Meanwhile, the May government has admitted that a “significant portion” of returned Islamic State jihadis free, as they are considered no longer to be a security concern. This persecution of foes of the Islamic State, therefore, is just more shameless Islamopandering from the British government, ever anxious to appease its Muslim population.
“TERROR TRIALS Outrage as Westerners fighting AGAINST ISIS alongside UK’s Kurdish allies face same treatment as returning jihadis.. prosecution and even prison,” by Aletha Adu, The Sun, April 8, 2019 (thanks to The Religion of Peace):
BRAVE Westerners who dropped their cosy lives to fight ISIS alongside the UK’s Kurdish allies face being treated like returning jihadis.
The UK is among many countries including Germany, The Netherlands and Australia, who penalise volunteers who risked their lives.
Former Brit squaddie Joe Robinson, 25, was arrested on holiday on trumped-up terrorism charges in 2017.
His partner Mira Rojkan, a Bulgarian citizen studying Law, was also arrested and accused of engaging in terrorist propaganda.
Rojkan was given a suspended sentence, the BBC reported Robinson’s mother as saying.
Robinson, who previously served in Afghanistan with the Duke of Lancaster Regiment, previously admitted fighting ISIS but went on to deny he acted alongside the Kurdish militia.
‘I AM NOT A CRIMINAL’He wasn’t jailed in the UK, but last September he was jailed for seven-and-a-half years in Turkey.
He remained on bail as he appealed his sentence, but weeks before Christmas, he told the BBC he fled Turkey.
He said: “I could not accept the sentence and charges as I am not a criminal” adding “I had to take matters into my own hands.”
Although officials haven’t yet jailed returning volunteers in the UK, many others have faced intense scrutiny and prosecution upon their return….
And it’s not the same in the US.
A former US Marine claims they’re praised for fighting ISIS.
Havel Zafer, who served as a US Marine in Afghanistan told The Times it’s easier for Americans to join without any threat of prosecution.
He added: “In fact we’d likely get embraced for what we were doing when we got home.”
Even when he was injured on the battlefield, he recalled American medics “laughing and joking with him”, while others noted he was doing “good” work….
Uriah Sheep says
Just another example of Globalist Theresa May’s Islamization goal of the United Kingdom.
LB says
Exactly. It’s like they’re doing everything they can in order to become part of the global islamic caliphate, and they can’t kill off their nation (along with it’s entire culture and history) fast enough. Insanity at its finest! But what’s even more insane than the globalist elites submitting to islam is that most of the native people are actively helping them! Even worse, this is not limited to UK only, but to the whole Western Europe!!
It’s like we live in a parallel universe where parody has become reality. It boggles my mind…
gravenimage says
Yes–this is both appalling and hard to even believe.
william rodgers says
It is EVIL taking over the world. So many want to flee to the US because we have the only world leader who puts America first. Problem is we have a congress that is more like the EU fools who have already caved to the muhammadans, and even have two of them in our Congress. The US must hold the line and not elect more Jihadists into office. Pelosi is like May and Merkel she drags her muhammadan bitch everywhere and placed her on high security committees, Never heard a freshman congress person getting a seat on the Foreign Relations committee in US history.
John Allan says
Returning jihadis? They shouldn’t be allowed back in. Something to remember come the next election.
Spiro says
Do the Brits have the will to salvage
what’s left of the culture
James Lincoln says
Spiro,
I think a lot of the Brits have the will to at least attempt to salvage what’s left of their culture.
The problem is that it may be too late. Islam has, in all respects, made huge inroads – and the long-term demographics are not encouraging. Check out the Pew research website.
The UK’s only hope would be to elect a Prime Minister like UKIP’s Gerard Batten – and that is not likely to happen.
As Robert Spencer has said multiple times, the UK’s finished. Unfortunately, he is likely correct.
gravenimage says
Don’t urge us to surrender yet.
Spiro says
It getting to the point I can’t read this site anymore with the level of insanity that’s being exposed
Great Britian and the rest of western Europe has surrendered to Islam without firing a shot
Maureen Roberts says
You are not alone , It is beginning to wear me down .
James says
I suppose that if someone was in the underground fighting the Nazis in WW II, then after the war they should be put in jail as traitors or terrorists too. It seems like the same thing. Why not put the returning ISIS fighters in jail? Some of them may have committed war crimes, they were traitors to the West. Perhaps they should be in jail. After WW II a lot of Nazi war criminals turned into good citizens in the West. Why should they get to start new lives as model citizens when their victims were burned in ovens at death camps or worked to death in labor camps or killed by killing squads. Where do they get a new chance to be model citizens? In Nirvana, or Heaven or reincarnated in a new life?
Niky Milne says
Absolutely agree 💯%
Naildriver says
I had written this for a previous post, when gravenimage took issue with my post; where she felt I was advocating we stoop to the level of Islam’s barbaric practices. This bit of news seems suitable for presentation of this argument.
The main point of contention was my statement:
‘This anachronistic notion that we must be above the Islamics in war is absurd, since war is a messy bloody business.’
gravenimage said that was untrue.
This following explanation of that statement is both out respect for you, graven, and any one who might find the issue of interest.
In my thinking at the time I was referring to our cultural mindset expressed in virtually all popular movies and tv shows, that depict our soldiers in conflicts; from Afghanistan, Iraq, to Washington DC; where there is this necessity that Islam, is shown in a good light.
Sometimes Islamic devotees are depicted even the heroes as in Three Kings, or Lone Survivor; and that revenge or blowback, if any is deserved as a number of ‘Homeland’ shows depict ; with even the assassination of the white male US Vice President justifiable — because the contention is, is that Islam is not the enemy.
The narrative is that all Muslims are innocent unless directly involved in the particular terrorist act, and these misunderstanders and criminals who misuse Islam often aren’t even Muslim — or so Hollywood would have us believe.
But, if Islam is culpable, for the large numbers of terrorist attacks in its name, then all Muslims are responsible in some measure; just as the carpet bombed ‘apple pie baking Nazi Mothers and their Nazi Boy Scout teens’, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese bowed in reverence to their Emperor when atom bombs cooked them in Hiroshima. The 9/11 devotees certainly held all non- Muslims as lawful targets — why can we not be so honest that Islam is our enemy?
Lone Survivor, Three Kings, Homeland, Syriana, The Kingdom, the Hurt Locker, and the series, Homeland pretty much exemplify this narrative; that we can live with Muslims just fine, it’s these criminal evil terrorists that hijack or pervert Islam that are the problem.
And some movies, of course, exonerate Islam’s threat altogether, and rather vilify and introduce the ‘white’ male as the culprit, as in Salt, London has Fallen, and the Die Hard movies, and even Flight Plan — where Islam or Muslims are righteously depicted, and Muslims are actually said to be slandered where the viewing audience itself is shamed.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to have said, ‘Worn out Hollywood plot devices’ instead of ‘anachronistic’.
My contention, I suspect you object to, but certainly many would, is that terrorism is not the enemy. But factually terrorism is merely a method of warfare, however brutal.
The Revolutionary soldiers used many techniques that would be considered terrorism, particularly under the notions of honorable warfare in the late 18th century. Terroristic tactics are part of our militaries training today, as in the Navy SEALS, Army’s Green Berets, and Marines.
I suspect some Muslims join up in our military just to learn how to kill effectively and carry out jihad when they choose later with a higher body count.
And what the heck was ‘Shock and Awe’ but to terrorize?
Drones, in fact, are tools of warfare, that to those under their attack, are decidedly terrorizing ‘unfair and evil’. Like you, I find cruel or indirect brutal killings ‘wrong’ as well as collateral deaths, but hardly see how ours are more compassionate in and of themselves, than the Muslims. Yes, after a war is over we do not continue the barbarities Islam is so fond of. And those barbarities are among the things why Islam is our enemy — but there are a slew of good reasons our government should declare Islam an enemy — or at least unfit to share in our society.
And, during Bush’s presidency body counts from drone strikes were routinely reported upon the news — 20 to 30 killed, seemed to be a standard figure for weeks at a time ‘ but whoops! this time it was a wedding party. ‘We’ll get chewed out for that!’ And, Obama used drones very often. And when he whacked Saddam Hussain the effort to not anger Muslims was paramount.
But must such tactics be reserved for underdogs? If today the USA’s governing body should become so corrupt and overrun by Muslims and non Americans, where Islam’s sharia is the law, and traitors uphold it, then yes ‘terrorism’ to overthrow such a scenario would be justified in most minds — mine included, and I for one wouldn’t quibble about how a patriot managed his warfare.
The Constitution of the USA, with our freedom to bear arms, and clear statements from our forefathers, including the Declaration of Independence of the USA, upholds the very real concept and method of ‘terror’ to effect the will of the American people, ‘with guns’, against a tyrannical or utterly corrupt government.
You perhaps would not like General Jackson’s, Patton’s, Lemay’s, or Shermans methods but they probably shortened the warfare and saved the lives of innocent people.
And, Graven, my post argues to avoid collateral damage and the awful consequences of all out war by way of the TRUTH and open discourse using free speech — which was the point I was making.
The honest recognition of what we face, Islam, and who the enemy is, Islam, and why, because Islam is a false set of lies that degrades humanity — is important.
Certainly Robert Spencer is aware of this 1984 esque ‘double think’ the Government of the USA has descended into for not being honest about the status of Islam to start with.
The endless war we’ve seen since 9/11 is a consequence of corruption, greed and lies from a parade of traitors, venal politicians, corporations, religious leaders, and ignorant fools who very ofter profiteer from this lie that we are not at war with Islam — but Muslims have no such confusion.
Had we carpet bombed the Middle East and Mecca during the Muslim’s pilgrimage after 2001 it would have been a more just and compassionate measure for humanity; and far more honorable to the USA than this quagmire of lies. If Islam itself was the to have been the true named target of our assault, today there would be no threat any longer from Islam — and Pakistan wouldn’t have ballistic missiles.
Now it’s debatable whether ‘we’, in this self-righteous notion not to offend a whole religion, haven’t poised Islam to be victorious almost everywhere, or given millions of devotees smug self-righteous justification, at least, to intimidate, even kill, any who publicly offend it.
RonaldB says
I think the whole post is fuzzy, emotional, and would not do too much to help our side. Everything we could wish to attain, we could reach by the simple expedient of excluding Muslims from immigration. Deport the Muslims who are not citizens, and keep track of the ones who are. You could even exclude Muslims from the government, although that would admittedly involve a Constitutional problem.
What’s the point of carpet-bombing Mecca? Osama bin Laden was already a refugee from Saudi Arabia. Furthermore, carpet-bombing a large area is totally ineffective. We dropped more bombs on Vietnam than in World War II.
The US policy in the Middle East would be best if the US simply stopped being an actor there. Iraq and Iran fought long, costly, endless wars, each side killing the Muslims of the other, until the US toppled Saddam Hussein. Syria was protecting Christians, and the US sponsored rebel groups to de-stabilize the Syrian government. Libya was keeping refugees from sailing to Europe until the US sponsored the rebellion that killed Gaddafi.
Some people think all you have to do is kill everyone in sight and your problems are solved.
Naildriver says
But, I agree with all of what you suggest we do, Ronald. We have gone over the edge with compromise and necessity, but It is true that a certain amount of compromise and necessity are far saner than ‘killing everyone sight — which isn’t at all what I was saying.
gravenimage says
test
gravenimage says
Naildriver wrote:
I had written this for a previous post, when gravenimage took issue with my post; where she felt I was advocating we stoop to the level of Islam’s barbaric practices. This bit of news seems suitable for presentation of this argument.
The main point of contention was my statement:
‘This anachronistic notion that we must be above the Islamics in war is absurd, since war is a messy bloody business.’
gravenimage said that was untrue.
…………………………..
I say again that there is *nothing* anachronistic about our upholding our own values, instead of sinking to the level of Jihadists.
I noted that we did not have to adopt Fascism in order to defeat the Nazis–and this is *quite* true.
More:
This following explanation of that statement is both out respect for you, graven, and any one who might find the issue of interest.
In my thinking at the time I was referring to our cultural mindset expressed in virtually all popular movies and tv shows, that depict our soldiers in conflicts; from Afghanistan, Iraq, to Washington DC; where there is this necessity that Islam, is shown in a good light.
Sometimes Islamic devotees are depicted even the heroes as in Three Kings, or Lone Survivor; and that revenge or blowback, if any is deserved as a number of ‘Homeland’ shows depict ; with even the assassination of the white male US Vice President justifiable — because the contention is, is that Islam is not the enemy.
The narrative is that all Muslims are innocent unless directly involved in the particular terrorist act, and these misunderstanders and criminals who misuse Islam often aren’t even Muslim — or so Hollywood would have us believe.
…………………………..
I have many times criticized films and TV shows that whitewash Islam–in fact, I did this in a reply to Naildriver on that very thread. I have no idea why he is pretending otherwise.
More:
But, if Islam is culpable, for the large numbers of terrorist attacks in its name, then all Muslims are responsible in some measure; just as the carpet bombed ‘apple pie baking Nazi Mothers and their Nazi Boy Scout teens’, or the hundreds of thousands of Japanese bowed in reverence to their Emperor when atom bombs cooked them in Hiroshima. The 9/11 devotees certainly held all non- Muslims as lawful targets — why can we not be so honest that Islam is our enemy?
…………………………..
I have often noted that Islam is indeed the enemy, just as Fascism was.
But no–we did not go out of our way to target apple pie baking Nazi mothers, nor did we specifically target Hitler youth.
More:
Lone Survivor, Three Kings, Homeland, Syriana, The Kingdom, the Hurt Locker, and the series, Homeland pretty much exemplify this narrative; that we can live with Muslims just fine, it’s these criminal evil terrorists that hijack or pervert Islam that are the problem.
And some movies, of course, exonerate Islam’s threat altogether, and rather vilify and introduce the ‘white’ male as the culprit, as in Salt, London has Fallen, and the Die Hard movies, and even Flight Plan — where Islam or Muslims are righteously depicted, and Muslims are actually said to be slandered where the viewing audience itself is shamed.
Perhaps it would have been more accurate to have said, ‘Worn out Hollywood plot devices’ instead of ‘anachronistic’.
…………………………..
Again, I have criticized this many times. Yes–there is often not just a whitewash of Islam, but also a depiction of Western troops–especially Americans–as not just brutal but as actual psychopaths. This is entirely disgusting and false.
More:
My contention, I suspect you object to, but certainly many would, is that terrorism is not the enemy. But factually terrorism is merely a method of warfare, however brutal.
…………………………..
Again, this is absurd. I have cited Islam as the enemy for thirteen years here. The idea that I have ever said the enemy was the tactic of terrorism is just false.
More:
The Revolutionary soldiers used many techniques that would be considered terrorism, particularly under the notions of honorable warfare in the late 18th century. Terroristic tactics are part of our militaries training today, as in the Navy SEALS, Army’s Green Berets, and Marines.
I suspect some Muslims join up in our military just to learn how to kill effectively and carry out jihad when they choose later with a higher body count.
And what the heck was ‘Shock and Awe’ but to terrorize?
…………………………..
I have cited this myself–saying that we don’t want to train Muslims to kill more effectively. I have *never* said that the military does not teach warfare. Why would I?ave I
And where have I ever condemned the Revolutionary War, or the actions of the Green Berets or the Navy Seals? I have not.
More:
Drones, in fact, are tools of warfare, that to those under their attack, are decidedly terrorizing ‘unfair and evil’. Like you, I find cruel or indirect brutal killings ‘wrong’ as well as collateral deaths, but hardly see how ours are more compassionate in and of themselves, than the Muslims. Yes, after a war is over we do not continue the barbarities Islam is so fond of. And those barbarities are among the things why Islam is our enemy — but there are a slew of good reasons our government should declare Islam an enemy — or at least unfit to share in our society.
…………………………..
This is grotesque false moral equivalence. Targeting a Jihadist–while trying to avoid collateral deaths–is *not* the same thing as Muslims bombing a restaurant or market or school full of children.
The idea that we use the same tactics as Muslims and only stop when we have won the war is quite false.
More:
And, during Bush’s presidency body counts from drone strikes were routinely reported upon the news — 20 to 30 killed, seemed to be a standard figure for weeks at a time ‘ but whoops! this time it was a wedding party. ‘We’ll get chewed out for that!’ And, Obama used drones very often. And when he whacked Saddam Hussain the effort to not anger Muslims was paramount.
…………………………..
Again, we were not targeting civilians–including wedding parties. The idea that you can say the same for Jihadists is clearly absurd.
con’t
Naildriver says
Again, I never said it was the same.The wedding thing wasn’t to suggest we target there civilians but that our efforts are ironic in this duplicity to continue the ruse Islam is blameless particularly with Obama..
Nor was the post trying to establish some moral equivalency to what Islamics believe or do regarding terror. Did I not specifically state Islam is our enemy for this very reason!? That’s absurd, and your attack is insane… but heck — I do have a critic.
gravenimage says
My addressing Naildriver’s points one by one is not an attack.
kuriakose says
As we all agree that islam itself is the enemy, then the question is how do we deal with islam? But islam can only act through human agencies, and most of these people have the supremacist mentality and the blind faith that islam imparts. Anyone who has had experience in discussions with muslims on you tube etc can attest to this, it is either yes islam is like that, so what, the prophet and allah know best, or it is the taqiyya moderates who try to rewrite their books. The only hope of dealing with this evil ideology is for all decent moral people to continue speaking out against it, for western governments to stop protecting islam. But as we are seeing, since this doesn’t seem to happen on a scale large enough to have much impact, then the question arises what next? If leaders of the West actually target islam as an enemy of humanity and stop their trade and dealings with muslim nations that are practising syariah, targeting minorities etc, then we might have some hope. But I doubt that’s going to happen. So tensions and hatreds can only build up until all hell breaks loose. And for many, the consequent blood letting can actually be a catharsis for the soul. The Old Testament rules were an eye for an eye, but not to overdo it. Jesus warned us against vengeance, as it would only corrupt our own souls in the end. If we could depend on human justice to do the right thing, then most of us would be content for justice to be done, however, now we see western judicial systems seem to be intent on protecting the muslim aggressors, and taking stern action against non muslims rightly pointing out the evil in islam.
Perhaps it would be wise to learn from China: First Detention, Now Demolition: China Remakes Its Muslim Region- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sUEek-u14w
Draconian steps have to be taken to deal with such an evil ideology. What is debatable here is what steps to take, but as I pointed out, the non violent steps that can be taken are being targeted by western governments under the banner islamophobia.
Protecting islam is actually lawlessness under the disguise of law and order.
Naildriver says
Kuriakose, you point out a very concerning state of affairs.
I too have concerns over how judicial systems are approaching this, particularly in Europe, and I am losing hope the SCOTUS will be any more influential in protecting non-Muslims, or less corrupted, as with empowering Islamics as European courts have done.
Obviously many politicians, as even Cruz of Texas, opt to defend Islam; thinking religious freedom clause in the Constitution entitles all manner of rights and leeway to this enemy, Islam.
gravenimage says
con’t
More:
But must such tactics be reserved for underdogs? If today the USA’s governing body should become so corrupt and overrun by Muslims and non Americans, where Islam’s sharia is the law, and traitors uphold it, then yes ‘terrorism’ to overthrow such a scenario would be justified in most minds — mine included, and I for one wouldn’t quibble about how a patriot managed his warfare.
The Constitution of the USA, with our freedom to bear arms, and clear statements from our forefathers, including the Declaration of Independence of the USA, upholds the very real concept and method of ‘terror’ to effect the will of the American people, ‘with guns’, against a tyrannical or utterly corrupt government.
…………………………..
If it got to the point where Islam took over the US government, then yes–we would have the right to fight back, just as the French Resistance did during WWII.
But we are *not* at the point yet. This would be like saying that Winston Churchill was killing random Germans–or just random Britons–during the 1930s, instead of trying to convince them that Fascism actually presented a threat, as he was finally able to do.
And no–the Partisans were not enslaving Germans, nor were they committing genocide. In other words, they were not embracing the tactics of the Fascists they fought.
More:
You perhaps would not like General Jackson’s, Patton’s, Lemay’s, or Shermans methods but they probably shortened the warfare and saved the lives of innocent people.
…………………………..
Sherman was not, of course, fighting against the government–that would, in fact, be the Confederates.
And the idea that I would be opposed to Patton when I myself cited our fight against the Fascists simply makes no sense.
More:
And, Graven, my post argues to avoid collateral damage and the awful consequences of all out war by way of the TRUTH and open discourse using free speech — which was the point I was making.
…………………………..
Really? Since this is what I have always said then what is the purpose of this post?
More:
The honest recognition of what we face, Islam, and who the enemy is, Islam, and why, because Islam is a false set of lies that degrades humanity — is important.
…………………………..
When have I ever said anything different? Of course, I have not–this has been my stance here for thirteen years at Jihad Watch. Why is Naildriver pretending otherwise?
More:
Certainly Robert Spencer is aware of this 1984 esque ‘double think’ the Government of the USA has descended into for not being honest about the status of Islam to start with.
The endless war we’ve seen since 9/11 is a consequence of corruption, greed and lies from a parade of traitors, venal politicians, corporations, religious leaders, and ignorant fools who very ofter profiteer from this lie that we are not at war with Islam — but Muslims have no such confusion.
…………………………..
Robert Spencer and Jihad Watch have indeed often been critical of official whitewash of Islam. But the idea that everyone who is in denial about the threat of Islam and has swallowed the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” is a traitor is quite mistaken.
More:
Had we carpet bombed the Middle East and Mecca during the Muslim’s pilgrimage after 2001 it would have been a more just and compassionate measure for humanity; and far more honorable to the USA than this quagmire of lies. If Islam itself was the to have been the true named target of our assault, today there would be no threat any longer from Islam — and Pakistan wouldn’t have ballistic missiles.
…………………………..
I don’t think that carpet bombing the Middle East would have done much for us–our main problem is that Muslims have infiltrated the West to such a degree. We should stop the continued invasion of Muslims into the West, and start deporting–beginning with the worst Jihadists.
As for dealing with the continued denial over the threat of Islam, this is what Jihad Watch is for.
More:
Now it’s debatable whether ‘we’, in this self-righteous notion not to offend a whole religion, haven’t poised Islam to be victorious almost everywhere, or given millions of devotees smug self-righteous justification, at least, to intimidate, even kill, any who publicly offend it.
…………………………..
Jihad Watch regularly addresses the issue of not “offending” Islam–and rejects it. I have also always rejected this.
I have no idea how Naildriver managed to miss this.
None of this means, however, that we should adopt the savagery of Islam ourselves.
What is Naildriver’s actual point here? Is he is advocating some sort of mass vigilantism, aimed at anyone in denial over the threat of Islam, but is too coy to say so?
I have no real idea. Certainly, his claims that I advocate appeasing Islam are mistaken at best, and dishonest at worst.
Naildriver says
And where on earth do you read I’m attacking you or Jihad Watch? I actually thought you might have enjoyed the post, such as it was.
But your officious and incredible conclusions of my post suggest paranoia. So this is sadly shocking to me.
Carry on, you Amazon of the message board. We all love you anyway..
gravenimage says
Actually, I was mostly pointing out that most of Naildriver’s implications about my positions were mistaken, Sorry that he is, for some reason, shocked by this.
Naildriver says
I only bring up carpet bombing because it is a historical fact and useful in this discussion regarding collateral damage and tactics that lend ‘humanity’ to the war effort — and perhaps in this age of drones and smart bombs, carpet bombing is an ‘anachronistic’ method of subduing an enemy (that obviously through this technology, has also become a political tool as well,)– to suggest I’d advocate using this method of warfare literally is misunderstanding my post at best and slander at worst. But clearly these new technologies are redefining the the West’s methods of approaching an enemy — and even the definitions of the enemy. And there is a growing presumption that police methods can contain and minimize the efforts of jihadists– so that business as usual may proceed, never mind that the ‘business’ is corrupt.
Given your misreadings I can only imagine how the SPLC is reading it. I did state very clearly my intentions and in no way am I ‘coyly’, or in any fashion inciting any kind of violence, graven.
We are not inserting scripture in a new religious tome from God, but merely doing our bit to make the world a safer saner place — hopefully, where we motivate the public’s and government’s restraint of those who murder upon the directives of their texts, devoted Muslims.
gravenimage says
Naildriver wrote:
I only bring up carpet bombing because it is a historical fact and useful in this discussion regarding collateral damage and tactics that lend ‘humanity’ to the war effort — and perhaps in this age of drones and smart bombs, carpet bombing is an ‘anachronistic’ method of subduing an enemy (that obviously through this technology, has also become a political tool as well,)– to suggest I’d advocate using this method of warfare literally is misunderstanding my post at best and slander at worst.
……………………………..
Actually, it was Naildriver himself–and no one else–who said that “had we carpet bombed the Middle East and Mecca during the Muslim’s pilgrimage after 2001 it would have been a more just and compassionate measure for humanity…”
To then say that my suggesting he would advocate carpet bombing is slander makes absolutely no sense.
I was not saying that carpet bombing is always unacceptable is always unacceptable, in any case–but if more targeted bombing, such as the use of drones or targeting military installations, is possible then this is preferable in most cases. Certainly, I don’t think that randomly carpet bombing the Middle East after 9/11 would have done much good.
More:
But clearly these new technologies are redefining the the West’s methods of approaching an enemy — and even the definitions of the enemy. And there is a growing presumption that police methods can contain and minimize the efforts of jihadists– so that business as usual may proceed, never mind that the ‘business’ is corrupt.
……………………………..
Our main problem, as I have noted, is that Muslims have been allowed to invade the West. Traditional forms of warfare have their place, certainly, but can do little when the Jihadists are already within the gates.
And no–this problem was not caused by free trade. Crushing free trade would not make us safer–just poorer, and even less able to defend against Jihad.
More:
Given your misreadings I can only imagine how the SPLC is reading it. I did state very clearly my intentions and in no way am I ‘coyly’, or in any fashion inciting any kind of violence, graven.
……………………………..
Actually, it is not terribly clear what Naildriver’s point is here, with his going on about traitors. This last post hasn’t made any of his positions any clearer.
More:
We are not inserting scripture in a new religious tome from God, but merely doing our bit to make the world a safer saner place — hopefully, where we motivate the public’s and government’s restraint of those who murder upon the directives of their texts, devoted Muslims.
……………………………..
If by this Naildriver is referring to educating the authorities and public about the threat of Islam, I whole-heartedly agree.
Naildriver says
Graven said: ‘But we are *not* at the point yet. This would be like saying that Winston Churchill was killing random Germans–or just random Britons–during the 1930s, instead of trying to convince them that Fascism actually presented a threat, as he was finally able to do.’
And, at what point do you assume we are at after 8 years of Obama with his Islamic promotions and how many new Muslim immigrants since 2001?
And no! it is not like saying your above conclusion… and no one has suggested Muslims randomly be killed or even arrested, and in addition Muslim devotees are not as citizens of Germany even during the rise of Hitler.
But, what’s odd to me is these head-long assertions of what I said, from dead wrong interpretations.
gravenimage says
More from Naildriver:
Graven said: ‘But we are *not* at the point yet. This would be like saying that Winston Churchill was killing random Germans–or just random Britons–during the 1930s, instead of trying to convince them that Fascism actually presented a threat, as he was finally able to do.’
And, at what point do you assume we are at after 8 years of Obama with his Islamic promotions and how many new Muslim immigrants since 2001?
………………………….
Obama did great, possibly irreparable harm to the US–few have said so more than myself.
But no–the United States has *not* been taken over by Muslims as Naildriver pretends. President Trump is not a Muslim–he is, in fact, pretty reliably anti-Jihad, albeit rather too inconsistent in his defense against it.
And despite the actions of some stupid judges and politicians, we are not living under Shari’ah law, either.
Why would Naildriver want to pretend that we are?
And the Muslim population here is still about 1%. This is 1% too many, given how dangerous Muslims are, but this does *not* make us a Muslim country.
More:
And no! it is not like saying your above conclusion… and no one has suggested Muslims randomly be killed or even arrested, and in addition Muslim devotees are not as citizens of Germany even during the rise of Hitler.
………………………….
What exactly *is* Naildriver saying? This is an awful lot of verbiage for his to continue to be vague about what it is that he is actually suggesting here.
More:
But, what’s odd to me is these head-long assertions of what I said, from dead wrong interpretations.
………………………….
See above.
Naildriver says
graven says:
‘But no–the United States has *not* been taken over by Muslims as Naildriver pretends. President Trump is not a Muslim–he is, in fact, pretty reliably anti-Jihad, albeit rather too inconsistent in his defense against it.’
————————
What is this ‘Naildriver pretends’ assertion? I never stated we’d been taken over by Muslims, or that sharia is in our law, or that free trade has caused this. And my post is what it is. No pretending at all. what so ever. Your attempts at derogation of me personally, have to be addressed just to get the ideas back on track regarding Islam’s threat.
Clearly we differ as to what constitutes ‘threat’, what constitutes warfare, how to stay above Islam morally, and how to go about addressing these problems our country faces from Islam.
Part of my writing that you seem mystified by, is a recognition Islam isn’t like other enemies we have encountered.
You and others say 1% Muslim isn’t any cause for my alarm (even though that wasn’t my words of what Obama and others have done to exacerbate Islam’s threat); but, as we both know it only took 19 to kill almost 3000 Americans and disrupt and cripple our economy of the country till this very day.
Their tactics of terror, intimidation and deceit have had an immense effect on many countries, particularly ours. Robert Spencer almost daily points out how Great Britain is now absurdly in the Islamist hands as the topic of this tread even illustrates — London itself is lost to a smug Muslim Mayor. I suspect it’s still under 10 percent Muslim in Great Britian — And how has that EU free trade worked out for them?
Would you suggest we wait till Muslim comprises 10, 20, 51% before we take off the gloves?
But, Wait ! Did I say take off the gloves? Is that to mean we become vigilantes? What did I mean???? HMMMM, Perhaps the SPLC is wanted here, to divine whether I’m a white supremacist and should be on the no fly list.
gravenimage says
More and yet more from Naildriver:
graven says:
‘But no–the United States has *not* been taken over by Muslims as Naildriver pretends. President Trump is not a Muslim–he is, in fact, pretty reliably anti-Jihad, albeit rather too inconsistent in his defense against it.’
————————
What is this ‘Naildriver pretends’ assertion? I never stated we’d been taken over by Muslims, or that sharia is in our law, or that free trade has caused this.
…………………………………..
Yet Naildriver sneered at my saying that we are not at the point where we have to fight against our own government. Why would we have to do this, if we hadn’t been taken over by Muslims?
And he himself sneered at police protecting business. He does not say what he wants to see instead.
More:
And my post is what it is. No pretending at all. what so ever. Your attempts at derogation of me personally, have to be addressed just to get the ideas back on track regarding Islam’s threat.
…………………………………..
If Naildriver is not pretending, then he actually believes what he is saying–which may be more disturbing.
Naildriver may not like my calling him on what he has to say–but the idea that his views cannot be called out if we are to address the threat of Islam is *quite* false.
And there is no derogation of Naildriver personally–I don’t know this individual personally. I am simply addressing his own words.
More:
Clearly we differ as to what constitutes ‘threat’, what constitutes warfare, how to stay above Islam morally, and how to go about addressing these problems our country faces from Islam.
…………………………………..
Of course, I have never said that Islam is not a threat. What claptrap.
And–again–we do *not* have to adopt the horrors of Islam in order to fight it, whatever Naildriver may believe.
More:
Part of my writing that you seem mystified by, is a recognition Islam isn’t like other enemies we have encountered.
You and others say 1% Muslim isn’t any cause for my alarm (even though that wasn’t my words of what Obama and others have done to exacerbate Islam’s threat); but, as we both know it only took 19 to kill almost 3000 Americans and disrupt and cripple our economy of the country till this very day.
…………………………………..
Of course, I never said that 1% of Muslims were not a cause for alarm–in fact, I noted specifically how dangerous Muslims are. I merely said that a population of 1% does not mean that the US is now a Muslim country.
More:
Their tactics of terror, intimidation and deceit have had an immense effect on many countries, particularly ours. Robert Spencer almost daily points out how Great Britain is now absurdly in the Islamist hands as the topic of this tread even illustrates — London itself is lost to a smug Muslim Mayor. I suspect it’s still under 10 percent Muslim in Great Britian (sic) — And how has that EU free trade worked out for them?
…………………………………..
Well, this is ridiculous. I have criticized the appalling story above. I have noted the insanity of London having elected a vicious Muslim mayor. I have noted that Jihad terror has an influence out of proportion to the numbers of victims.
I am in favor of Brexit, as I have said many times here. I have also noted many times that the EU is *not* about freedom, including free trade–it is a non-elected, authoritarian body. The idea that the EU is necessary in order to have free trade is an absurd straw man.
And no–it is quite possible to have free trade without importing hordes of Islamic invaders.
More:
Would you suggest we wait till Muslim comprises 10, 20, 51% before we take off the gloves?
But, Wait ! Did I say take off the gloves? Is that to mean we become vigilantes? What did I mean???? HMMMM, Perhaps the SPLC is wanted here, to divine whether I’m a white supremacist and should be on the no fly list.
…………………………………..
What *does* the increasingly tiresome Naildriver mean? Sneering does not actually constitute an argument in and of itself.
For myself, I have said many times that we need to end Muslims flooding into the West–the US has made a good first step in this regard–firmly and consistently enforce our civilized laws against Jihad and Shari’ah (and no, we don’t have to wait for Muslims to reach any sort of numbers–why would we?), and begin deportation of Muslims, starting with the worst Jihadists.
If Naildriver has other ideas, he should have to courage to say so, rather than just darkly hinting and sneering at anyone questioning his views.
Naildriver says
Further graven says:
‘But the idea that everyone who is in denial about the threat of Islam and has swallowed the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” is a traitor is quite mistaken.’
The saying, ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ is usually reserved for those culprits who should have known. It’s is for these venal or corrupt leaders, as both Bush and Obama, that we are in such a state of ignorance and so further toward a point of no return in effectively fighting this enemy with severe consequences, so many years after 9/11.
Of course, there are those who just don’t have the courage to deal with it, and what are you gonna do?
Even if they are responsible for collusion and enablement, there are just too many people at present, like a massive shared psychosis — But there are plenty of politicians, government people, and corporate people, including Obama who who should pay the supreme Constitutional designation, and be convicted of being traitors to this country over this lending of ‘aid and comfort’ to this enemy, Islam. That would certainly have an educational effect upon the others.
And Muslims Americans should know full well Islam isn’t OK.
Nothing mistaken about that — and eventually there are those who will pay.
gravenimage says
And yet more from Naildriver:
Further graven says:
‘But the idea that everyone who is in denial about the threat of Islam and has swallowed the claim that Islam is a “religion of peace” is a traitor is quite mistaken.’
The saying, ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’ is usually reserved for those culprits who should have known. It’s is for these venal or corrupt leaders, as both Bush and Obama, that we are in such a state of ignorance and so further toward a point of no return in effectively fighting this enemy with severe consequences, so many years after 9/11.
………………………………
There is no doubt that Bush was far too naive about Islam. But he was clearly against Jihad, The implication that he is a traitor makes little sense.
Obama, of course, was far more deliberately enabling of Islam.
There is no law telling people that they should understand that Islam is a threat–anymore than there was a law eighty years ago that Fascism was a threat.
It is up to people who understand the threat to educate those in denial.
Winston Churchill did not turn on Britons who had not understood the threat of Islam, calling them traitors–he chose to get them on his side.
There were a few Britons who really *were* traitors, like “Lord HawHaw”–just as there are Westerners who convert to Islam and wage Jihad–but this is the exception. Very few Westerners are actually pro-Jihad.
More:
Of course, there are those who just don’t have the courage to deal with it, and what are you gonna do?
Even if they are responsible for collusion and enablement, there are just too many people at present, like a massive shared psychosis — But there are plenty of politicians, government people, and corporate people, including Obama who who should pay the supreme Constitutional designation, and be convicted of being traitors to this country over this lending of ‘aid and comfort’ to this enemy, Islam. That would certainly have an educational effect upon the others.
………………………………
Well, good luck with that. Again, I think that Churchill’s approach made a lot more sense.
There are people here at Jihad Watch who were at one time clueless about the threat of Islam–this is, in fact, likely true of most of us here.
More:
And Muslims Americans should know full well Islam isn’t OK.
Nothing mistaken about that — and eventually there are those who will pay.
………………………………
What? Is Naildriver talking about Muslims in America knowing that Islam is not OK–or is this some sort of typo? Unfortunately, very few Muslims think that there is any problem with Islam.
For myself, I would rather work on getting people to acknowledge the danger of Islam, rather than threaten them (in some vague manner–it is *still* unclear what Naildriver is actually threatening them *with*).
Churchill did not threaten Chamberlain or any of the other Britons who were clueless about Fascism–he worked to get them on his side, or to sideline them if that was not possible.
He was, indeed, quite successful in this. By the time the war started in earnest, few Britons asked each other when they had recognized the threat of the Nazis–all they knew was that they were fighting together.
Naildriver says
graven says:
‘But no–the United States has *not* been taken over by Muslims as Naildriver pretends. President Trump is not a Muslim–he is, in fact, pretty reliably anti-Jihad, albeit rather too inconsistent in his defense against it.’
————————
What is this ‘Naildriver pretends’ assertion? I never stated we’d been taken over by Muslims, or that sharia is in our law, or that free trade has caused this. And my post is what it is. No pretending at all. what so ever. Your attempts at derogation of me personally, have to be addressed just to get the ideas back on track regarding Islam’s threat.
Clearly we differ as to what constitutes ‘threat’, what constitutes warfare, how to stay above Islam morally, and how to go about addressing these problems our country faces from Islam.
Part of my writing that you seem mystified by, is a recognition Islam isn’t like other enemies we have encountered.
You and others say 1% Muslim isn’t any cause for my alarm (even though that wasn’t my words of what Obama and others have done to exacerbate Islam’s threat); but, as we both know it only took 19 to kill almost 3000 Americans and disrupt and cripple our economy of the country till this very day.
Their tactics of terror, intimidation and deceit have had an immense effect on many countries, particularly ours. Robert Spencer almost daily points out how Great Britain is now absurdly in the Islamist hands as the topic of this tread even illustrates — London itself is lost to a smug Muslim Mayor. I suspect it’s still under 10 percent Muslim in Great Britian — And how has that EU free trade worked out for them?
Would you suggest we wait till Muslim comprises 10, 20, 51% before we take off the gloves?
But, Wait ! Did I say take off the gloves? Is that to mean we become vigilantes? What did I mean???? HMMMM, Perhaps the SPLC is wanted here, to divine whether I’m a white supremacist and should be on the no fly list.
—————————————————–
Graven says:
What? Is Naildriver talking about Muslims in America knowing that Islam is not OK–or is this some sort of typo? Unfortunately, very few Muslims think that there is any problem with Islam.
For myself, I would rather work on getting people to acknowledge the danger of Islam, rather than threaten them (in some vague manner–it is *still* unclear what Naildriver is actually threatening them *with*).
Churchill did not threaten Chamberlain or any of the other Britons who were clueless about Fascism–he worked to get them on his side, or to sideline them if that was not possible.
He was, indeed, quite successful in this. By the time the war started in earnest, few Britons asked each other when they had recognized the threat of the Nazis–all they knew was that they were fighting together.
——–
I say ‘treason’ since under the constitution, that is exactly what some of the individuals are engaged in, however many votes they can garner at the polls.
It’s not a threat, but a fact, if one strictly applies the intent of the Constitution regarding treason, and what an enemy is.
Islam certify fulfills that definition of ‘enemy’ without having to resort to this whack a mole process of declaring every new grouping of Muslims that commits some heinous act a terrorist organization. Politicians usually resort to claiming the Treaty of Tripoli settled that contention, but I think not, particularly since that document was made under Islam’s usual threats.
As for Muslims knowing or being told Islam isn’t ok, is far better than this present state of affairs where our government actually promotes it; and even includes it at certain White House dinners and the National Cathedral.
Certainly, a vast number of Muslims would leave Islam were they to believe our country would protect them for dumping it — but we provide Clerics and Mullahs to our prisons and military bases. I seriously doubt protecting the apostate Muslims is currently possible.
Our government has a real responsibility to say Islam is a threat to the Constitution and people of this country; and why.
Our federal government should place those anti- Islam ads upon buses that Pamala Geller, and others risk their lives over; and spend their money to do.
Churchill hated Islam, and I’d bet wouldn’t dignify devoted Muslims with any comparison to Chamberlain.
Millions of Fascists existed in the USA prior to WWII, and I don’t recall our government to have spoken kindly about them or sought to actually bring more in, yet that is the exact state of affairs elected officials have caused to occur in the USA today.
gravenimage says
I won’t address the first half of Naildriver’s 2:00 pm post, since he is just spamming what he wrote earlier. So, from this point on:
Graven says:
What? Is Naildriver talking about Muslims in America knowing that Islam is not OK–or is this some sort of typo? Unfortunately, very few Muslims think that there is any problem with Islam.
For myself, I would rather work on getting people to acknowledge the danger of Islam, rather than threaten them (in some vague manner–it is *still* unclear what Naildriver is actually threatening them *with*).
Churchill did not threaten Chamberlain or any of the other Britons who were clueless about Fascism–he worked to get them on his side, or to sideline them if that was not possible.
He was, indeed, quite successful in this. By the time the war started in earnest, few Britons asked each other when they had recognized the threat of the Nazis–all they knew was that they were fighting together.
——–
I say ‘treason’ since under the constitution, that is exactly what some of the individuals are engaged in, however many votes they can garner at the polls.
It’s not a threat, but a fact, if one strictly applies the intent of the Constitution regarding treason, and what an enemy is.
……………………….
It is unclear from the above whether Naildriver is talking about Muslims or about clueless Western politicians who are still in denial about the threat of Islam.
He can certainly try to get people who still believe that Islam is a religion of peace convicted of treason, but this is going to involve millions of people in the US. Again, I wish him good luck with that.
More:
Islam certify fulfills that definition of ‘enemy’ without having to resort to this whack a mole process of declaring every new grouping of Muslims that commits some heinous act a terrorist organization. Politicians usually resort to claiming the Treaty of Tripoli settled that contention, but I think not, particularly since that document was made under Islam’s usual threats.
As for Muslims knowing or being told Islam isn’t ok, is far better than this present state of affairs where our government actually promotes it; and even includes it at certain White House dinners and the National Cathedral.
………………………..
Of course we should say that the tenets of Islam are not OK–any whitewash of Islam presents a danger to us. This is, indeed, the main purpose of Jihad Watch.
More:
Certanly, a vast number of Muslims would leave Islam were they to believe our country would protect them for dumping it — but we provide Clerics and Mullahs to our prisons and military bases. I seriously doubt protecting the apostate Muslims is currently possible.
……………………….
It is actually much safer for Muslims to leave Islam in the West than it is in any part of Dar-al-Islam.
More:
Our government has a real responsibility to say Islam is a threat to the Constitution and people of this country; and why.
……………………….
This is true.
More:
Our federal government should place those anti- Islam ads upon buses that Pamala Geller, and others risk their lives over; and spend their money to do.ims
……………………….
I think that Ms. Geller would be happy just not being constantly blocked in placing her ads.
More:
Churchill hated Islam, and I’d bet wouldn’t dignify devoted Muslims with any comparison to Chamberlain.
……………………….
Again, it is not clear whether Naildriver is referring to Muslims in the United States or to non-Muslim “traitors” who do no recognize the threat of Islam (or of Fascism eighty years ago). I was, of course, here referring to the latter.
More:
Millions of Fascists existed in the USA prior to WWII, and I don’t recall our government to have spoken kindly about them or sought to actually bring more in, yet that is the exact state of affairs elected officials have caused to occur in the USA today.
……………………….
Actually, Fascists operated quite freely in the US prior to WWII, including running Hitler Youth camps in many states, and holding a huge German-American Bund rally in Madison Square Garden. There were pro-fascist articles in newpapers and magazines, and those who warned about the threat of the Nazis were often smeared. Not actually so different from today.
Niemoller says
Will the vermin UK politicasters remove and burn George Orwell’s books due to his service in the Spanish Civil War? Or was he still officially a leftist at the time, so he’s safe (for now)?
m. says
ok to be in isis, fight, return to uk. not ok to fight isis, return to uk – might be islamophobic?
gravenimage says
British citizens who fight against the Islamic State face prosecution and even prison
…………………
This is *appalling*.
Glad their treatment in the US is very different.
Max says
May would have felt at home as a Labour politician. That is the reason why she completely messed up Brexit, as she wanted it to fail, and didn’t she do a good job? That is also the reason why she is soft on Muslims and very hard on the poor Christians that are living in Muslim hell and their request for asylum has been rejected.
David M says
Theresa May says returning Muslims who fought for ISIS are safe does she? I wonder if she would stand unguarded in a room of returning ISIS fighters if we gave them knives then sat back and see what happened next. Want to try that Theresa?
Barbara says
Has Theresa May watched the ISIS in action with the ir brutal treatment of prisoners?
As PM she took an Oath of Allegiance to the Queen – not to Islam! She took an Oath to DEFEND the QUEENS realm and TRUE British citizens!
Surely Theresa May is acting in a treasonous way? Surely there would be grounds to have the Prime Minister stand down?
The ISIS soldiers should be given one way tickets back to the Middle East !
Celtwitch says
The only way to defeat an enemy as barbaric and brutal as Islam is to be even more barbaric and brutal than them. It’s the only thing they understand. Dialogue, interfaith and outreach are a complete waste of time and money. They are laughing at us, let’s wipe the smiles off their ugly faces, let’s hit them so hard that they then realise that the party’s over.
gravenimage says
Yes, “interfaith” dialogue is useless.
But the idea that we should abandon our values for Muslims is also grotesque
It it *quite* possible to to be tough on Jihad without adopting Islamic barbarity.
kuriakose says
GI, how about some ideas on how to be ‘tough on jihad………..’ ? Especially seeing that so much of western nations are nothing but proxies for globalists/new world order now?
gravenimage says
kuriakose, I did not say that most Western nations–compromised and confused as too many of them are, including Britain–are poised to get tough on Jihad.
I meant that you don’t have to embrace the vicious values of Islam in order to fight it.
As I have said many times, I think we need to start with a moratorium on Muslim immigration into the West; vigorous prosecution of Jihad cases, including investigation of Mosques, Jihadists’ family and associates, with further rounds of prosecutions; and deportations after time served.
kuriakose says
GI
Quote: ‘I think we need to start with a moratorium on Muslim immigration into the West; vigorous prosecution of Jihad cases, including investigation of Mosques, Jihadists’ family and associates, with further rounds of prosecutions; and deportations after time served…..
If as you admit, most Western nations are compromised and are not going to get tough on jihad, how in the world what you say is required ever going to be accomplished?
gravenimage says
Actually, kuriakose, we have seen more cases where Western nations are getting tough on Jihad, albeit too sporadically.
Several Western nations have prevented Jihadists who went to fight for the Islamic State from returning. Italy and Australia have turned back Muslim migrants. The so-called “Muslim ban” has been upheld in the United States.
There *are* glimmers of hope.
The problem is that too many in the West are still in denial over the threat of Islam. But the more people learn about Islam and its ugly history less this has a hold. Jihad Watch itself has done a great deal to educate people about Jihad.
Gamaliel says
This is so sick and evil and it’s amazing that the west would stoop so low.
gravenimage says
Yes–this is insanity.