Things have come to a pretty pass when Britons would enjoy more protection under Iraqi jurisdiction than under UK/EU jurisdiction. The Iraqi courts are under no illusions, they are beholden to no paralysing ideology, they know exactly what needs to be done with captured ISIS personnel, and thank God they don’t flinch from doing it. Western governments help known terrorists and rapists to walk our streets and manoeuvre to spirit surviving ISIS (former Western) captives and their purported offspring back to the West. Our police and judiciary pounce on anyone saying anything that might hurt the tender feelings of these delicate killers and rapists. Our media will not say peep about them. Everyone is afraid and keeps on the right side of silence. No one recalls the anguish with which the German public looked back on their axiomatic, self-evident, absolute certainties before it all went so horribly wrong. No one recalls George Orwell’s reality-reversal in “Freedom is Slavery”. Like hard-wired, impenetrable automatons, the virtue-signalling battalions stand, folded arms and stern-faced, yelling and spitting “racist!” and “fascist!” and “Nazi!” at Tommy Robinson, the bravest of those prepared to save them from Islam and from themselves. None can explain what makes him any of those things. None sees the need to explain.
This is what we’ve come to. We must now rely on the Iraqi judiciary to keep us safe from ISIS jihadis: “The punishment, as much as it seems strong, will affect the security of your country… I am sure there are hundreds of people in Britain at this moment thinking of committing similar crimes.” Millions of Britons and other Europeans marched in opposition to precisely such security coming about, although, of course, they were not thinking that far at the time. How many would not listen to Christopher Hitchens? How many are not listening still? But at least no one called him a racist and a Nazi for his troubles. Which brings us neatly to “the Mother of all Talkshows.”
When Tommy Robinson, a victim of Britain’s monumental national ingratitude, confronted George Galloway on air with Islam’s 1400-year track record, Galloway surpassed even himself: “Your knuckles are dragging the ground!” he yelled at his guest. “What do you know about Islam? You know nothing about Islam!” This from a man who abased himself before Saddam Hussein, to a man who co-edited a Qur’an (later banned by Amazon). Useful idiots come neither more useful, nor more idiotic. It is clear why Galloway had no respect to spare for his fellow countryman who’d done time for defending freedom and democracy from the very people the Iraqi judges are now executing. He reserves his respect for tyrannical families and tyrannical ideologies. Knuckle-dragger 1: Useful Idiot 0.
To be clear, Mr Galloway, too, wants to end the lives of ISIS jihadis. “I will take a gun and shoot them dead!” bellowed Mr Galloway before his uncomfortably-entertained Oxford Union audience. Except that he did not say “jihadis”. He will not say “jihadis”. He cannot say “jihadis”.
“Terrorism is, of course, a separate matter. …If Al-Qaida and ISIS come here, we must shoot them dead. …This is an entirely red herring, a straw man, introduced into this debate in order to confuse. I want to see all the members of ISIS and al-Qaida and all the other organisations like them dead on the battlefield. …the words ‘Western intervention’ and ‘ISIS’ oughtn’t to appear in the same sentence. Because, of course, the West are responsible for ISIS. It was the West who created ISIS. …But what is less well known is that this game started very much longer ago than that.”
“Very much longer ago,” Mr Galloway immediately clarifies, was “when the British and American governments …built up this monster of Islamist fanaticism and extremism.” In other words, very much longer ago was 1994. And what is his authoritative source? Rambo V — I kid you not, Hollywood (see the source above). The creation of the Taliban had nothing to do with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, no-no. How could an Islamic Republic possibly have anything to do with “Islamist fanaticism and extremism”? That’s just another Western red herring.
Had Mr Galloway deigned to give the knuckle-dragging specimen a chance to make his point, especially as this same knuckle-dragger had just two years earlier, with much greater dignity, eloquence and respect, addressed an audience in that same Oxford Union, he might’ve learnt that “very much longer ago” was 1400 years ago, when a certain illiterate Arabian merchant-turned-warlord contrived the most perfect system of evil the world has ever known, a system we know as Islam, a system to which Adolf Hitler could but dreamily aspire.
But here’s the thing: Mr Galloway knows this, as do most of those who bellow about Western responsibility for the misery that supposedly leads to the likes of ISIS, al-Qaida, etc. It is highly-unlikely that Mr Galloway is unaware of exactly what state “the West” had found the Middle East in when they got there. When Winston Churchill got there, he found this:
“How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.”
It is as unlikely that Mr Galloway is unaware of Churchill’s The River Wars as it is unlikely that he is unaware of the Qur’an. In the latter is laid out very precisely the things that ISIS and al-Qaida and all the other organisations like them must do. Is it at all possible he does not know that “organisations like them” stretch all the way back across 1400 years to “very much longer ago,” doing exactly as those organisations do, for exactly the same reasons as they do it? Mr Galloway is a well-read man, and all the more perfidious for being so.
But Mr Galloway, unlike the knuckle-dragging Tommy Robinson, has made a career out of sycophancy towards Arabs and Muslims and calls it respect. “If Al-Qaida and ISIS come here,” yelled Mr Galloway, “I will shoot them dead”, except that they are here, Mr Galloway, in large numbers, already killing and maiming on our streets, their battlefield for years. Mr Galloway knows this as well as Tommy Robinson does, but while Tommy risks his life actually fighting them, Mr Galloway is — well, Respect and all that. No, George Galloway is not confused. Not a bit. His bluff is called. He won’t be shooting any ISIS or Al-Qaida brothers today. Knuckle-dragger 2: Useful idiot 0.
But there is no depth to which Mr Galloway’s Mother of all Propaganda Services will not sink to whitewash Islam. When the British Prime Minister ordered police not to investigate Muslim gangs raping young infidel girls in the UK, he was doing no different to Mr Galloway in denying that any such crimes are even taking place. And here’s the thing: it is none other than Tommy Robinson, Galloway’s knuckle-dragger, who toils doggedly to bring these crimes to light and who has done everything to support the victims of those crimes ever since. Moreover, unlike Mr Galloway, Tommy doesn’t deny who’s doing it. This knuckle-dragger, with all his imperfections, has become the conscience of what was once a great nation that claimed for itself the mantle of ‘fair play’.
So Galloway must do what liars always do when they realise they’re about to be exposed by someone much lower down the social pecking order than themselves: he belittles Tommy, he abuses him and humiliates him, “Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!” all because Galloway is too weak to face up to the sham that he is, too insecure to acknowledge his mistakes, and too cowardly to change course. Mr Galloway wanted the ISIS fighters dead. The Iraqi judiciary is accomplishing just that. They should not expect thanks from Mr Galloway. Not on your red lycra cat suit, not on your Cuban cigar, not on your posey black hat. Never. Knuckle-dragger 3: Useful idiot 0.
He fawns, he kowtows, and he submits: this he falsely names Respect, and where he eulogises a tyrant, he calls it peace.
andymckendrick says
Yes but for all his sycophantic snivelling around muslims ,when it came to picking a candidate for Bradford they chose another Muslim Nazi shah. That must have hurt ,to lose to a woman! especially that one.
J D S says
Sorry to say this …but the U.S. judiciary has no guts when it comes to Muslim Terrorist and other criminals brought guy on by the people who cringe at the thought of the electric chair, gas chamber and even just putting thin go sleep with a needle……
CRUSADER says
Rambo V: Last Blood movie is due out later in 2019
In May 2018 it was re-announced and scheduled to begin filming later that year in September, with the plot focusing on Rambo combating a Mexican drug cartel.
Rambo III movie came out in 1988.
The film opens with Colonel Samuel Trautman (Richard Crenna) returning to Thailand to once again enlist Rambo’s help. After witnessing Rambo’s victory in a stick fighting match, Trautman visits the temple Rambo is helping to build and asks Rambo to join him on a mission to Afghanistan. This brings Rambo more into the realm of the CIA’s famed Special Activities Division which primarily hires Army Special Forces soldiers. The mission is meant to supply weapons, including FIM-92 Stinger missiles, to Afghan freedom fighters, the Mujahideen, who are fighting the Soviets. Despite having been shown photos of civilians suffering under the Soviet rule, Rambo refuses and Trautman chooses to go on his own.
While in Afghanistan, Trautman’s troops are ambushed by Soviet troops while passing through the mountains at night. Trautman is imprisoned in a Soviet base and tortured for information by commanding officer Zaysen (Marc de Jonge) and his henchman Kourov (Randy Raney). Rambo learns of the incident from embassy field officer Robert Griggs (Kurtwood Smith) and immediately flies to Pakistan where he meets up with Mousa (Sasson Gabai), a weapons supplier who agrees to take him to a village deep in the Afghan desert, close to the Soviet base where Trautman is kept. The Mujahideen in the village are already hesitant to help Rambo in the first place, but are convinced not to help him when their village is attacked by Soviet helicopters after one of Mousa’s shop assistants informed the Russians of Rambo’s presence. Aided only by Mousa and a young boy named Hamid (Doudi Shoua), Rambo makes his way to the Soviet base and starts his attempts to free Trautman. The first attempt is unsuccessful and results in Hamid getting shot in the leg, and Rambo himself getting hit by wooden shrapnel. After escaping from the base, Rambo tends to Hamid’s wounds and sends him and Mousa away to safety.
The next day, Rambo returns to the base once again, just in time to rescue Trautman from being tortured with a flamethrower. After rescuing several other prisoners, Rambo steals a helicopter and escapes from the base. The helicopter crashes and Rambo and Trautman are forced to continue on foot. After a confrontation in a cave, where Rambo and Trautman kill several Russian soldiers including Kourov, they are confronted by an entire army of Russian tanks, headed by Zaysen. Just as they are about to be overwhelmed by the might of the Soviet Army, the Mujahideen warriors, together with Mousa and Hamid, ride onto the battlefield in a cavalry charge, overwhelming the Russians despite their numerical and technological superiority. In the ensuing battle, in which both Trautman and Rambo are wounded, Rambo manages to kill Zaysen by driving a tank into the helicopter in which Zaysen is flying.
At the end of the battle Rambo and Trautman say goodbye to their Mujahideen friends, and leave Afghanistan to go home.
CRUSADER says
RAMBO 5: “Last Blood” Trailer (2019)
Certainly, dealing with the Mexican cartels is important given porous border security issues and the ever present threat by narcotics and jihadism….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ5kILQxGZQ
mortimer says
Galloway has no argument with which to defend Islamic terrorism, so he pretends it doesn’t exist and then calls names if someone disagrees. This is not a rational person, but an ideologue desperately fighting to defend the irrational, amoral and brutal … by whitewashing it.
It is Galloway who knows nothing about Islam. I doubt he has read the Sira and hadiths and canonical commentaries. I am sure he has not read Sharia law, especially what it says about the ‘ESSENTIAL’ duty of jihad. All Muslims are required to conduct jihad.
Most Muslims are not violent, however, they conduct the jihad of the tongue when they lie and dissemble about the meaning (supremacism), the motive (hatred) and the method (violent jihad) of Islam.
Galloway is a verbal jihadist.
Dave says
And by financing actual jihadists.
Winning paradise tickets by vicarious jihad!
smoris says
Is it enough to be “non-violent”? It is not. When violence is done in the name of your “religion” you must either abandon this religion or strive to reform it. There is no reform in Islam, however, because it is the work of one insane man who claimed that it is “perfect”. Islam calls upon its followers, whether they are inclined to violence or not, to imitate Mohammed. Insofar as they do they are “good Muslims”. Insofar as they depart from this model they are infidels. Simple as that. There are those who claim to be Muslim who even object vocally to its extremism. But they are considered apostate by the devout followers of Mohammed. If a Muslim is non-violent, he is either apostate or a hypocrite. There is no way to reconcile the Koran with non-violence.
CRUSADER says
“The River War” by Winston Churchill ***
(“….the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome….”)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_River_War
The River War: An Historical Account of the Reconquest of the Soudan (1899), by Winston Churchill, concerning his experiences as a British Army officer, during the Mahdist War (1881–99) in the Sudan.
The River War is a history of the British imperial involvement in the Sudan, and the Mahdist War between the British forces, led by Lord Kitchener, and the Dervish forces, led by Khalifa Abdallahi ibn Muhammad, heir to the self-proclaimed Mahdi Muhammad Ahmad who had embarked on a campaign to conquer Egypt, to drive out the Ottomans.
The River War was Churchill’s second published book after The Story of the Malakand Field Force, and originally filled two volumes with over 1000 pages in 1899. The River War was subsequently abridged to one volume in 1902.
Aware that there was a war in Sudan, Churchill determined to be part of it. He was not alone in this, because in a time generally of peace, many British Army officers wanted experience of battle to further their careers. In Churchill’s case, he did not see his career as lying with the army, but had already started writing about wars and wanted a new campaign to write about. He first attempted to obtain a transfer from his regiment stationed in India to the 21st Lancers, which was the unit taking part in the war. This was granted by the War Office, but rejected by the commander of the British force in Sudan, General Kitchener. Churchill next took leave to Britain, where he enlisted friends and family to lobby Kitchener to permit him to take part. This continued to be unsuccessful, even when the prime minister Lord Salisbury made an inquiry on his behalf. Eventually, however, he prevailed upon Sir Evelyn Wood, Adjutant General of the Horse Guards, who had authority over appointments to the regiment in England, and he received an attachment to the Lancers in place of an officer who had died, on 24 July 1898. On 5 August he was in Luxor and on 24 August the regiment set out from Atbara to attack the Mahdist forces.[1]:38–39[2]:122
Before leaving London, Churchill obtained a commission to write accounts of the war for the Morning Post, producing 13 articles between 23 September and 8 October 1898 for which he was paid £15 each.[2]:125 This helped offset his expenses for the trip, which the War Office had declined to meet, as well as refusing any liability should he be killed or injured.[1]:39 The Times had two correspondents covering the war, one of whom was killed and another injured, and Churchill wrote a piece for this newspaper also, but Kitchener vetoed the sending of the report.[2]:124
After the Battle of Omdurman the Lancers were ordered to return to other duties so Churchill’s personal experience of the war ceased at that point. Although Omdurman had been taken from Khalifa Abdullahi, the Khalifa himself escaped and was not captured for another year.[1]:41 The campaign included a number of persons who were to play important parts in the First World War. Aside from Churchill and Kitchener, captains Douglas Haig and Henry Rawlinson became generals in the war, while Lieutenant David Beatty, then commanding a Nile gunboat, became an admiral and commanded the British Grand Fleet.[1]:40
Churchill returned to England to complete his leave, before returning to India for three months and finally resigning from the army. As a direct result of Churchill’s writings, a rule was introduced prohibiting serving officers from also acting as war correspondents. This was one factor contributing to his leaving the army, since his earnings from writing were some five times greater than his army pay during his three years of army service.[2]:125-126
In India Churchill visited the Viceroy, Lord Curzon, who had himself written a history of “Persia and the Persian Question” eight years before. He read everything he could find containing background information about the Sudan. On the way home he stopped for two weeks in Egypt to visit Lord Cromer, then in charge of the Egyptian government, who read through the text and made suggestions and corrections; in particular playing down the popular impression of General Gordon, murdered by the Mahdi’s forces fourteen years before, as a hero. While in Cairo he spoke to Slatin Pasha, author of a work about the Sudan, Sir Reginald Wingate, Director of Intelligence on Kitchener’s staff, Edouard Girouard, responsible for building railways through Egypt which allowed the British advance, and others who had played some part.[2]:129 Sailing home across the Mediterranean, Churchill had as a fellow passenger George Warrington Steevens, who was also a war correspondent, working for the Daily Telegraph. They had met on a couple of previous occasions, and Churchill prevailed upon him also to read the manuscript. His suggestion was to reduce the degree of philosophising, that despite the accuracy of Churchill’s commentary it might bore the reader.[2]:134
Illustrations by Angus McNeill, here showing how cable for the railway telegraph was carried and laid
In vivid style the book describes the background to the war, the relationship of the Upper Nile to Egypt, the murder of General Charles George Gordon in the siege at Khartoum, the political reaction in England, and Kitchener’s elaborate preparations for the war. While in the Sudan, Churchill participated in the Battle of Omdurman. Churchill comments at length on the mechanisation of war with use of the telegraph, railroad, and a new generation of weaponry.
1899 unabridged, two-volume edition
The unabridged version contains many illustrations with drawings, photogravures, and coloured maps. It also contains vivid narratives of personal adventures of the author, his views on British expansionism, passages of deep reflection about the requirements of a civilised government, criticism of military and political leaders and religion.[3] The first edition was reviewed by The Times, which described it as containing material sufficient for two good books and one bad one, with the bad one being the more interesting.[4]
…
jarmanray says
Thanks Crusader,
When I finish Gordon A. Harrison’s “Cross Channel Attack,” I will order this Churchill book that you have so eloquently described.
CRUSADER says
…
About Islam he wrote:
“ How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen: all know how to die: but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.[5]:248–250[6] ”
About the British attitude to war:
“ ..there are many people in England, and perhaps elsewhere, who seem to be unable to contemplate military operations for clear political objects, unless they can cajole themselves into the belief that their enemy are utterly and hopelessly vile. To this end the Dervishes, from the Mahdi and the Khalifa downwards, have been loaded with every variety of abuse and charged with all conceivable crimes. This may be very comforting to philanthropic persons at home; but when an army in the field becomes imbued with the idea that the enemy are vermin who cumber the earth, instances of barbarity may easily be the outcome. This unmeasured condemnation is moreover as unjust as it is dangerous and unnecessary… We are told that the British and Egyptian armies entered Omdurman to free the people from the Khalifa’s yoke. Never were rescuers more unwelcome.[2]:132[5]:394-395 ”
About the modern machinery of war and its effectiveness against native tribesmen:
“ …the Maxim guns had also come into action. A dozen Dervishes are standing on a sandy knoll. All in a moment the dust began to jump in front of them, and then the clump of horsemen melts into a jumble on the ground, and a couple of scared survivors scurry to cover. Yet even then a few brave men come back to help their fallen comrades.[7]:402 ”
Churchill spread his criticisms wherever he found fault. A passage was highly critical of General Kitchener for ordering the desecration of the Mahdi’s tomb and carrying off his head as a trophy. The head was returned by the order of Lord Cromer, once he discovered what had happened. The matter was debated in parliament and led to a newspaper campaign against Kitchener as well as deepening the ill feeling which already existed between two men who as members of the British government in 1914 were expected to co-operate militarily as heads of the army and navy departments. All reference to the incident was removed from the second edition.[2]:131
Criticisms extended to the supplies for the troops: British soldiers were sent out from England with boots made substantially from cardboard, which rapidly disintegrated and had to be bound with cloth or string to hold together. While the Indian Army was equipped with highly effective Dum-dum bullets produced in India, British bullets sent to Egypt were simply pointed, and 1,000,000 rounds had to have their ends filed off to increase their effectiveness. The rough remodelling meant the bullets were inaccurate at long ranges, giving soldiers a choice of bullets able to hit their target but only wound, or killing bullets which were likely to miss and could jam the guns.[7]:367 Railway engines needed to carry troops and supplies into Sudan had to be obtained from all over the world as British companies were unable to supply at short notice. By contrast, American companies could supply locomotives immediately which were more effective and cheaper than some obtained from England.[7]:298
1902 abridged, one-volume edition
In 1902 Churchill had become a member of parliament. It was thought that the commentary about some of the people mentioned had better be excised in a revised edition. The book was thus edited down to one single volume, removing approximately one third of the total.
Much of the removed content included passages where Churchill recounted his own experiences, as he had done in other works, such as The Story of the Malakand Field Force. This removal gave the revised book a somewhat different feel to these others, and to its original form. Other removals included discussions on the ethics of warfare, Churchill’s own opinions of events, and his assessment on Islam. The revised book was described as an authoritative history of the war.[2]:133
Abridgements were published numerous times over the twentieth century, with increasing excisions.
A “definitive” new edition of the book, restoring it to the original two-volume text, edited and annotated by Professor James W. Muller is in preparation.[8]
Controversial contemporary political usage
In May 2013, Missouri State Representative Rick Stream composed and forwarded an e-mail to his House GOP colleagues. Sam Levin called the e-mail “bizarre”, with Rep. Stream alleging “dangers of Islam” and quoting Churchill’s controversial statements.[9]
Also in May 2013, the Winston-Salem Journal published a commentary by columnist Cal Thomas, in which he criticized current United Kingdom Prime Minister David Cameron for his reaction following the killing of a British soldier in London, and invited him to take notice of Winston Churchill’s views on Islam, some expressed in The River War.[10]
In April 2014, Paul Weston, chairman of the far right Liberty GB party was arrested in Winchester, Hampshire, for reading aloud passages from the book whilst standing on the steps of the Guildhall and not dispersing when ordered to do so. Weston, a candidate in the May 2014 European Elections, was quoting from a section of Churchill’s book that described Islamic culture in unflattering terms.[11][12]
Criticism
Johann Hari criticized Winston Churchill’s views in his Not his finest hour: The dark side of Winston Churchill. The author also emphasizes the significance of Richard Toye’s Churchill’s Empire.[13]
In Churchill’s War, author Max Hastings makes this conclusion on Churchill’s views: “Churchill’s view of the British Empire and its peoples was unenlightened by comparison with that of America’s president [Franklin Roosevelt], or even by the standards of his time.”[14]
Paul Rahe argues that reading The River War is suitable for “an age when the Great Democracies are likely to be called on to respond to ugly little conflicts marked by social, sectarian, and tribal rivalries in odd corners of the world.”[15]
———————
kaboooooooooooooom says
Spliffing stuff, me CRewman!
Isabella van der westhuizen says
The US did use the Mujaheedin to defeat the Soviet Union. That was a short term victory and long term pain.
But the fact that the authorities at the time made a strategic mistake does not mean that Islam is innocent
Many western leaders throughout history from Cardinal Richelieu to Palmerston have made short term marriages of convenience with Islam and we always regret it in the long term
Angemon says
“The US did use the Mujaheedin to defeat the Soviet Union. ”
That’s the part useful idiots, like Galloway, like to parrot as if it meant anything. What they conveniently leave out is the million-dollar question: “how did the mujaheedin in Afghanistan came to be?”. Answer: USSR interference – the same USSR that helped train islamic terrorists that later became part of al-qaeda. But somehow, responsibility is always on the shoulders of the US…
Chand says
Angemon says: “………….the same USSR that helped train Islamic terrorists that later became part of al-Qaeda.”
What on earth are you talking about? Please explain.
I agree with you Isabella.
Angemon says
Chand posted:
“What on earth are you talking about? Please explain.”
The FSB training the likes of current al-qaeda leader Al Zawahiri. After his time in Russia, he went to become bin Laden’s right hand man and helped guide al-qaeda on the path of direct confrontation with the US.
The ties between USSR/Russia and islamic (as well as non-islamic) terror groups are a matter of public record.
R Russell says
George Galloway is, regrettably Scottish. Tommy Robinson is English. They are NOT Countrymen.
They are, of course of the same nationality – UK nationality.
CRUSADER says
Will there be a further break between Anglos and Scots when BRexit occurs?
R Russell says
CRUSADER
A further break? We are not a subjugated nation. We are equal partners with the other countries in the Union.
We refused to believe the prophecy of Sandy Peden and so suffered the consequences. (The last prophecy in the list.)
https://www.thestoryofrevival.com/alexander-peden.html
In 2014 there was a referendum in Scotland for people to vote whether to remain in the Union or to separate from the rest of the UK.
The referendum was won by those who want to remain part of the UK.
The spoilt individual who has many tantrums has never accepted that result and is determined to force another referendum on us.
Since the UK government has said it wont fund another referendum, this means the SNP will continue to recklessly spend our money which could be put to much better use.
Since the SNP came into power, the infrastructure in Scotland is descending into, definitely, ‘not fit for purpose’
In accordance with their socialist/communist beliefs theSNP are giving freebies to the minorities and have raised the income tax for high earnings ensuring a brain drain to the rUK.
Remaining in the EU isn’t compatible with remaining in the Union. (1,000,000+ Scots voted to leave the EU out of a population of 5 million which includes children not eligible to vote.)
The SNP made this decision because of their treasonous past. A search engine with SNP, Hitler and puppet government in WW2 will let you understand why the voters on the receiving end of the SNP freebies may be duped into voting SNP, not knowing what the SNP actually believes.
gravenimage says
George Galloway, the Knuckle-Dragger, ISIS and the Iraqi Courts
………………..
Yes–insanity.
And good to see poster Anjuli Pandavar contributing here.
Chand says
Anjuli Pandavar says: “The creation of the Taliban has nothing to do with the Inter Services Intelligence agency. No no.”
Of course, Anjuli. Taliban is the ISI’s creation. But the point is that the US had consistently supported Pakistan as a result of the Cold War. And then they actively and vigorously helped the most fanatic jihadis to counter the Soviets. They always considered the atheistic commies a greater danger than Islamic fundamentalism.
Before that, Britain had deliberately broken up India by their ‘divide and rule’ and their marking out areas by religion that ultimately led to the Partition. Churchill and others had always supported Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan and this was also useful to Britain and the West as a bulwark against possible Soviet expansionism which they feared might happened in the future. Pakistan was always used by them for geopolitical gains.
This support for the Afghan and Arab jihadis in the Afghan War is one of the primary causes of global jihadism today. Too late now. The genie of jihad is out of the bottle now. This will play itself out, in a few generations, in my opinion.
Anjuli Pandavar says
Chand, “Of course, Anjuli. Taliban is the ISI’s creation. But the point is that the US had consistently supported Pakistan…”
—
That might be *your* point, but it wasn’t Galloway’s. And it was Galloway’s point I was addressing.
More,
“Britain had deliberately broken up India by their ‘divide and rule’ and their marking out areas by religion that ultimately led to the Partition. Churchill and others had always supported Jinnah’s idea of Pakistan…”
So who was dividing India by religion here: Britain or Jinnah? Who was supporting that religious division: Britain or Jinnah?
More,
“This support for the Afghan and Arab jihadis in the Afghan War is one of the primary causes of global jihadism today. Too late now. The genie of jihad is out of the bottle now.”
Might I recommend “The History of Jihad from Muhammad to ISIS,” by one Robert Spencer, or if you prefer, the Qur’an. This djinni was never in any bottle, my friend.
Angemon says
Chand posted:
“But the point is that the US had consistently supported Pakistan as a result of the Cold War. And then they actively and vigorously helped the most fanatic jihadis to counter the Soviets.”
And the Soviets did the same with other jihad groups. What’s your point, exactly?
“This support for the Afghan and Arab jihadis in the Afghan War is one of the primary causes of global jihadism today. ”
Nope, you can thank the USSR for that – Russia is the birthplace of terrorism as we know it today.
Chand says
This ‘divide and rule’ strategy of the British began much before Churchill’s time, which I’m sure you are aware of. Lord Elphinstone, British Raj governor in India during the 1820’s, wrote: “Divide et impera (divide and rule) was an old Roman maxim, and it shall be ours”.
They systematically and purposely implemented this policy, especially after the Sepoy Mutiny of 1857, when Hindus and Muslims fought against the Empire together. Later they used the Muslim League and Jinnah to continue this political strategy to perpetuate British rule which ultimately led to a divided land and communalism in India.
Now all this doesn’t mean that I don’t know there are problematic ‘kill kafirs’ verses in the Koran which are taken seriously by some, as prescriptive actions to be undertaken in the present. But empires and superpowers are also to be blamed for many of today’s jihad problems.
Chand says
This was in reply to Anjuli’s reply above…..
Anjuli Pandavar says
Chand,
“This ‘divide and rule’ strategy of the British began much before Churchill’s time, which I’m sure you are aware of.” Yes, I am:
“Divide et impera (divide and rule) was an old Roman maxim, and it shall be ours” – British Empire, 1583-1997 (roughly 400 years).
“O you who believe! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends. They are friends of one another. And whoever of you takes them for friends is (one) of them. Surely Allah does not guide wrongdoing people,” Qur’an 5:51; and “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued,” Qur’an 9:29 – Islam, 622 – present (roughly 1400 years).
You’re right: much before Churchill’s time.