How does a hat not cover a head? And when is Her Majesty visiting Hagia Sophia?

Posted by: 3812Michelle at May 15, 2008 11:24 AM

And Prince Charles wishes to be 'Defender of Faiths'....No wonder the C of E is close to collapse through apathy.

Posted by: Abu_Lahab at May 15, 2008 11:50 AM

Want to do something to help stop the worldwide jihad and the spread of Islamic law?

Jihad Watch is a 501(c)(3) organization, so I guess cannot directly organize political action. But you can help stop jihad and sharia if you join or contribute to American Congress for Truth, here:
http://www.americancongressfortruth.com/

Robert Spencer is on ACT's board of advisors.

By the way, if you pre-order Spencer's new book, you get 5% off. You can pre-order here:
Stealth Jihad.

I have no connection with Robert Spencer or his book. So why do I post this? Because I want to help stop Sharia creep into the West and the trend toward a demographic takeover of Europe by Islam.

Posted by: traeh at May 15, 2008 12:07 PM

She looks terrified:

http://sheikyermami.com/2008/05/14/she-looks-terrified/

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at May 15, 2008 12:24 PM

'Terrified' ideed (from above)

Why not a burqa? Her face is still shamelessly displayed. Oh well, at least the ol’ gal had the decency to cover her hands with gloves before the lustful gazes of Turkish mujahidin! The long host of proud English royalty should be writhing in their graves about now at this ‘shadow’s’ dhimmitude to a cult of savagery. Disgusting!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at May 15, 2008 1:04 PM

She is contemplating the loss of her soul. It's the face of a woman who has lost her grip and is watching her faded integrity crumble in front of her in a bottomless pit of corruption and spiritual waste.

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2008 1:07 PM

She is betraying her God, her country, her people , her culture.....and her Corgis.

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2008 1:12 PM

Here's the video.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7401599.stm

I'm surprised they let her go in wearing the knee-length dress.

Posted by: Jan Sobieski at May 15, 2008 1:27 PM

The QUEEN ?!?!?!?!?

The *&$@#@$ QUEEN ?

This is a dark day for Britain.

Posted by: joeblough at May 15, 2008 1:33 PM

Honestly - I don't get this kerfuffle about the Queen covering her head with a scarve while visiting a mosque.
She covered her head with a scarve when she visited the Pope - what was that a sign of? That she contemplated becoming a Catholic?

Oh - in case it has escaped your notice; the Queen doesn't run around wearing a crown all day. In fact - she's been wearing headscarves (yep, them!) every day, for the last seventy years. She prefers them when she visits her horses, or is out riding them.

Using the Queen as a sign for creeping dhimmitude is just plain silly. She's had to don other stuff in her life when visiting foreign countries - that's what she does, out of respect to the foreign culture.
Or do you also want to insinuate that she has become a secret Indian/Maori/Kenyan/whatever?

Frankly, there are far worse things to complain about in Britain, and the world in general, as far as creeping dhimmitude is concerned, than the Queen being polite to her hosts.

Posted by: Calon Lan at May 15, 2008 1:49 PM

Your Majesty! Not in front of the Corgis!

Posted by: tanstaafl at May 15, 2008 1:53 PM

johndoe-

"She is contemplating the loss of her soul. It's the face of a woman who has lost her grip and is watching her faded integrity crumble in front of her in a bottomless pit of corruption and spiritual waste."

You have got to be kidding me. I have to know.... Just how long did you sit there giving your brain a hernia while you shovelled up that utter shite for our consumption?

As for the rest of you who, as Carol has pointed out, seem too eager to take Her Majesty's observances of royal protocol on a state visit as proof positive once more of the capitulation of Britain, get a grip.

Posted by: Wishbone at May 15, 2008 2:03 PM

johndoe-

"She is contemplating the loss of her soul. It's the face of a woman who has lost her grip and is watching her faded integrity crumble in front of her in a bottomless pit of corruption and spiritual waste."

You have got to be kidding me. I have to know.... Just how long did you sit there giving your brain a hernia while you shovelled up that utter shite for our consumption?

As for the rest of you who, as Calon has pointed out, seem too eager to take Her Majesty's observances of royal protocol on a state visit as proof positive once more of the capitulation of Britain, get a grip.

Posted by: Wishbone at May 15, 2008 2:04 PM

When you're in a Muslim country, you should adapt your behavior to accommodate Muslim sensibilities. And when Muslims are in a non-Muslim country, non-Muslims should adapt their behavior to accommodate Muslim sensibilities.

Got it?

How about this - not visiting places of worship that you don't believe in? I have nothing against Christians or Jews, yet I don't visit churches or synagogues, even when I'm a tourist somewhere. Aren't there enough secular 'attractions' (for want of a better term) in Turkey that she could have visited?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at May 15, 2008 2:11 PM

'As for the rest of you who, as Calon has pointed out, seem too eager to take Her Majesty's observances of royal protocol on a state visit as proof positive once more of the capitulation of Britain, get a grip.'

I take it you're a die hard monarchist. Well, she is not majestic to me. She is a lily livered gutless puppet who is doing nothing to defend and stand up for her own culture and heritage. Instead of kow towing in a mosque she should be giving the Turks a reality sandwich by making it quite clear they are NOT welcome in the EU. And why should a state visit include a visit to a mosque?
So please, stop justifying the indefensible and the putrid just because you can't let go of your blind loyalty to a dead institution.

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2008 2:24 PM

I was rather hoping this angle, although inevitable, would have been confined to lesser sites.

There's plenty for Dhimmi Watch to concern itself in Britain without looking for it in the observance of Royal and Diplomatic protocol.

Actually, we ought to be worrying for Turkey more.

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 15, 2008 2:39 PM

Un:dhimmi: Buttering up Turkey's Islamists with 'Royal and Diplomatic Protocol' is certainly not an expression of concern for its people.

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2008 2:47 PM

johndoe-

"I take it you're a die hard monarchist."

And it's exactly that presumption that forms the basis of your entire response?

Incidentally, I'm not justifying anything. Merely highlighting your ignorance as to the reasons why the Queen may act as she does. Manners, dignity and protocol being but a few.

That paragraph you splurged above really was utter shite, you know. Next time.... astound us, why don't you?

Posted by: Wishbone at May 15, 2008 2:54 PM

@ Johndoe:

May I give you a very small bit of information regarding the Queen:
She is a constitutional monarch, which means she does not 'do' politics - not in Great Britain, not in other countries.
For that, we have Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State, even Members of Parliament.
That is how affairs are run here - the Queen has no powers like the President of the USA, so kindly disabuse yourself of the notion that she can go and speak her mind to whomever, especially when she is visiting a foreign country.
What she does behind the scenes remains a secret - I know this is hard for most people outside of GB to grasp, but we here rather have the Queen than elections for two party political blockheads to run our country even deeper into the **** than we are in already.
To call her a lily-livered puppet is pretty offensive - she has done more in her over 50 years on the throne to keep the culture of this country going, and works harder with her 82 years of age, than any politician alive, anywhere.

And indeed - there are worse and much more dangerous things to debate than the Queen donning a headscarve!

(Oh - and to answer your question - she's not been to Papua New Guinea as that is not a member of the Commonwealth, but she has had nose-kisses from Maoris, without ebcoming a Maori herself.)

Posted by: Calon Lan at May 15, 2008 2:58 PM

Wishbone-

'manners, dignity and protocol' are utterly worthless and inappropriate in the face of barbarism. Courage and integrity are required...qualities this monarch is sorely lacking in.

'That paragraph you splurged above really was utter shite, you know.'

Manners?

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2008 3:06 PM

Calon Lan:

'so kindly disabuse yourself of the notion that she can go and speak her mind to whomever, especially when she is visiting a foreign country.'

She is entirely free to say whatever she likes. She doesn't because she is afraid. If someone with her authority and prestige really spoke out about the true nature of Islam....and she knows...then we can talk about serving her country. But no, she cowers.

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2008 3:13 PM

johndoe-

I really hope you realise how stupid you look, suggesting that the Queen has something to learn of courage or integrity. As for the relative worth or propriety of those idiosyncrasies which are to be found within or surrounding her position, or indeed within her character, well.... She gets those from her father. I believe they came in handy for him and his missus when we were having that spot of bother with that irksome Adolph whats-his-face.

As to the question of my manners?

Trust me mate...... I really 'was' being polite.

Posted by: Wishbone at May 15, 2008 3:28 PM

Doesn't do politics? Do you actually believe that stuff? Heck this very visit *is* politics. If the 'Queen' visited the Ku Klux Klan would you people defend it as a nonpolitical action? She has chosen to ignore the plight of her people in favour of being accepted by the PC crowd. She makes pretty little speeches about multiculturalism, but what has she said about no-go areas, beatings of Anglican priests, rapes and so on...?

As for diplomacy - the definition is a peaceful way of looking after one's own interests. It's not simply about debasing oneself in a vain attempt to please enemies. And if she cared about dignity she would be visiting the persecuted Christian minority.

Bah, bring back the Stuarts. At least they can do romantic lost causes like nobody's business.

PS: Wishbone, you're an idiot. However much you like to think otherwise the simple truth is that 'not doing politics' is simply a euphemism for doing politics at the bidding of the PC crowd as this very visit is an example of.

Posted by: LastNorwegian at May 15, 2008 3:37 PM

And let's not forget the warm welcome recently to the King of that bastion of evil, Saudi Arabia, to Buckingham Palace. That's called sleeping with the enemy. The more you scrutinize this monarch the worse it gets. She is simply looking after her country's fiscal interests without any moral or ethical compunction. The question she should be asking herself when she goes to bed tonight with her cup of Horlicks and Marmite sandwich is: What is more important at this stage? The coffers of the executive class or the spiritual welfare of her people? Or perhaps she should ask her corgis?

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2008 4:04 PM

LastNorwegian-

Yet certainly not so much an idiot as he who would address me as such, on the basis of a statement made by another.

Surely not.

Posted by: Wishbone at May 15, 2008 4:12 PM

"Un:dhimmi: Buttering up Turkey's Islamists with 'Royal and Diplomatic Protocol' is certainly not an expression of concern for its people."

...come again?

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 15, 2008 4:52 PM

For the hard of thinking, the real story is the rapid Islamisation of the only country with a Muslim population that has a proper, secular constitution.

That, Gentlemen, was the real spectre at the feast - not some irrelevant diplomatic theatrics that have been performed a hundred times before by a hundred western leaders and heads of state.

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 15, 2008 5:00 PM

So the Queen visited Sultan Mehmet's tomb as well. Shameful. He was a warmonger who invaded, conquered and occupied Byzantine Constantinople, Eastern Europe,part of Italy and Greece. He recruited Devshirme, young Christian captives, into his army and Jews and Christians suffered dhimmi status under his rule.
So the Queen honours, with what a poster above flippantly calls 'irrelevant diplomatic theatrics', a barbarous and bellicose jihadist who brought an end to the Byzantine Christian empire and called himself Caesar. Visiting his tomb was retrospective appeasement and sends out precisely the message the ummah wants to receive. The Islamic faithful now see her as another washed out dhimmified and decadent figurehead of a weary abject western civilisation ready to be invaded, conquered and occupied more successfully this time.

Posted by: johndoe at May 15, 2008 5:18 PM

The Queen is in the unfortunate position of being the figurehead of a ship which has a fool at the helm.
When the ship runs onto the rocks, she will be the first to fall, and yet she will be the least to blame.
Her generation understood the concept of duty, and the fact that doing her duty makes her look like a Dhimmi is due to "her" Prime Minister being a Dhimmi, and a junky for a few more years in power.

ps- Un:dhimmi makes an important point, but one which would bother us much less if Brown, Milliband, and so on were not still determined to have Turkey join the EU. Turkey will become a serious threat whether in or out, but out is infinitely preferable to in.

Posted by: M Al-Content at May 15, 2008 5:24 PM

So Johndoe

Was it also retrospective appeasement to write the following in the Visitor's Book at Ataturk's Mausoleum?:

"It's an honor to pay my respects to Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, a much beloved friend of the United Kingdom and one of the great figures of modern history,"

As 'M al-Content' points out above, the British Monarch really has only constitutional power these days; but she made her own quiet point there, I think.

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 15, 2008 5:40 PM

I feel compassion for Her Majesty! True, she is NOT the political head of GB, but is beholden to act out a traditionally British form of PC. She is obligated to "make nice", while on visits of State, irregardless of her personal feelings. Her actions are more like "diplospeak" between two sovereign nations. It takes courage to "do the right thing for your country", even if you find it personally odius. I think this pic was taken at an inopprotune time and reflects her personal distaste for a necessary task. God save the Queen!

Posted by: NamFrank at May 15, 2008 6:07 PM

a traditionally British form of PC

Now that's just nonsense. She's done nothing that any political leader or head of state from western countries and beyond (including the US!) wouldn't do on a state or diplomatic visit.

Really, stop trying to make something of this that is clearly not the case.

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 15, 2008 6:27 PM

Far too much time wasted on a mere figurehead who's done nothing more than any western diplomat or politician has done and will continue to do.

Verses from the koran were spoken by the imam in the mosque as part of the greeting to the Queen.

I have been unable to find out what verses were actually used. Does anyone know?

Posted by: Ahem at May 15, 2008 8:30 PM

The awful thing about the monarchy, is that the monarch cannot express their own personal values, their likes and dislikes when it comes to foreign policy.

That is one reason why the monarchy is so immoral.

Posted by: Voltaire at May 15, 2008 9:01 PM

The awful thing about the monarchy, is that the monarch cannot express their own personal values, their likes and dislikes when it comes to foreign policy.

That is one reason why the monarchy is so immoral.

Posted by: Voltaire at May 15, 2008 9:01 PM

so does that mean that Uk is now tiring of the "asian"(meaning pakistanis ) in their midst but now wants to import more allegdly moderate turk muslims. this is the same lalal land outlook on the muslim world that the clueless Bush has regarding the futire middle east. a future middle east of democracies and freedom loving people with no radical islamists in sight.
yea, right and in the future, elvis will be still alive and singing. sheeesh.

Posted by: desidude at May 15, 2008 9:21 PM

So the Queen of England must stoop to conquer?

"She who must be obeyed" stoops to "She who must obey" under the tutelage of Islam?

I'm so sorry! :) But even staunch Royalists must see the irony of humour here!

Posted by: Battle_of_Tours at May 15, 2008 9:22 PM

I'm 5 pages into King Henry the Sixth, Part III, after having read Parts I and II. Anyway, Hank VI was spineless, didn't support his friends when he had a chance, and capitulated to his enemies without a scuffle. So his bloodline lost the crown.

For playing the dhimmi, may this be the last of Windsor to reign. Britain's criminal justice system has apparently ground to a halt. I think regicide earns someling like 6 months probation, but suspendable for sincere-appearing remorse. Not that I'm suggesting regicide--I'm just saying that's how they did things back when men were men (and sheep were nervous).

Posted by: Hyman Roth at May 16, 2008 12:36 AM

The real problem is that Elizabeth II encourages the admission of Turkey into the EU.

Turkey is not part of Europe nor are its inhabitants' views European.

This is one more invitation to a silent capitulation to the invaders and colonizers and destroyers of Europe.

Ataturk failed to expose and condemn and discredit the plagiarized and heretical folly of the Koran, so his efforts were doomed.

You need to undermine the ideological queen bee, the Koran's malignant dogmas, which are the core and source of the outflowing terroristic jihadi swarms.

The British Queen makes one more meaningless gesture in the middle of the growing Mohamemdan tragedy that is Europe.

Posted by: profitsbeard at May 16, 2008 1:18 AM

When you're in a Muslim country, you should adapt your behavior to accommodate Muslim sensibilities. And when Muslims are in a non-Muslim country, non-Muslims should adapt their behavior to accommodate Muslim sensibilities.

Got it? -- Robert

Once again, a Direct Hit! The Truth Hurts.

Posted by: alexon at May 16, 2008 3:05 AM

Her Majesty is a citizen of the European Union and (like every other citizen of the European Union) owes a duty of allegiance to that Union.

She does not offer her own private opinions.

Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at May 16, 2008 4:22 AM

Her Majesty is a citizen of the European Union and (like every other citizen of the European Union) owes a duty of allegiance to that Union.

She does not offer her own private opinions.

Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at May 16, 2008 4:22 AM

If true, then she has shamed all that England used to be and dishonored all those who died at Dunkirk in the stupid believe that they were fighting to save the miserable wretch of a queen to be.

Posted by: witness at May 16, 2008 7:31 AM

The Queen - and the US President - and other foreign (and non-believer) dignitaries have been respectful of the not-very-demanding delicacies of other religions when the occasion required.

The Queen wore a modest, long-sleeved, dress when meeting with the Pope.

The President (and many others) have worn skullcaps or other headwear when visiting the Wailing Wall and synagogues (significantly perhaps, then- UN Sec.Gen Kurt Waldheim REFUSED to wear any headgear at Israeli religious shrines ... and was later revealed to be an unrepentant veteran of the Nazi army).

It's a tiny demonstration of respect, and just because this gesture is done for Moslems as it has been done for Jews and others, is no reason to get upset.

Posted by: Fortinbras at May 16, 2008 7:39 AM

Of COURSE she only wore the scarf to show respect-we KNOW that! The point is, the primitive barbarians with whom she's dealing(AND the ones who've invaded her country and other countries in the EU) will almost certainly (mis)interpret this as submission, fear, and possibly even acceptance of dhimmitude. THAT'S the problem .

Posted by: labrat at May 16, 2008 8:11 AM

Lord knows we've seen her often enough in those 'babushka' head scarfs out for a brisk walk with the corgis etc. It would have shown the 'respect' and left her distinctly English dowdiness proudly intact.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at May 16, 2008 9:52 AM

It's a tiny demonstration of respect, and just because this gesture is done for Moslems as it has been done for Jews and others, is no reason to get upset.

Posted by: Fortinbras at May 16, 2008 7:39 AM

You assume that all in the world is worthy of "gestures of respect."

That's not true! Like Naziism and Fascism, Islam deserves no respect. Your comparison of "Moslems and Jews" is disingenuous. Jews have never terrorozed anyone. Moslems have been terrorizing people since the early 7th century AD. Judaism is worthy of respect; Islam is NOT. For many, many, many, many etc reasons.

"Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil." --Thomas Mann

Posted by: darcy at May 16, 2008 10:30 AM

Spot on,Darcy

Posted by: johndoe at May 16, 2008 10:37 AM

I do not like to go against the consensus here, but I do not see anything unusual in this act. The Queen is always opening churches, gurdwaras, Hindu temples, etc. and she would have done the same in any non-Muslim place of worship. If she had been wearing a headscarf all the way around Turkey, that would have been unacceptable deference, but just wearing it for the mosque is part of the normal royal procedure.

Can we not support the Queen against the risk of attack that she has in visiting Turkey? She has risked assasination before when visiting Quebec and Ghana, and she is still risking it now at 82.

Posted by: Aveyard at May 16, 2008 10:42 AM

I take it you're a die hard monarchist. Well, she is not majestic to me. She is a lily livered gutless puppet who is doing nothing to defend and stand up for her own culture and heritage. Instead of kow towing in a mosque she should be giving the Turks a reality sandwich by making it quite clear they are NOT welcome in the EU. And why should a state visit include a visit to a mosque?

Johndoe, this is the stupidest comment on the board. After implying that you are not a die-hard monarchist, you then go on to suggest that the Queen breaks the centuries-old protocol by involving herself in politics and taking sides. We have a democracy in Britain, same as in America, and it is unacceptable for the Queen to express any strong opinions.

And in terms of the Queen's being "gutless", may I ask you, Johndoe, how many times have you risked assassination? None, I am willing to bet, and I bet that you are younger than 82. You are a coward of the lowest rank. Perhaps, you should think before you write in the future and try to avoid contradictions in your own argument.

Posted by: Aveyard at May 16, 2008 10:51 AM

Spot on,Darcy

Posted by: johndoe at May 16, 2008 10:37 AM

Why, thank you!

As for johndoe's antagonist, Aveyard --

"We have a democracy in Britain, same as in America, and it is unacceptable for the Queen to express any strong opinions."

That's not true! UK has very limited freedom of speech - no First Amendment. We certainly can express "strong opinions" here in the U.S., and not risk getting arrested by the PC Police. Many Brits fear speaking out because they can actually get thrown in gaol (the way you people spell it).

Oh, btw, Aveyard - Learn Arabic yet? You're gonna need it.

Posted by: darcy at May 16, 2008 11:26 AM

I take it you're a die hard monarchist. Well, she is not majestic to me. She is a lily livered gutless puppet who is doing nothing to defend and stand up for her own culture and heritage. Instead of kow towing in a mosque she should be giving the Turks a reality sandwich by making it quite clear they are NOT welcome in the EU. And why should a state visit include a visit to a mosque?

Good point! And while you're at it, why not point out that when she visited the pope, she should have refused to humiliate herself by wearing a head covering, long sleeves, and high neckline? (You didn't see Evo Morales humiliating himself when *he* had a papal audience.) She should have stood up "for her own culture and heritage" and invoked the memory of Thomas Cromwell, Cranmer, and Lord George Gordon by loudly proclaiming "No popery!"
/sarcasm

Posted by: Seamus at May 16, 2008 11:36 AM

When I saw the photo in the press, I sighed, because I just knew that some idiot would post a message in the comments at JW accusing the Queen of being a dhimmi. As it turned out, I was wrong: several idiots did.

Robert's original comment is spot on. The Queen is in a foreign country, and is observing the customs and traditions of that country. It's called protocol - something which all heads of state adhere to.

Believe it or not, she even kicked off her shoes when she visited a mosque in the UK. Just as she did when she visited both Hindu and Sikh temples. Her husband, the irascible Prince Philip, happily donned a headscarf for the Sikh visit, and has worn a yarmulke when visiting UK synagogues. And nobody made any fuss at all.

I wonder - does it not occur to the posters making the asinine "dhimmi" comments that their remarks mirror those of Islamist morons who accuse Muslim women in Western countries of being "whores" for wearing Western clothes?

Posted by: Matamoros at May 16, 2008 12:26 PM

The Queen has done nothing that our current President wouldn't do. Should Billary win the election, she will do the same thing, many times over, and for less legitimate reasons.

Posted by: Abscedere at May 16, 2008 1:22 PM

:sheesh: more unintelligent drivel...

Many Brits fear speaking out because they can actually get thrown in gaol (the way you people spell it).

Do you have any evidence of this?

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 16, 2008 1:26 PM

Matamoros-

Ditto for myself mate. The bookies would have laughed you right out of the betting shop if you'd tried to bet on the idiots coming out to play for this one.

Oh.... and Darcy-

"....gaol (the way you people spell it)."

Have you actually had the opportunity to stick your nose into an English dictionary lately? Or are you, as it seems a lot of people are wont to do these days, just making it up for lack of actual knowledge or experience of anything British or English?

Posted by: Wishbone at May 16, 2008 1:42 PM

Last I heard, we Brits spell 'gaol' P-R-I-S-O-N (or 'nick' for short) ;)

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 16, 2008 2:15 PM

London Born&Bred:

"Her Majesty is a citizen of the European Union and (like every other citizen of the European Union) owes a duty of allegiance to that Union."

Witness:

"If true, then she has shamed all that England used to be and dishonored all those who died at Dunkirk in the stupid believe that they were fighting to save the miserable wretch of a queen to be."

Just when you think that comments couldn’t get any worse. Witness, did it not occur to you that maybe LondonBorn&Bred was talking out his backside when he made his [totally false] claim that “like every citizen of the EU”, The Queen “owes a duty of allegiance to that Union”? Did you bother to check before launching into your insulting rant? The Queen may be a miserable wretch to the likes of you, but most Britons - particularly those of the Dunkirk generation - are rather proud of her.

I suggest that unless LondonBorn&Bred cares to back up his statement with some kind of factual proof - not the scaremongering of some mouthy personal blogger, or the dreams of some ambitious Eurocrat, but hard factual evidence of a duty on all British citizens to owe allegiance to the EU - then he should apologise for deliberately misleading Jihadwatchers.

Posted by: Matamoros at May 16, 2008 2:19 PM

I've noticed something. Whenever anyone here who adheres to some strong belief in an established institution, whether it is the church or the monarchy,their reaction to any criticism of that same establishment descends into offensive and vicious ad-hominem attacks. Aveyard's 'you're a coward of the lowest rank' is a perfect example, not to mention Wishbone's favourite appelation 'idiot'. This is all a sign of blind desperation rooted in an irrational and superstitious and oh- so-hard-to-let-go-of emotional attachment to a dead, washed out,decadent, corrupt and meaningless remnant of the past like the British monarchy. The vehement nature of their response on this thread is typical of those who are cathectically tied to the sacrosanct and the unreal, locked in a juvenile belief in magical authority figures. Well it's time to grow up before it's too late and recognise what is of value and what isn't in the ideological and spiritual war we find ourselves in with Islam. The Queen is of no value whatsoever and in fact her visit to Turkey was downright harmful to the cause of freedom. She is supporting Turkey in its desire to join the EU. For that to happen would be the end of European civilisation. She is a traitor to her country, her culture and to herself.

Posted by: johndoe at May 16, 2008 2:20 PM

To those of our Americian "friends" gleefully "lamenting" the demise of Britain, here is a gentle reminder of prominent headscarf wearing American women. These women are not royalty - y'all don't have royalty; they are the cream of your ultra-democratic system:

Nancy Pelosi

Hillary Clinton and Chelsea with Yasser Arafat

Laura Bush, not even with the excuse of visiting a mosque

What was it again? Oh yes:

She is contemplating the loss of her soul. It's the face of a woman who has lost her grip and is watching her faded integrity crumble in front of her in a bottomless pit of corruption and spiritual waste.

America is doomed, doomed.

Posted by: Britvic at May 16, 2008 2:52 PM

Reference my previous post, "Her Majesty is a citizen of the European Union and (like every other citizen of the European Union) owes a duty of allegiance to that Union"

It's called: 'British irony'

Posted by: LondonBorn&Bred at May 16, 2008 2:57 PM

Britvic.....I'm British

Posted by: johndoe at May 16, 2008 2:59 PM

Britvic.....I'm British

Then you've even less excuse for being so stupid.

Posted by: Britvic at May 16, 2008 3:03 PM

'Then you've even less excuse for being so stupid.'

Well that was predictable, Britvic. You disappoint me. Here we go again...the usual insults from those oh so civilised and painfully self-important monarchists.
And those American ladies you mention are indeed just as rotten as Elisabeth in their brown nosing of the enemy. You forgot the deplorable and vacuous Calmy Rey of Switzerland who gets first prize for the moral degeneracy these women embody.

Posted by: johndoe at May 16, 2008 3:15 PM

johndoe-

You're talking bollocks again, I see.

I've noticed something too. Yet another in a long line of pseudo knowledgeable comments seeking to explain how, when someone disagrees with your thinking, and does so with the same passion you pretend to, then that person is resorting to 'ad-hominem' attacks in order to cover up the weakness of their argument.

'Ad-hominem'........ Good grief.... If I had a penny for every time some bugger uses that in just such a posting as yours...... Well... I could at least fill the car up. But seriously, do you know how wearisome it is to keep having to read the same stock vocabulary? It does make you a little predictable.

I believe that I've already pointed out your presumption on this thread as regards your notion that I am a 'die hard monarchist' yet still you persist making silly statements formed upon the basis of that being absolute fact. Do you have a problem reading plain English? Or are you so arrogant as to believe that your opinion is all that matters, contrary to much better qualified information, simply steamrollering on and dismissing all who dissent as mere morons who wouldn't know real intelligence like yours if it bit them on the arse?

I said you were an idiot, because you're bloody well acting like one. The 'vehement nature' of 'my response can be better attributed to a bit of a lack of patience when dealing with idiots and.....please..... If you're going to have a go at eloquence in your pronouncements, at least put a support around your head first.

As I may have hinted at earlier john, The Queen is sometimes something we may aspire to in Britain in terms of policy, dignity and restraint, but we commoners sadly rarely do.

If you're talking bollocks, we 'will' tell you. If you want to treat us like idiots, then expect to be treated in kind.

Posted by: Wishbone at May 16, 2008 3:24 PM

If 'ad-hominem' is too painful for you, then is 'personal attack' ok?

As for the rest? sigh.

Posted by: johndoe at May 16, 2008 3:51 PM

If 'ad-hominem' is too painful for you, then is 'personal attack' ok?

It's really funny to see someone tossing such half-baked argument around the place, accusing others of logical fallacy.

Keep it up, john(doe)boy ;)

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 16, 2008 4:50 PM

"The Ballad of Reading Gaol," by Oscar Wilde:

http://emotionalliteracyeducation.com/classic_books_online/rgaol10.htm

To a-holes Wishbone and Undhimmi.

BTW, Wishbone - you're an idiot. A British idiot.

Posted by: darcy at May 16, 2008 6:07 PM

sheesh: more unintelligent drivel...

Many Brits fear speaking out because they can actually get thrown in gaol (the way you people spell it).

Do you have any evidence of this?

Posted by: Un:dhimmi at May 16, 2008 1:26 PM

Plenty, you unintelligent British imbecile. Just go and read the comments to articles about Mohammedans in England. I have.

You don't have a First Amendment, Undhimmi. End of story. You're kind of a dhimmi, aren't you?

Posted by: darcy at May 16, 2008 6:12 PM

Oh, btw, British idiots wishbone and undhimmi - learned Arabic yet? You're gonna need it!

Posted by: darcy at May 16, 2008 6:17 PM

Un:dhimmi-

"It's really funny to see someone tossing such half-baked argument around the place, accusing others of logical fallacy."

Indeed.

Darcy-

I wish I was as clever as wot you are. As it is I'll just have to sit and contemplate what I'm missing that you seem to have in abundance.

Although a talent for parading my ignorance of a works publishing date, or the etymology of the words contained therein could take years of training to develop.

Posted by: Wishbone at May 16, 2008 6:28 PM

Darcy, do you or other Americans have any comments on the prominent American women - Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush - wearing headscarves in Muslim countries, and not even in a mosque? See my post here for links.

Is this somehow less "dhimmi" than when the Queen does what she does with all religions - Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs etc - and observes protocoll for a short time? Inside a mosque, not out of it?

Can you see the irony?

(Silly question, obviously.)

Posted by: Britvic at May 16, 2008 6:37 PM

LondonBorn&Bred:

"Reference my previous post, "Her Majesty is a citizen of the European Union and (like every other citizen of the European Union) owes a duty of allegiance to that Union - it's called: 'British irony'"

What you have to remember, London, is that most people on here aren't British, and so, like the poster Witness above, swallow such "British irony" as fact. Given the fallacious crap that some other British posters have written on here - without sharing your ironic intent - it's no wonder that non-British Jihadwatchers have a skewed view of the reality in Britain.

Heck, I'm British, and can recite the entire Parrot Sketch verbatim to prove it, but even I didn't get the "irony". Sorry. (Perhaps it was laden with too much irony? Wouldn't that be ironic?)

Posted by: Matamoros at May 16, 2008 6:44 PM

Darcy-

I wish I was as clever as wot you are. As it is I'll just have to sit and contemplate what I'm missing that you seem to have in abundance. --Wishbone.

Thank You! I agree you'll just have to sit and contemplate, you British imbecile. Oh, and don't hold your breath while you're at it.

Posted by: darcy at May 16, 2008 7:13 PM

Darcy, do you or other Americans have any comments on the prominent American women - Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush - wearing headscarves in Muslim countries, and not even in a mosque? --Britvic

Pelosi and Clinton are Dhimmicrats.

Laura is the President's wife. She has to go along with that "religion of peace" crapola the President spews.

Posted by: darcy at May 16, 2008 7:17 PM

The male hosts were all uncovered.

Her Majesty has shown the world that SHE is UNWORTHY as a MAN is worthy of being uncovered!

I have lost all respect for the woman. She disgusts me.

Posted by: Armoured Passionfruit at May 16, 2008 7:42 PM

Darcy:

"Plenty, you unintelligent British imbecile. Just go and read the comments to articles about Mohammedans in England. I have."

You’re basing your view of “Mohammedans in England” on the comments to Jihadwatch articles? You have got to be kidding?

Darcy, I’m sorry to burst your illusions with regard to British integrity, but some of the British commentators who post on here couldn’t find their arses in the dark with two hands and a flashlight. I don’t even recognise the country that they seek to portray through their comments. And before you accuse me of anything, I live in a heavily Islamic part of East London, and probably encounter more Muslims in one day than most Western J-Watchers see in a week or even a month. (Or even a year, if they live out in the boonies).

Believe it or not, no Muslim has ever knocked on my house and asked me to sell it to him. I’ve never been told to not walk through “a Muslim area”. Nobody’s ever tried to convert me (apart from to Christianity), nor have I experienced any of the other episodes of Muslim intimidation which, if you were to believe the apocryphal stories bandied about by some British posters on here, are the everyday reality for non-Muslims in Britain.

Taking your view of the situation in Britain from the comments of a few British posters is ridiculous. It's like me getting my view of the US from watching episodes of Cops, or from reading the Daily Kos.

Some British people who post here will post deliberate falsehoods and exaggerations because they are politically motivated to do so (and the loudest and least truthful of these individuals don't even live in the UK).

Others will just be the kind of random oddballs and strange-os that all popular websites attract. I recall one British poster - I won't repeat his name to save his embarrassment - who claimed to have been held in a police cell merely for complaining about their action over the notorious Undercover Mosque documentary. After much probing by other JW'ers, his story turned out to be a total lie.

If you get your news on other countries from professionals - reputable newspapers, quality journals, trusted online sources (such as the JW team) etc, well, that is one thing. But if you glibly believe everything that you read in comments by total strangers over the Internet, well, forgive me, but you have absolutely no right to accuse others of being imbeciles.

Posted by: Matamoros at May 16, 2008 8:28 PM

Would this help Britain in becoming a republic?

Remember when King Edward who married Wallis Simpson met Adolph Hitler in Germany?

As the number of muslims grow in Great Britain, this picture of her will be seen by muslims as being favourable to their cause, and by non-muslims as kowtowing to the enemy.

Posted by: Voltaire at May 16, 2008 8:52 PM

"You’re basing your view of “Mohammedans in England” on the comments to Jihadwatch articles? You have got to be kidding?" -Matamoros

London newspapers, Matamoros. Not JW articles.

Learned Arabic yet? You're gonna need it.

Posted by: darcy at May 16, 2008 11:32 PM

Just when you think that comments couldn’t get any worse. Witness, did it not occur to you that maybe LondonBorn&Bred was talking out his backside when he made his [totally false] claim that “like every citizen of the EU”, The Queen “owes a duty of allegiance to that Union”?

Which part of the word "if" confuses you?

Heed your own advise.

The Queen may be a miserable wretch to the likes of you, but most Britons - particularly those of the Dunkirk generation - are rather proud of her.

No doubt, you have some lovely mosques mushrooming up around London these days -- the queen and her followers of the "Dunkirk generation "I'm sure, will be very happy to embrace shariah in the near future.

The British are of such superior intellect -- so much so, that they even managed to outsmart themselves.

Cheers, what?

Posted by: witness at May 16, 2008 11:46 PM

A reminder/observation: Civility will serve you much better in getting your point across. And it does not preclude having an energetic or even heated debate. For that matter, frank and focused criticism from either side of the pond need not (and must not) preclude a sense of common cause.

Posted by: MarisolJW at May 17, 2008 12:40 AM

Marisol-

Agreed, yet if I may make a few observations of my own: There are British posters here, such as Matamoros, who have a boots on the ground perspective, if you will, as to the realities of daily life in Muslim populated neighbourhoods. In any debate, that perspective is valuable in forming a frame of reference in which to form opinion or, indeed, raise questions that build upon a shared knowledge of that perspective.

On the flip side of the coin, there are posters such as myself who live in major cities and, contrary to the 'infestation' scale rantings of other posters, might have to wait four or five weeks at a time to spot even one Muslim.

In pointing out such, we are painting a picture of Britain whereby we hope to give a real-time perspective upon the make up of our nation.

Having said this, can you imagine how frustrated we Brits often feel when our contributions are dismissed as the fantasies of fools in denial, simply because our experiences don't conform to how others might wish them to be, so as not to upset their particular, established order of reality? I don't know about other Britons present upon these threads but, for my own part, over the course of the last two years I have become absolutely fed up of being told what the world outside my front door looks like by people who have neither experience nor qualification to do so and, having challenged that view, been dismissed for a fool. We Brits have made every attempt to communicate our experience and knowledge of our nation relevant to the context of debate on these threads. Is it too much to expect that our contributions be consumed at face value, with the spirit of trust afforded to the honest debater? Or, indeed, are we so untrustworthy in our discussions that any manner of counterpoint is to be viewed as dishonest if it falls beyond the bounds of a particular order of thinking?

Again, I wouldn't presume to know how other Britons on these threads feel about the matter, but I have gone far beyond the point whereby my frustration, after repeated attempts at objective and rational contribution, has become little more than contempt and, having reached that point, have little trouble expressing such for those who have minds and won't use them.

Marisol, I fully endorse your call for civility. I would relish the opportunity to engage in robust debate. I have no further patience, however, for any whose theories have been formed in a bubble to the exclusion of any and all other, honest input. If we start on that footing, then there is no debate; merely one bunch screaming that the Earth is flat and the other bunch banging their heads against a wall in frustration.

It is a common characteristic of both American and Briton alike, if we are to look at only our two nations for simplicity's sake, that we do not suffer fools gladly. Neither should we; in many areas, the stakes are far too high.

I have every respect for the work yourself, Robert and others put into this site and deeply appreciate the resources made available to ourselves so I would hope that these observations are received at face value, rather than any negative criticism toward yourselves or the site, but it is indeed sad to see your work resolved into repetitive mantras which deal in nothing other than absolutes. In such a manner, not only is your hard work denigrated, but the core message is corrupted and the commonality between us all becomes so much more distant, our cause becomes lost.

Truly Marisol, I find myself in the position where I absolutely support your proposition as regards the manner in which we should conduct ourselves in debate, yet not without a certain sadness at the notion that such may never come to pass until posters begin to accept and trust the integrity of those they debate and form their thoughts or questions around the information offered in good faith.

Until then, any thread that deals with a subject like this is heading the same way and, to be frank, it's starting to sound like a stuck record.

Posted by: Wishbone at May 17, 2008 9:14 AM

Wishbone:

'Is it too much to expect that our contributions be consumed at face value, with the spirit of trust afforded to the honest debater?'

Yes

'Or, indeed, are we so untrustworthy in our discussions that any manner of counterpoint is to be viewed as dishonest if it falls beyond the bounds of a particular order of thinking?'

Yes

'Marisol, I fully endorse your call for civility.'

No, you don't. More obsequiousness and fawning. In reality, your currency is abuse and insults. See your own posts.

'I would relish the opportunity to engage in robust debate.'

And personal attacks.

'merely one bunch screaming that the Earth is flat and the other bunch banging their heads against a wall in frustration.'

I take it you are a member of the latter bunch. The right one.

'I find myself in the position where I absolutely support your proposition as regards the manner in which we should conduct ourselves in debate, yet not without a certain sadness at the notion that such may never come to pass until posters begin to accept and trust the integrity of those they debate and form their thoughts or questions around the information offered in good faith.'

I can really feel your acceptance and trust in my integrity all the way. Keep it coming brother.

'it's starting to sound like a stuck record.'

Yes

Posted by: johndoe at May 17, 2008 10:41 AM

johndoe-

You do realise that your first two responses only logically serve to reinforce my point?

As for civility, of course I would endorse any such call. I also said I wouldn't suffer fools gladly and you're doing your best to make yourself right at home in that category. It's certainly no surprise that you choose to equate civility toward one of our hosts as 'obsequiousness and fawning.'

Don't take it personally. As I've already pointed out, it's not just you. While accusing me of using abuse as currency, then you may wish to consider how insulting it is when every utterance from your direction serves only to tell me how deluded I am for holding an opposing view, based on rational and objective experience. Or when you do it to any other poster who disagrees with your view for that matter.

Was there any particular reason why you chose to deliberately misconstrue a simple metaphor? I could perhaps think of a few, but I'll let you explain it to us if you wish.

When your arguments begin to show integrity, then perhaps I'll attribute such to you, but not until. I won't be holding my breath.

Posted by: Wishbone at May 17, 2008 11:42 AM

As Marisol mentioned above, we have a common cause of defending ourselves against a shared enemy and resorting to a personal spat like this seems inappropriate and wasteful. We can agree to differ about the Queen.....and that's all Robert's fault for posting the item in the first place.His honourable intention is to transmit information and promote intelligent debate (and God bless his cotton socks for that),but such issues also inevitably become heated and passionate.This thread has dragged on partly because I took umbrage at being personally insulted when that was quite unnecessary.
We both value this site highly and do not wish to spoil it with petty bickering. However, I stand by my indignation at some crude and aggressive reactions.
Once before I was verbally assaulted by someone for simply mentioning past sins of the Catholic church and the Spanish Inquisition, with the poster calling me 'filth'. I protested but he's still on here ready for another tantrum and torrent of abuse.
So let's move on and be civil...I agree on that. And if I had no integrity I don't think I'd be writing all this.

Posted by: johndoe at May 17, 2008 1:38 PM

When in muslim lands, you should adapt your behaviour to accomodate muslim sensiblities.

Can anyone tell me how that works out concerning the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island.

Those islands belong to Australia, as an external Australian territory.

There are no indigenous natives on those islands. Muslims were brought in to work for their European overseers.

As far as the Cocos are concerned, Home Island is where the muslims live, and West Island is where the European non-muslim population live.

Yet on Home Island, which is Australian territory, you cannot go there without permission from the muslims who live there, and you must be dressed modestly, wearing long sleeves and long pants or skirts. No shorts allowed.

Christmas Island is the same. The Kamphong which is where the muslims live, is segregated from the rest of the Island, and you have to get permission to go there, and dress modestly.

Why is this allowed?

Why do Australians need permission to go to a muslim part of their own country?

Will this be replicated on the mainland?

Posted by: Voltaire at May 17, 2008 6:21 PM

When in muslim lands, you should adapt your behaviour to accomodate muslim sensiblities.

Can anyone tell me how that works out concerning the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island.

Those islands belong to Australia, as an external Australian territory.

There are no indigenous natives on those islands. Muslims were brought in to work for their European overseers.

As far as the Cocos are concerned, Home Island is where the muslims live, and West Island is where the European non-muslim population live.

Yet on Home Island, which is Australian territory, you cannot go there without permission from the muslims who live there, and you must be dressed modestly, wearing long sleeves and long pants or skirts. No shorts allowed.

Christmas Island is the same. The Kamphong which is where the muslims live, is segregated from the rest of the Island, and you have to get permission to go there, and dress modestly.

Why is this allowed?

Why do Australians need permission to go to a muslim part of their own country?

Will this be replicated on the mainland?

Posted by: Voltaire at May 17, 2008 6:21 PM

When in muslim lands, you should adapt your behaviour to accomodate muslim sensiblities.

Can anyone tell me how that works out concerning the Cocos Islands and Christmas Island.

Those islands belong to Australia, as an external Australian territory.

There are no indigenous natives on those islands. Muslims were brought in to work for their European overseers.

As far as the Cocos are concerned, Home Island is where the muslims live, and West Island is where the European non-muslim population live.

Yet on Home Island, which is Australian territory, you cannot go there without permission from the muslims who live there, and you must be dressed modestly, wearing long sleeves and long pants or skirts. No shorts allowed.

Christmas Island is the same. The Kamphong which is where the muslims live, is segregated from the rest of the Island, and you have to get permission to go there, and dress modestly.

Why is this allowed?

Why do Australians need permission to go to a muslim part of their own country?

Will this be replicated on the mainland?

Posted by: Voltaire at May 17, 2008 6:21 PM

"The real problem is that Elizabeth II encourages the admission of Turkey into the EU".

From profitsbeard

The queen has only a symbolic status and no way in position to impose nor enforce turkey's entry into EU. Besides the fact that she represents nothing to EU,considering britain's general policy of alienation from the union's foreign affairs make your above statements simply ludicrous.

"Turkey is not part of Europe nor are its inhabitants' views European."
from profitsbeard

My goodness ! what a big discovery! I am impressed. Why then there are so many jerks lurking the JW who still believe and try to make believe such a thing (turkey's membership) will ever happen?

"This is one more invitation to a silent capitulation to the invaders and colonizers and destroyers of Europe.Ataturk failed to expose and condemn and discredit the plagiarized and heretical folly of the Koran, so his efforts were doomed".

Ataturk could not live long enough to suppress and at least to tame down a religion that existed for centuries in the ottoman empire. He only lived for 15 years after he took office as the first president of the republic.

On the other hand, unlike Turkey, Holland has never had any historical ties with islam and it is simply repulsive to witness how you dutch people have capitulated in front of islam in such short time span.

Posted by: Icarus_Project at May 18, 2008 11:13 AM