's prerogative whether they want to hang out or not, but to state that they aren't going to because supporters of party X or cause Y is there is simply pathetic.

You don't live in Britain and know nothing at all about the BNP, their real agenda or their history. But as with the other American BNP supporters, your ignorance does not stop you pontificating about them.
If you don't know about something, you should keep quiet and learn from somebody who does. Granny W in particular has a great deal of first hand of experience of these fascists, and should be listened to. I would not dream of talking through my - er - hat about some American political party that I knew nothing about.
Still, carry on, why don't you? Alienate yet more Hindus, Sikhs, black Christians, Jews and ex Muslims, particularly over here, where they know about the BNP.
Posted by: Interested

I agree with the part about not commenting on a party I don't know about. Other than one occasion where I took out stuff from their own website and pointed out how they didn't shine even by their own accounts of themselves. Like their refusal to take sides on Israel vs Iran on the grounds that the Zionists would be the beneficiaries (in this regard, calling them "Right-Wing" is ludicrous), or their statement that Islam is "simply another foreign mindset", implying that things that we condemn here globally daily are things that they oppose in Britain, but are okay with elsewhere.

Other than that, given how little I know, and how divided opinion here is among British posters about this party, I have generally refrained from either supporting or opposing them. That said, I do agree to a point with Zathras. We are not at a point where we can pick and choose those who carry our banner. If they are fake, they can be weeded out as soon as they start showing their true colours. In any case, they aren't going to come to power anytime soon, so discussions about their influence in Britain is like discussions about the Shiv Sena in India.

IMO Hindus who are more antiBNP than anti-Islam should read up on their Indian history as the BNPs body count is almost nonexistent by comparison. To compare them is PC at its most excruciating worst and stupidity at its most suicidal.
Posted by: Zathras

I actually agree with this. I cringe when I see expatriate Hindus making common ground with Muslims. It's even more galling to read about people like Steven Vikas Chand, who not only converted to Islam from Hindusism (okay, that's his personal decision), but what's worse (and inevitable for a convert to Islam) - his taking part in a Jihadi plot. If Hindus, split as they are, are going to make coalitions with Muslims, rather than native Infidels, then somethingaboutislam is correct - they too deserve to be sent packing.

Anyway, enough on all these peripheral irrelevant issues, including the G-Had rapper. Back to Kafir - aren't you gay?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 29, 2006 1:17 PM

Though the BNP issue is a subtopic, I'd just add perhaps as a last word on my part the following: I don't know Granny from Adam (or Eve). While I've read a few of her posts over the months and they seem as fine as the posts of any of the other intelligent people here at JW, her credentials as a person I should "trust" are not relevant to the necessity for a sufficient presentation of evidence so that rational appraisal of the claims can be made. Nor is "trust" in her in this context possible short of a non-prickly just-the-fact-ma'am presentation of evidence. Furthermore, I would expect that Granny and Interested must have evidence of the BNP's evil other than Granny's personal memories of this that and the other park, neighborhood association meeting, street-corner incidents, and overheard pub table talk. If so, I'd like to see it. If not, they can't expect me to conclude anything, let alone concur with their intense passions on the issue. A rational person cannot be expected to sign up to intense condemnations of a group based upon second-hand anecdotal evidence from relative strangers on an Internet forum. I never said I support the BNP. I simply am asking again for evidence. When a person comes to JW asking for evidence of the various claims we make about Islam, most of us here can relatively easily and quickly supply lots of evidence which the questioner can test and for which he or she can find usually more than one corroborating link. Why is it so bloody hard to do even a more modest version of the same thing with regard to the condemnation of the BNP?

Posted by: Television at June 29, 2006 3:29 PM

Try this Sky News video clip of Dr Phil Edwards the National Press Officer of the BNP, filmed just before the elections in May, in which he says that black children have low IQs and will grow up dysfunctional.

This is the website of the in depth BBC Panorama programme from a couple of years ago. I think this is the one where Nick Griffin was filmed holding up his wrist, pointing to the white skin and saying "this is what defines me"

An article from The Times in April this year comparing and contrasting the BNP and George Galloways respect party and finding them both abhorrent. More opinion than factual, but interesting nonetheless.

Also from April's Times, report of the outrage when Nick Griffin supported an election candidate of Christian Greek/Armenian grandparentage. "...the posting of his name among the party’s list of candidates has caused uproar among members who believe that the party must field all-white representatives."

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at June 29, 2006 4:12 PM

Television, re-read Granny's post in which she states that she has given names, times, dates, places, positions in the party. What do you understand by "evidence"? Evidence is what somebody says happens, when times, names dates, and places can be confirmed. Granny W could, if asked to in court, get fellow witnesses to corroborate her own evidence. That is how evidence is built up.

How do we know about the holocaust? From eyewitness accounts by survivors, which have been meticulously collated. An elderly Jew says she saw her husband shot. Anecdotal, though, let's dismiss it. How do we know anything about history? From what people say happened.

What other evidence do you want?

Where is your evidence that the BNP is squeaky clean? They say so on their website, and plenty of your fellow Americans, with all their inside knowledge gleaned by telepathy from the other side of the Atlantic, agree with you.

Very impressive, Dr Pepper, for it is you, is it not?

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 4:13 PM

Granny W, we are wasting our time. Three British posters with direct experience and knowledge say they are neo-Nazis. About five American posters with no experience or knowledge whatsoever, say they're fine and dandy. Ignorance and arrogance - a fatal combination.

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 4:17 PM

"Back to Kafir - aren't you gay?"

-Infidel Pride

At least you have a sense of humor.

I had wanted to put all of those rumors to rest.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 29, 2006 6:25 PM

Infidel,

Have a look at this website: http://www.sabrang.com/cc/archive/2002/marapril/pamphlet.htm

It decries Hindu nationalism (and the pamphlets that were distributed) following the events in Gujurat. More importantly, it provides us a copy of those pamphlets. A must read.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 29, 2006 6:30 PM

Kafir

Thanks for the link. I read it - it's another long winded document by Indian dhimmis. While I'm not a Hindutva advocate per se (because of other non-Hindus who live in India - Sikhs, Christians, Parsis, Jains, Buddhists and Atheists), I will say this - the people of Gujarat have read Muslims the riot act as few others have. That is the right way that Muslims ought to be treated - violently during riots, and boycotted during peacetime. Outside that, I do support the rights of all religious and non-religious groups in India - including athiests, including gays (in case you're wondering), but not including Muslims. Does that satisfy your curiousity?

What I didn't get is where you are coming down on this. If you happen to agree with the "Combat Communalism" campaign that you cited (whenever you read "Communalism" in the Indian context, read "Hindu reactions to Muslim/Dhimmi bullying"), do explain how else Islamic triumphalism should be confronted. Or do you think they shouldn't be confronted at all?

The other thing that galls me about that pamphlet is its mocking reference to Gujarat as the "land of Gandhi". That would be like calling present day Iran the "land of Cyrus the Great", or present day Britain the "land of Oliver Cromwell". Despite Gandhi's origins, Gujaratis have a very sensible attitude when it comes to forces that threaten them, like Muslims, and don't take it lying down. That's why few Muslims mess with them.

Gandhi was an aberration. I have described several times how he was the worst person to deal with Islam, and it's the misfortune of both India and the Hindu community that he was born into it. Fortunately, today, India doesn't have anyone like a Gandhi or Nehru, so that despite the chaotic political situation, nobody could prevent the Hindus from retaliating the way Gandhi prevented them from reacting in 1947.

But enough about Hindus. Let's talk about you. I've noticed that you have a visceral hatred of all religious groups - Christian, Jew (re: your characterization of Israel's response as extreme), now Hindu, and who knows what else. You have a rational opposition to Islam, but extend that to cover all real religions. While Athiesm is a legitimate belief system in its own right, what I don't get is why, in your opposition to Islam, which legitimately threatens Gay Athiests like you, you are doing everything possible to turn off people who don't share your Athiestic views (let alone your gayness), but who are otherwise some of your few allies against Islam? Or do you already have the entire Gay Athiest pro-choice community united against the international Jihad, so that you don't need us anymore?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 29, 2006 7:20 PM

Kafir

Another priceless gem from the supposedly non-"Communal" advocates from the link you provided

We sincerely apologise to all Muslims, and to every one of our readers for reproducing the leaflet below titled ‘Jehad’. We do so with pain.

Ooops

Posted by: Infidel Pride at June 29, 2006 7:38 PM

anyone Who thinks the BNP is the solution to getting rid of islam in the UK is really ignorant the BNP are Racist they hate blacks jews and hindus anyone whos not white. The leader of the BNP nick Griffin has denied the holocaust and hates jews

Posted by: Greek Gurl at June 29, 2006 7:52 PM

"But enough about Hindus. Let's talk about you. I've noticed that you have a visceral hatred of all religious groups - Christian, Jew (re: your characterization of Israel's response as extreme), now Hindu, and who knows what else. You have a rational opposition to Islam, but extend that to cover all real religions. While Atheism is a legitimate belief system in its own right, what I don't get is why, in your opposition to Islam, ymore?"
which legitimately threatens Gay Athiests like you, you are doing everything possible to turn off people who don't share your Athiestic views (let alone your gayness), but who are otherwise some of your few allies against Islam? Or do you already have the entire Gay Athiest pro-choice community united against the international Jihad, so that you don't need us an

-Above

I have nothing against reformed Christians. With respect to Israel, since when did criticizing the extreme actions of a state (Israel) make one a "hater" of Jews? I do not hate moderate Jews at all. As for your false assumption about hating Hindus, I have never said anything of the sort. In fact, if anything, Hinduism and Buddhism are in my opinion, the best religions on the planet. (if there are such things.) I think Buddhism comes even closer to perfection at least as far as man can create a religion.

That aside, the fact remains I am an atheist. Since I see no evidence that any deity exists, I leave open the possibility that someday there will be evidence to establish it. However, none has come my way so far. I do not dislike those who believe because I understand the sociological and psychological reasons why people seek religion. Having religion does not make one stupid. However, like many other before me, I have found that one can get along just fine without it. That is where I am in life. I feel contentment for escaping religion and growing without it. But that feeling does not mean I seek to belittle those who believe. I certainly hope you see nothing wrong in that.

Islam is a great danger for Western civilization (and Eastern Civilization). All of the things that Mr. Spencer and Hugh have said about Islam are essentially true, even if they are sometimes presented in a slightly exaggerated form. Nothing that has been said at this site if false. Knowing what Islam is; knowing that it is likely not reformable, brings me here, with you, and others, beating the drum against Islam. I am especially aware due to my ties to Europe. I hope Islam can be defeated. Knowing this know, are you still perplexed by my presence here? Isn’t that the purpose of this web site really, to alert more persons to Islam?

What I am saying often is that Islam is not the only threat. All of the world’s ills cannot be seen through Islam’s lens. There are others who are guilty of wrongdoing as well.

Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever at June 29, 2006 8:48 PM

So what all this anti-BNP sentiment comes down to is that they are racist? I say so what? Islam is racist and murderous. If BNP racism helps to kick out the racism of the islamic commmunity, which ultimately wants to enslave the whole world, then a big improvement has taken place. But some people are stuck on white racism permanantly. They recoil more from that than they recoil from beheadings. That's a strange and uniquely western liberal psychosis of which much has been said on this forum.

The BNP may not be the most intelligent people, but right now, they are the only party willing to kick out islam from the west. The only party. And yet, for some "anti-jihad" people here, that is not good enough. It's good enough for me. And with each atrocity in Britain, it becomes good enough for a larger number of Britains. And you know what? That type of black and white absolutism scares the hell out of the islamic community and the jihadists in their ranks.

Posted by: somethingaboutislam at June 29, 2006 9:17 PM

Granny, thanks for the links and I do appreciate the effort you've made to respond.

Unfortunately, I'd say tentatively that they are not sufficient to persuade me. I say tentatively because the only one of some substance is the first one on Phil Edwards, but alas my computer can't view video clips. I'm expecting to upgrade my computer soon, so I'll check that out when I can. I did take some time to Google Phil Edwards in relation to "blacks" and found a few different but still incomplete, apparently verbatim (one never knows on some Internet sites), quotes apparently from that press conference or whatever the Sky News clip was from. From what I gleaned so far, nothing Phil Edwards said about what characterizes the black community (particularly the younger blacks) in England is any different from what eminent non-racists such as former New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, economist Thomas Sowell, and comedian Bill Cosby (the latter two American blacks themselves) have said. These non-racists notice the same data Phil Edwards apparently notices. It might well be that Edwards has different motives and different interpretations of that data. I can't conclude as such until I see some evidence of that.

Moynihan, a classical liberal of impeccable credentials, was given an inordinately rough time by trigger-happy people hyper-vigilant for any signs of "racism" for simply amassing and pointing out the data, which he thought was a constructive thing to do to ameliorate the disparities between blacks and whites in America. In a climate such as ours dominated by PC where someone of Moynihan's integrity can be suspected of "racism" (not to mention the abysmal record of the MSM in dealing with the Problem of Islam over the past few years), it puts into doubt most other analyses and opinion pieces by the MSN when they analyze and opine about people or groups who really could be racist. That's the fault of the PC-addled MSM, not my fault for doubting them. This makes solid and substantial evidence all the more necessary.

As for your second link, aside from the fact that it's also a video clip and I have to wait to see it, are you seriously asking me to watch an analysis piece by the BBC!!?? After all the evidence Robert has pointed out over the years showing how utterly derelict they have been with that giant mountain of news data called the Problem of Islam? No thanks. Secondly, you adduce from this BBC link the incidental kind of data of Nick Griffin being "filmed holding up his wrist, pointing to the white skin and saying "this is what defines me"" -- which is not the kind of evidence I'm looking for. I'm looking for solid substantial textual evidence. It seems the BNP has no paper trail at all -- what are they, Houdini magicians or something?

The third piece of evidence is an opinion piece by another dubious organ of the MSM, The Times.

Your fourth piece again from The Times relies on the reporter being accurate when he uses words like "uproar" in describing party members' reactions to Nick Griffin's support for an election candidate of Christian Greek/Armenian grandparentage. "...the posting of his name among the party’s list of candidates has caused uproar among members who believe that the party must field all-white representatives."

I mean, this is not nothing, but it's awful slender and flimsy stuff.

Posted by: Television at June 29, 2006 10:20 PM

And the eyewitness evidence, with names, dates, times, places, words spoken, witnesses for corroboration, you dismiss out of hand? The rest you are at pains to explain away.

What do you know of the BNP? What exactly? What is your evidence that they are OK? Nothing. Nothing at all. Yet you are so keen and quick to dismiss the evidence of those who do. What does that say about you?

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 10:34 PM

the incidental kind of data of Nick Griffin being "filmed holding up his wrist, pointing to the white skin and saying "this is what defines me"" -- which is not the kind of evidence I'm looking for

What is the kind of evidence you are looking for? What else could that possibly mean? Are you seriously, seriously suggesting that the BNP is not a white supremacist party when Nick Griffin, its leader says that?

Why not be honest and say you have no problem with a white supremacist party? You're not the first commenter on this website to say so and you certainly won't be the last. Why feel the need to hide behind a facade of being pernickety about evidence?

Who should we believe, Dr Pepper? You or our lying eyes?

Posted by: Interested at June 29, 2006 10:44 PM

Interested....

My point was NOT about the BNP whatever you may say, read or think you read, and you can place the CP, the provisional IRA(who make the BNP look like children), or ANY group in its place.

It was simply that we are NOT in a position to pick and chose our allies just yet. Surely even you can understand that. Or perhaps you cannot.

You either have an agenda or are rather dense to distort everything that I say into support for the BNP and in addition I do not have to know much about them to know that compared to islam as a threat they are unimportant. Why do you insist that the detail is so important when within the bounds of my comment IT IS NOT.

How can saying that we are in no position to reject potential allies be taken as support for such an ally? I personally hope that China and Russia turn totally anti-islam also but I suppose by your logic this makes me a CP supporter. That is so stupid that you should be embarrassed.

I have no idea as to why you are unable to debate in a civilised way but then we all hve our problems but I feel that your obsession with the BNP has blinded you to the simple point that I was trying to make.
I don't care whether the BNP are white supremacists, black supremacists. the jesuits in disguise or a pagan rebirth group. It makes no doiffeence to my comment.

Had I come out in open support of the BNP as a group then I could understand. But that was only what you said I did not what I did. You take no notice of what is said and you jump to your own prejudged conclusion.

The lesson here is the old one for an someone like myself and that is that you cannot sanely debate with people who have agendas, who have an evangelical mode or who let their feelings about a subject overwhelm the truth as they are NOT interested just biased.

Posted by: Zathras at June 30, 2006 12:25 AM

When such a party also wants to behead me for being a Christian, or cut my daughter's clitoris off, or kill my dog, or enslave women in a burka, then I will reject that party as surely as I reject islam.

I'd happily cut off my daughter, rape the dog and wrap my clitoris in a burqa before voting BNP. Those people have issues. The only reason they haven't allied themselves with Islam is because they recognise it as a vehicle for Arab supremacism. For the most part there's little between them with regards to sowing hatred in general. People join the BNP form the same underlying reasons others become Islamists - they're all twisted. Anyone who thinks they're useful idiots should do a little Googling and Wikipedia-ing. Read what the BNP leadership have been writing and publishing, what most of their supporters endorse, for decades, before they took up the clarion of Islamic awareness. Read Griffin's pamphlet who are the mindbenders? - we all know the real mindbensers are the liberal media, the Islamists and dhimmi officialdom, but the BNP also fit the bill, exploiting our concerns to push their Nazism. Black pots and kettles.

What would the BNP's position be on the current situation in Gaza? Either total non-involvement or more likely condeming the Israelis with slurs about the Strip being a "concentration camp" and security fences being "Apartheid walls". The BNP and Islam are basically bedfellows, as long as there's at least the English channel between us'n'them, they'll be happy. If we accept that Israel needs our solidarity as the front line in the Jihad, then we have no ally in the BNP. They would ultimatley lead Britain down the sewer of Sharia law in less time than the liberals. They're smalltime. Jackboot-lickers. And not just figuratively....

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 1:27 AM

...and any label publishing the likes of Mr Had should be stamped on by the Home Office. There's no shortage of "G-Hads" out there - industry chiefs should be more concerned about their legal responsibilities than profits. They smight find they're the ones accountable under increasing antiterror-legislation...

Posted by: Animus at June 30, 2006 1:33 AM

What I am saying often is that Islam is not the only threat. All of the world’s ills cannot be seen through Islam’s lens. There are others who are guilty of wrongdoing as well. Posted by: Kafir Nonbeliever

Kafir

While I doubt that anyone disagrees with that, we aren't here to discuss all the world's ills. None of us have all those interests, nor the time. Besides, importing such items to this forum also brings in points of disagreement that are more likely to pull us apart, rather than unify us against Islam. For instance, I am very interested in the flat tax, global de-regulation, solar and nuclear fusion energy, and uniform worldwide prosperity as a result of a global spread of pure capitalism. None of those items belong here, which is why I don't bring them here.

I wasn't trying to suggest that you abandon Athiesm (actually, given that Buddhism doesn't include any references to a God, it is as Athiesm-compatible as one can imagine, although I'd suppose it would be incompatible with the Ayn Rand school of thought) - I did say it's a legitimate belief system just like all the others. However, the tone of your posts generally leaves one with the impression that you think it's the only legitimate belief system out there. I'm glad to read that you have nothing against people of faith. While I can't speak for others, most of the people here, from what I have read