Friday, March 6, 2009
Germany slammed for not boycotting Durban II; Britain recognizes Hizballah as a political party
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
What is the Target?
In the past few weeks I have argued that people must stop labeling Islam as evil, and to just focus on the issues at hand. This meant, I said, talking directly about Sharia and preventing its spread.
Clearly Sharia (and other Fascist Islamic Supremacist tools) are linked to Islam, however I believe that I can separate the two. Furthermore, I believe that by separating the foundations and constructs of Islam from the broad label "Islam" it will A) protect Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia on us and B) be more effective at combating the spread Islamism.
I will explain further by quoting from a couple of conversations I have had in the last week.
You [Aka. Me!] claim saying 'anti-Shariaization' is better than saying 'anti-Islamization'.
Why is it better?
Robert Spencer would probably say that you cannot be a devout Muslim and NOT want Sharia to rule over everyone.
If the foundations [Sharia law etc.] are the same as the building itself [Islam]... maybe there is no difference.
I replied as follows:
I may agree with Robert Spencer there - but I don't need to discuss Islam.
Specifically fighting Sharia law will affect Islam, but it will not harm any Muslims who do not wish to impose Sharia law on our societies.
It's the difference between being against Judaism, or being against Halacha.
If someone was anti-Judaism you would be defensive.
If they were anti-Halacha, you could more easily shrug your shoulders.
I think we should fight Sharia on the specifics of what the law actually represents. Muslims can debate the theology themselves.
I believe this would be vastly more successful than the anti-Islam positions that most anti-Sharia groups are propagating.
On a previous occasion I also wrote:
I am sure most people in the UK who are not Muslim, would not take kindly to an organisation that suggests all Muslims are Islamists, unless they are afraid of leaving Islam. If I went around and said Islam is evil to the core and there are either Islamists and Muslims who want to leave Islam - I would look foolish. Muslims are everywhere here. I know Muslims who are not Islamists and don't wish to leave Islam... this simple bit of personal knowledge would be enough to completely discredit the entire anti-Sharia organisation... which is currently not doing buch more than creating climate of suspicion and fear of all Muslims.
Maybe not all these Muslims are "real" Muslims... I don't know - but even if they are not I don't really care. What I do know is that they think they are Muslim and their identities are linked to Islam... yet they are good decent people. Saying that Islam is evil doesn't get us anywhere. It is up to the theologians to discuss religious tenants - and up to the individuals to make up their own individual minds as to whether or not Islam is for them or not.
If we fight Sharia it will force Muslims to discuss Islam... but discussing Islam is their job, not ours.
I do not want to allow the establishment of a state within a state... it will not have positive ends. I think we should make efforts to fight Islamic supremisism, and that includes fighting against the establishment of Islamic law in our societies.
I am open to criticism... please share your views with me. Thanks.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Dishonour Killings in the UK
Via LGF: Police say 17,000 women are victims every year
Up to 17,000 women in Britain are being subjected to "honour" related violence, including murder, every year, according to police chiefs.
And official figures on forced marriages are the tip of the iceberg, says the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO).
It warns that the number of girls falling victim to forced marriages, kidnappings, sexual assaults, beatings and even murder by relatives intent on upholding the "honour" of their family is up to 35 times higher than official figures suggest.
The crisis, with children as young as 11 having been sent abroad to be married, has prompted the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to call on British consular staff in Bangladesh, India and Pakistan to take more action to identify and help British citizens believed to be the victims of forced marriages in recent years.
The Home Office is drawing up an action plan to tackle honour-based violence which "aims to improve the response of police and other agencies" and "ensure that victims are encouraged to come forward with the knowledge that they will receive the help and support they need". And a Civil Protection Bill coming into effect later this year will give courts greater guidance on dealing with forced marriages.
[ Full Article ]
Where is the outrage? Where is the outrage from the British Muslim community?
Monday, February 11, 2008
Opposing Sharia law
The Archbishop of Canterbury recently said that "Sharia law is inevitable" in the UK, and claimed that it will "bring about social cohesion." Yeah, right. He is under fire from his statement, though some have stated that somehow it is 'Islamophobic' to be against Sharia law for Muslims in the UK, because the system would be voluntary, anyway. Ali Eteraz (who I have taken issue with in the past) wrote a very compelling entry on his blog, explaining exactly why Sharia would be so terrible for Muslims. (please note that he is a practicing Muslim who wrote this) The important part to note...
2 - Islamic family and inheritance law has issues that have not been resolved.
Men get a presumption when it comes to custody (it should be an issue of best interest of child).
Child support ends after three months (it should be as in US law where children “share in the good fortunes” of their divorced parents).
Boys get more in inheritance than girls (should be equal).
Men get bulk of marital assets (should be equitable distribution).
Apostasy automatically ends the marriage (yeah, I’m sure this one won’t be abused by evil in-laws). Think of how easily Muslims accuse one another of kufr.
In a divorce, a parent revealed to be (or more likely accused to be) a homosexual has no claim over the child (”your dad’s a fag, kid, you are fatherless!”). I mean, jilted women have never been known to demonize their exes like this.
A man can divorce in one sitting but a woman needs the permission of a religious authority.
This list is endless, please feel free to add to it.
The purpose of the law is to reflect and respond to social realities. Many parts of Islamic family law — as it stands today — don’t do that
It is a maxim of fiqh: “Changes of al-ahkam (judgments) are permissible with the change in times.” I don’t see changes.
Eteraz wrote much more, but one thing I take issue with is his moral equivalence - he states that the Beth Din in England somehow would be equivalent to the Sharia courts. Firstly, Jewish law is relatively well settled, after the publishing of the Shulchan Aruch. (at least compared to Sharia law) Yes, rabbis will publish responsa to situations as they come about - but this is nothing like the confusion of Sharia. Eteraz noted it as such...
5 - There is no standardized version of Islamic law
Sharia is not codified. It can be anything based on the whim of the arbitrator. For law to be law, it needs standardization. Who is going to do this? Muhammad Fadel and Khaled Abu el Fadl? Abdullahi an-Naim? Irshad and Reza Aslan? Faraz Rabbani? Taqi Usmani and Nameless Arab Guy? Suhaib Webb and Yasir Qazi? Yale University? Harvard’s Islamic Law Symposium? Remember, we’re a community that still haven’t been able to standardize what day to start Ramadan or celebrate our biggest festivals so let’s not get too carried away with pipe dreams about standardizing Islamic family law. If codification has not even been accomplished in numerous Muslim countries then how can you even think about getting a Sharia court going in the West?
And, I assure you that if you get the standardization issue going, its quickly going to devolve into an Islamic civil war — Sufi v. Salafi v. Liberals v. Right-Wing-Islamophobes (what, you don’t think they are going to show up at the public meetings?)
So that is difference one.
Difference two is what goes to the crux of the matter. Namely, there simply is a difference in Sharia law v. Halacha (Jewish Law). Please read Hugh Fitzgerland's explanation as such. Essentially, there is a difference in the way Jewish law is viewed - certainly not as supreme over the secular laws - and the way it is applied. Moreover, there is a difference in the goal; Jews do not hope to one day rule over England with Halacha.
It is for all these reasons and more that we have to be vigilant in our fight against Sharia law. We have to remind ourselves that Sharia is not just the 'Muslim equivalent' of Halacha. It is not. Unless and until Sharia is a) reformed; b) codified, it remains the law of the dark ages. Under the aegis of 'religious tolerance,' why are we okay with letting women be treated as second class citizens? Why? Why are feminists arguing this is actually a good thing? Did the feminist movement mean nothing? Why are so many liberals acting illiberally?
UPDATE: Christopher Hitchens wrote a great essay explaining the very real dangers of Sharia right here. To sum it up: allowing Sharia will mean that honor killings will go unpunished to a much larger degree. And most importantly, it will lead to oppression of women. Feminists, where are you? *taps feets* I am waiting to hear from you!
Friday, February 8, 2008
The History of Antisemitism
I have posted on a message board for many years about the dual subjects of Buffy the Vampire Slayer and politics. (Yes, really.) On that message board, the subject of antisemitism came up, and the following things were claimed...
- Jews were in some way responsible for antisemitism throughout history, via the laws of 'family purity,' and separation.
- Antisemitism as such is not that big a deal today, in the modern world, and other forms of racism are bigger deals.
- Antisemitism was not really a bigger deal throughout history than anything else.
So I wrote this in reply...
You are basing your responses on so much misinformation I do not even know where to begin.
I will begin with this. You begin with the premise that maybe maybe maybe Jews "did something" to instigate the Holocaust. No one is completely innocent, eh? So they "did something;" they enforce ritual purity and live separately and despise the "goyim," and so therefore, they brought on the antisemitism themselves.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Jews were forced to live in ghettos of Europe (and also the Mideast, via 'dhimmi' laws) for centuries. They had no CHOICE in the matter. They were literally forced to live separately, they were barred from owning land, and they were barred from most professions. (see link on Jews of Middle Ages) As a result, some Jews - a small minority of them - went into finance only because it was one of the only professions open to them. Thus begun the nonsensical lie about Jews controlling the banks. But I have more. Kings knew that Jews were an easy target, so they made them tax collectors. Therefore, when it came time to pay taxes, "don't blame me, BLAME THE JEW!" Then there is the Christian antisemitic liturgies; Jews blamed for killing Christ, and "replacement theology." I forgot to add that Jews have the religious ritual of washing hands; as a result, they were dying less during the Black Death; this was held as "proof" that Jews were "witches" and/or responsible for starting the Black Death.
So this is the background; Jews were forced to live separately and despised for their Jewishness. They were called witches at different times of history and there were pogroms and mass murders. Jews were forced to flee country after country; thus there was the canard of the "wandering Jew." Then, in the early 1800s, Napoleon set about a sort of "Sanhedrin" council, and sought to free the Jews from the ghetto walls. He asked Jews: "Are you French, or are you Jewish?" And Jews answered that they were French. This led to the dawn of Reform Judaism, which rejects much of Halacha (Jewish law) in favour of "fitting in." They rejected the very laws you 'claim' were a 'factor' of the Holocaust.
And the Jew who simply wanted to live their lives and fit in was the Jew of Germany in the 1930s. The German Jew was generally the Reform Jew. So the very basis of your argument is ignorant at best.
But I will go on.
Hitler then targeted the Jews as a RACE. It was not about the Jewish religion. Orthodox Jews and atheist Jews were sent to the gas chambers alike. Hitler based the definition of Jew on whether there was a single Jewish grandparent. Christopher Hitchens, as an example, would be considered a Jew. Under that definition. Hitler saw Jews as a race that was clouding the superior "Aryan" race, and wanted to first expel them...but where to? None of the other "Western" and "enlightened" countries of the world would have them. Where would they go? 'Palestine' was thought to be an option at the time, except it was not an option, because the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem - Haj Amin al Husseini (involved in the founding of the PLO) - was an ally of Hitler's. He wanted 'Palestine' to be Judenrein, rather than as a safe haven for Jews. And he was an architect, with Eichmann, of the "Final Solution".
"Antisemitism" is not a hatred of the Jewish religion. "Antisemitism" is a hatred of the Jewish people (genetically). The term itself was made up by a German 'scientist' to coin an ideology that he felt should be spread.
But then that is the Holocaust. What about present day?
Let's examine present day. Let's examine the fact that in England - YOUR HOME COUNTRY - synagogues across England are not safe. And so there is an organization called CST - Community Service Trust - set up to protect Jews in ENGLAND. (not Iran, not Lebanon, not Morocco - ENGLAND) Let's talk about the fact that Jews - today - 2008 - suffer more hate crimes per capita than any other group in England. Let's talk about the fact that the number of hate crimes against Jews is actually rising. Let's talk about Ilan Halimi - the French Jew who was brutally massacred by Moroccan Muslims a few years ago for the 'crime' of being Jewish. Let's talk about the synagogue and graveyard desecrations. About the fact that there is a whole community of French Jews in New York, Israel, and Miami Beach who are there because they are fleeing France. Because they do not feel safe in France - 'enlightened' France. And let's ask ourselves who is behind these hate crimes. It quite simply are the 'aggrieved' "Asians" you speak of. THEY are the ones who are behind these hate crimes. There is a new antisemitism in Europe. And it is Islamic antisemitism. They use the old Christian antisemitic images and themes and make them Islamic. Or maybe it is not 'new,' insofar as it builds upon an alliance that existed during Hitler's era; alliances such as between the Grand Mufti, the Ba'ath party, the Muslim Brotherhood, and Hitler.
Then let's talk about a friend of mine - a Lebanese Jew - who is on Nasrallah's death list. His 'crime' is being Jewish. He saw his cousin tortured to death by Syrian agents in front of his very eyes. And he decided that he had to refurnish and protect the Jewish graveyard that was vandalized - because his cousin, his sister, his uncle - his whole family - were buried there. So he protected and refurnished the graveyard. That was his 'crime.' And for that he had to flee Lebanon for his very life. Then let's talk about the fact that Lebanese Jews live in hiding in Lebanon. They LOVE the Land of Cedars and only want to live and let live. But Nasrallah and his Final Solution goons want to literally kill every single Jew of Lebanon. For the 'crime' of being Jewish. He also wants to kill every Jew on earth.
This is the mentality of the enemy that Israel faces. Israel faces an enemy that seeks to drive it into the sea, and has tried, non-stop, since its very foundation. And yet despite that, Israel has been more restrained than any other nation on earth in the history of the world in fighting these threats to its very existence. But that is not good enough. Because somehow, there is one standard given to Israel in how it should respond to threats, and another standard given to the rest of the world. Israel is asked to lay down and commit suicide. Unless Israelis walk softly to the gallows, they are committing some sort of a 'genocide'. That ideology is a latent antisemitism.
Antisemitism in fact does exist, and it is not merely some cute thing of the past. Israel has a duty to its citizenry to defend itself. And those who know better who claim Israel is acting 'contrary to international law' in simply defending its borders against genocidal monsters who wish to kill every Jew are guilty of antissemitism. And that is why, in response to that ideology, I say two words.
Never again.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Zions Fire
The Middle East: A History of Searching for Peace
- From the Depths of Despair to the Heights of Exaltation
- How Dark the Night
- Can These Bones Live?
- A Nation Reborn Through the Faithful Hand of G-d
- The Peace Before the Storm
Part 4: A Nation Reborn Through the Faithful Hand of G-d
Written by: Marvin J. Rosenthal
Published in Zion’s Fire Magazine in September/October, 1993
With the United Nations’ resolution of November, 1947, Israel became a “paper” nation. Legally, Palestine was partitioned. The nations of the world had given Israel back a piece of the land that G-d had promised to Abraham and his posterity when He said, “Walk through the land in the length of it and in the breadth of it; for I will give it unto thee” (Gen. 13:17). To be sure, what the United Nations gave was small – less than a fourth of the size which the British proposed in the mandate of 1917 – smaller than the state of New Jersey. But it was something – a land, a home, a place – to which the wandering Jew could return, be welcomed, and lay his head. But, could what was given in theory be sustained in practice? In 1948, there were only 640,000 Jews in all of Israel. The surrounding Arab nations had a combined population of over 80 million, and they threatened to drive the Jews into the Mediterranean Sea. There were only six months to prepare for the inevitable attack. The nearly 100,000 British troops, who had kept a shaky, uneven, largely pro-Arab peace, would then leave.
Many world leaders were agreed. If Israel declared herself a nation, the numerically superior and far-better-equipped Arabs would attack, and Israel would be stillborn. General George Marshall, America’s Secretary of State, counseled his friend, David Ben-Gurion, to bide his time until a more favorable political climate could develop for declaring Israel’s nationhood. Ben-Gurion, later reflecting on the general’s advice, said:
...Marshall could not know what we knew – what we felt in our very bones: that this was our historic hour; if we did not live up to it, through fear or weakness of spirit, it might be generations or even centuries before our people were given another historic opportunity – if indeed we would be alive as a national group.
On the 14th of May, 1948, Ben-Gurion, who would become Israel’s first Prime Minister, stood up in a hastily prepared movie theatre in Tel Aviv (because they did not possess Jerusalem), and declared Israel a nation among the nations of the world. On the 15th of May, the last of the British forces withdrew. The same day, six Arab nations – Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, and Iraq – invaded Israel. They approached like a fistful of fingers that would close together and squeeze the life out of the infant state.
The invading armies had a carefully devised plan and a precise timetable. The Egyptians were to sweep up the coast from the south and then fork out. One force would take Jaffa-Tel Aviv along the Mediterranean Sea. The second force would join the Jordanian Arab legion and converge on Jerusalem. From the east, Iraqi troops would race westward across Palestine toward the Mediterranean to slice Israel in half. In the north, the Syrians and Lebanese would join forces to secure the Galilee and Haifa.
For the first month, battles raged up and down the land. The Jewish forces – initially without a tank, a fighter plane, or a field gun – suffered heavy casualties. The situation looked very grim. Through the efforts of the United Nations, a truce went into effect on June 11. It would only last until July 9. But, it gave Israel a month’s reprieve. It would prove to be all she needed.
[ Full Article ]
[ Video Source ]
Sunday, February 3, 2008
"Youths" in London
Source: Holocaust Day Marred by 'Racist' Stone-throwing by Mike Brooke at The East London Advertiser.
Hat Tip: Jewish Tourists Stoned in London from A Canadian Guy.
THE Holocaust Memorial Day marking the genocides of the 20th century was marred on Sunday when a gang of youths stoned Jewish tourists on a guided tour of London's East End.
A group of 96 visitors looking at sites of Jewish interest were attacked by youths hiding behind a fence in a back street in Whitechapel.
Two were struck by the missiles, an American woman just starting a new post at London's Metropolitan University and a Canadian lecturer.
The woman had blood pouring from her head and needed hospital treatment.
[ Full Article ]
Canadian Guy said it all:
Read [the] article full of references to "youths" and "community" and try to guess who the perpetrators are.
[ Full Commentary ]
Friday, September 14, 2007
Brown just keeps on swining those punches
Yesterday he invited Thatcher to Number 10.
Election warfare methinks. David Cameron has gambled on the Blair way of doing things, and i think he's lost. Saatchi is in charge of Labours election advertising. Which is ironic really, considering the fact that Saatchi's advertising helped Thatcher gain power in 1979 with the "labour isn't working" being one that sticks in older peoples memories (i was but a twinkle in my fathers eye in 1979). The first advert for Labour is quite simple, it has a picture of Brown with the words "Just Gordon". I think people are sick of the Blair style of politics (which Cameron has been trying to emulate), so the simple appeal of Brown as a politician of old (boring bank manager type) may just win Labour the election.
I'm voting for my local MP, as he has done a very good job over the years (he got my first ever vote in a general election). Hopefully i will not have to run the gauntlet of Tatchell's supporters. Because when i vote, i head in and out as quickly as i can. Without making eye contact with Tory, Liberal Democrat or Labour party workers. Who are always trying to drum up extra votes. I vote, then watch the election night news programmes as they try and number crunch the results into predicated a Parliament, which they revise constantly over night with the swingometer.
As for when the Election will be called ? If it's not called before November, then i guess Brown will call it sometime before the spring in 2008. I think Labour might get a slight increase on it's majority. As David Cameron has failed to use the chances to run down the Labour Government over things like the NHS and other issues that have cropped. Team Cameron is more like Team Tory: Opposition forever!
Saturday, September 1, 2007
At last! The British decided to fight for their Christian roots...
After removing Churchill from its educational books, and quiting British Council offices in Europe, Banning crosses in British Airways, Saying No to "War on Terror", and tagging everyone condemning Islamic Ideology as Islamophobe!... the British had finally decided to defend its Christian roots.
Hold on a second, If you are dreaming that they had started to speak against Jihad, or Islamic Imperial goals of Global caliphet, then you are absolutely wrong. Instead of fighting the real enemy, They had moved further to ban Infidel Activities like Yoga.
Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Spider Pig Terror in UK.....
Spider-Pig, Spider-Pig, does what ever Spider-Pig does.
Can he swing, from a web?
No he can't, he's a pig.
Look out! He is a Spider-Pig!
But Perhaps in streets of UK, he can fly, and has far more super powers then any spider pig ever had.
A group of Muslims have opposed plans for a pet food factory to be built as possible pork emissions will violate their religious rights.
Sounds like some sort of radioactive emission... anyways, Mohammedians haven't found the Spider Pig through its track's on the roof yet, instead they smell Spider pig...
Butchers Pet Care could shelve plans for a factory in Coton Park, near Rugby, because angry Asian families have complained to their residents' association about pork smells drifting into their garden.
Anyways Muslim do expect the Spider Pig foot print on the roof's. The article further add's
Muslim residents in the area also claim the pork will effectively "rain down" on their homes and gardens.
Further the articles added...
"Our religion expressly forbids us to consume pig meat in any form.
"Because of the way in which this meat material will leave the factory and give that the area can be 'rained upon' we will be consuming pork via inhalation of this 'rain'.
"Not only that but our clothes will be contaminated by pork."
Hello? Contaminated by pork... I don't know, since when did the chimneys of a factory use "pig sprinklers". Normally the only things that come out of chimneys are:
- A lot of smoke with poisonous gases
- Ash
But... Pork?
Oh my! It seems something else to me.... Who will teach the Mohammedians, that Pig is a animal with a definite role inside food chain... The Sicken Ideology of Mohammedians is extending its Jihad from Human domain to entire animal kingdom ( anyways does they really consider Infidels as Humans? )
Further now the source of Spider Pigs, a 100 ft. long chimney...
"The owners of the proposed factory do not dispute the claim that meat extracts of pork will be pumped into the atmosphere via a 100ft chimney.
Several families have complained because of the smell of the pork, and also if the factory is cooking with it, pork particles and odour could rain down on them from the chimney at some point.
At first, I am not aware of a Chimney with water sprinkling system.... Beside this, I can only see ashes coming out of Chimney, and For sure no one is forcing them to eat Ashes, indeed the ashes if constitute to anything, then that will be "Air pollution"...
After settling, It will decompose again and enter the Food chain through the nutrients absorbed by Plants..
It further add's:
"A Muslim is obliged to be clean spiritually, mentally and physically.
I missed the real word, due to which Muslims are obliged for cleaning everything.... the world is Jihad.... Now if any Muslim is visiting this site, he will claim that I am hypocratic, and will explian us Smaller and Higher Jihad...
Butchers Pet Care could shelve plans for a factory in Coton Park, near Rugby, because angry Asian families
So the outrage was just because there were a big British conspiracy plan to bring Spider Pig to check Islam. Anyways, what I also like is that Multi-culti card of Mohammedians...
"It was something we hadn't taken on board before but it's definitely important and is a very delicate issue.
"If Muslims are unhappy about it, then Jews may complain for the same reason, and Hindus may complain because of their beliefs about cows being sacred animals.
"There is a significant Muslim element in our area, so there is a potential problem."
Perhaps one should consider this article before speaking such against Hindus... beside this I never came across any protest registered in west, where a Hindu or Jew had filed a court case against his co-worker for racial discrimination, because he was eating a pork steak/beef on lunch table...
anyways now the closing tags of the article, which perhaps supposedly had outraged all British Hindus, and they published this article projecting themselves as Muslims (this was the dirty work Zionist conspirator ;) )
We feel sure that there are other areas where this factory could be built that would not impact on us or others like us."
The Environmental Health Agency are investigating the potential affects, with a decision about the factory's future due in September.
The pet food company said there is an 'almost 99% guarantee' the smell of pork would not reach the Coton Meadows residential area.
A statement from Butchers Pet Care said: "The majority of our natural products are beef and poultry.
"Pork ingredients account for less than 10% of our range.
"At Coton Park we plan to introduce state-of-the-art odour extraction through the chimney stack.
"An environmental impact report has already concluded that emissions at the proposed Coton Park site should not have an adverse impact on air quality and odour levels.
"We would like to reiterate that we do not burn any animal materials."
Tell us what you think, Will you be offended from the ash coming from a factory, which is normally equipped with all instruments to electrostatic ally capture Ash particles? ...
Thursday, May 10, 2007
The Blair era is almost over...
Saturday, April 21, 2007
British Politics - an interesting few months lay ahead
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Hospital Bans Hot Cross Buns in Effort to Avoid Offending non-Christians
No, really. Feel free to read about this yourself.
Due to a fear of "upsetting non-Christians," hospital patients could not eat a traditional food on Easter. Now, I happen to find hot cross buns to be delicious, and I even like the little hot cross buns song! And yup, I am Jewish. This all is utter nonsense.
Where are we going as a civilization that we ban hot cross buns from English hospitals, simply out of fear of offending?
How can this horrible trend of giving into madness be reversed?
Friday, April 6, 2007
Caroline Glick on The Iranian Hostage Crisis and More
Hi all,
I just wanted to link you to a MUST READ article written by Caroline Glick. It details exactly how the US/UK/Germany/Israel must act if it hopes to win the war against the Islamofanatics.
Here's the start of the brilliance:
The footage of the British hostages thanking Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for his hospitality and forgiveness, like the footage of Speaker of the US House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi covering her head in a scarf while on a visit to Damascus, was enough to make you sick.
Must we lose this war?
Read the whole thing!
My analysis is exactly the same as Glick's though I didn't have the wisdom to phrase things as perfectly as she did. It is disgusting to see the world gloating over the "benevolence" of Iran, compared to the "evil" of Abu Ghraib and the US. That is the end result of what happened. And meanwhile, what of the British hostages? They said after they got back to safe harbor that they were blindfolded and isolated, and forced to make the remarks they made on TV.
But none of this matters, and the world doesn't care.
Iran had its PR coup, and they exposed the West as weak, useless, feckless, and inept.
Please read Caroline Glick, and her analysis on what must be done. I would love your feedback!
Friday, March 30, 2007
First Post in a Long Time!
Sorry I have not been posting...I just needed to take a break. But I am back, sort of. I just wanted to post what I wrote on Tsedek's blog. I think you may enjoy reading it. I am curious what you all think!
If you want to hold Israel to a higher set of moral standards, that is your right, as an Israeli and a Jew. My only point is that the world has no right to similarly engage in such conduct. I also think that in YOUR OWN judgement, you seem to be missing the boat on the genocidal threat that Israel faces.
It is inhumane and counter-productive to just go around shooting civilians for no reason. However, it is similarly inhumane to let Israeli civilians die because of a negligence and/or lack of desire to protect Israeli civilians.
I do know Israel is guilty of only ONE of those crimes - the former. (see: capitulation at Sderot) Individual IDF soldiers, as opposed to the state, are guilty of engaging in human rights violations. I am fully aware of this. But this is not because the state glorifies violence or the killing of civilians. Rather, I view the reason to be related to Israel's patheticness in defending its civilians.
I spoke to an IDF combat soldier who fought in Lebanon in 2006, and he said that if he wanted to kill a civilian, he could have ON HIS OWN, and there is little the state would have done about it. This certainly is appalling. (He did not commit such acts.)
But why does this happen?
I believe that individual acts of barbarism on the part of IDF soldiers is directly related to a feeling of helplessness soldiers have when they are told to stand down, when they see rocket launch pads in Gaza. It is the inevitable result. Normally kind, decent people devolve into barbarians when they see the state has failed them.
This is not limited to Israel. Witness the mayhem in Gujarat, India, after the state failed to act after the Godhra train burning. (More on Gujarat right here.)
This is what Israel has in store for it if it continues down the road towards capitulation. It will not be pretty.
You are fearful of 'collective punishment' of Gaza residents. I say that this is of a secondary concern, as the actions in Gaza are a fraction of what needs to happen. (no, I do not mean nuke the whole place - I mean GO AFTER THOSE TRYING TO KILL JEWS) Until Israel does the right thing, there will be increasing numbers of IDF soldiers who go off the deep end and kill civilians, in some misguided notion of vigilante justice. That is my prediction.
Anyway, these are my thoughts. I fear what will happen if the world continues on this current path of capitulation.
These fears become all the more immediate when you wonder what soldiers in Iraq will do, knowing 15 of their comrades in arms were taken hostage by Iran, and Britain is hemming and hawing and muttering "WHAT SHALL WE DO?" in response.
I see bad times ahead.
Monday, March 12, 2007
Once Upon a Time in the West (Midlands)
THE YEAR, 2007.
My name is Adil. I have been born and raised among dutiful and obedient Muslims, and I aim to misbehave.
Already I have fallen from grace. I am no longer one of them, a reason sufficient for their delicately-placed wrath to have me consigned, in this world and the next, to the most grievous of penalties; for what else should the reward be for those who behave like me, they would say if they knew, but disgrace in this life? So no matter where I go in the realms of Islam, I am a hidden traitor to my people, a renegade without honour to be executed. And for them to know of my apostasy is to know of their fear.
Still, now and again I silently walk among the Muslim flock, to observe their incessant bleating and guilty straying, and see how readily they run to the call of their watchful masters, appointees of God who oversee the enjoining of what is good and the forbidding of what is not. And they remind the herd that He is not unmindful of what they do.
Neither am I.
It is raining. Amid the leaf-green patches and high-rise suburbia, the Muslim flock is on the move. As the call to Friday prayers wafts through the doors of the central mosque, an unholy alliance of men walks up the steps and into its entrance. As they remove and shelve their footwear in the foyer, their bland shalwar kameezes, prayer caps, and fistfuls of scraggly hair growth mingle and compete with exaggerated "bomber" jackets, "condom" hats, and goatee beards. But women, all of whom are safely tucked into hijabs and niqabs, move to an unobtrusive side entrance of the mosque.
The car park nearby is, as is usually the case, a scene of confusion. The non-Muslim policeman on duty is feeling the pressure. These Muslims, it appears, do not know how to park their cars, or at least, not around each other. Out of necessity, the ground of the car park itself is not a flat, smooth tarmac: it consists entirely of small, but sizeable, jagged rocks that pre-emptively puncture the ambitions of opportunistic speeders, who would care to exhibit the marvels of their machines. For the more likely that young, fertile, non-Muslim women live and reside in a vicinity, the greater are the efforts invested into displaying male plumage.
But there are males who are aware that sabotaging this holy day in the service of reproductive pursuits is not usually the same as siding with God. As their souped-up, low-slung cars cruise into this arena that is a car park under heavy siege, some of them dutifully decide that it is now appropriate, perhaps, to stop pumping out hip-hop and bhangra. And when the inhabitants of these vehicles finally emerge, together they look like an odd lot. Most conform to the usual urban "rude-boy" stereotype, given how obvious their efforts are in trying to appear "accidentally" attractive; the rest look as if they have just returned from a pilgrimage to Mecca: moustaches are trimmed, beards are not, and the trousers of their long, white jilbabs are jacked above the ankles.
It has long been thus: welcome to this outpost of Islamic civilisation, a colony where the stridency of the faithful collides with vogues that were once confined to the underclass of non-Muslim British society. Muhammad is not just the newest, and the final, of God's prophets; Muhammad is the newest, and the final, of the bling-bling superstars. Since the Rushdie Affair, and more recently the Cartoon jihad, even the most irreligious of the street-savvy Muslim rude-boys have come to know of the new universal limits: nobody disses Mo, the Final Gangster of all time and a Mercy to all the worlds.
Such are the strong sensibilities of those Muslims who are deprived of all high culture, and have only a very nominal sense of their own religious background. If you drew Muhammad sporting gold jewellery, a tailor-made condom hat, a goatee, wraparound orange shades, and tell him to strike a pose, they will not be amused. They will not giggle at how "hard" the prophet is. And, to paraphrase from the movie Pulp Fiction, they will go jahiliyya on your ass. Mo's turf is the entire planet, and his homeboys, which range from imams to the most ridiculous of their underclass congregants, are busy trying to strut their stuff on it.
And many are succeeding.
As I walk into the prayer hall of the mosque, the signs of this being a place for worship are clear: the carpets are arranged in the direction of Mecca, stacks of Korans line the shelves, prayer beads swing from cupboard handles, and an imam is addressing his congregation with a typical sermon, a tedious khutbah admonishing them all and steadfastly calling them to the way of God. By now, the mosque is packed.
Having once belonged to the ranks of believers, I have always understood that heartfelt prayer is to a man's turbulent mind what water is to a flame. For some people, prayer encourages inner tranquillity and peace, and subdues their seething waves of anger, the fiery discontent that simmers away in their heart. And this is an end in itself for some faiths. Not so for Islam: Congregational prayer has always been preferred over individual worship; prayer is just one step on the pathway to mobilising human action within a community. The mosque is more than just a Muslim church; it is like the equivalent of the old Roman forums.
As such, there is little in the way of serenity to be found in mosques. Instead, other things occupy the minds of these congregants. After the prayers, and once the imam's appeal to God to aid the Muslim "resistance" in Palestine, Iraq, Chechnya, Afghanistan and so on, ad nauseum, is finally over, I walk over to near where a discussion in Urdu is taking place among some men, including the imam. They are talking about how the police apparently like causing their community trouble.
Not so long ago, the area nearby the central mosque was swamped with media reporters and photographers, after terror arrests had been made of some Muslim men living in the vicinity, men who were thought to have been plotting to kidnap a British Muslim soldier and behead him as punishment for aiding the "dirty kuffar". The embarrassment of the community and its leaders was palpable. The chairman of the mosque tried to take the mature line during the whole fray and declared that the raids were obviously part of a government conspiracy to make upstanding, well-respected, and peace-loving Muslims look bad. And the media, which was promptly dubbed by the community as an arm of an anti-Islamic war machine, searched in vain for reasonable concerns coming from within about radical Muslims.
The press did encounter some other interesting things however. One was a sign of the importance attached to good manners by Muslims in the community, as seen in one press photo: a few women, one of whom is pushing her child's buggy, are walking down the street. All are clad in dark niqabs. One of these upstanding, peace-loving Muslim women, who has spectacles jutting out in front of the slit that allows her eyes to peek through, proceeds to salute the flood of press and photographers by sticking two fingers up at them.
I want to ask the imam of this mosque something. Incompetents like him sometimes amuse me. I get my chance when the discussion group finally disperses and he steps away towards the doors.
"Assalaamu Alaikum", I say. I smile and hold out my hand.
"Wa-alaikum salaam" he replies. He shakes my hand, but only by tentatively gripping my fingers, not the palm. Arrogant sod.
"I'm sorry to bother you, but I'd like your advice on a couple of things, if that's okay."
He is not looking at me. He seems rather distracted by the shape of the door he was just heading towards.
"Please be quick. I am in rush."
Okay. I begin with a random question.
"My professor says that natural selection is the only source of life on this earth. What does Islam have to say about this?"
He looks at me for a few seconds, puzzled. "Evolution? Evolution?" he asks. I nod.
"Yaar, it is not allowed. All mad dreams." He waves his hand dismissively.
Huh.
"Okay, I'll look into that. The other thing is that Hizb-ut-Tahrir has been tellling me to join their group to implement the caliphate. They say it's obligatory for me as a Muslim to join and help them to work towards this. What do I do? Are they right?
"Aray yaar, these kids. Small groups. No knowledge. Nothing."
"So what should I say to them?"
"Ignore. Ignore".
"But how are they wrong?"
He is tiring of this conversation.
"They are not knowing".
"They don't know what?"
"Uff, do not ask me such things".
"What?"
But he walks off, with nary a salaam in the wind.
The believers are now feeling suitably chastised and worked up in equal measure, and they file out of the mosque. But there are those for whom the opportunity to chastise has only just begun. As worshippers leave the mosque, they are handed leaflets by Hizb-ut-Tahrir, leaflets that usually rail against an ongoing war against, apparently, Islam, as well as this and that obstacle to the implementation of the mighty khilafah, a universal Islamic state that is said to be the necessary solution given the group's lengthy diagnosis of the ills availing the Muslim world. Usually young, in their 20s and 30s, the supporters of the group are a waste of a generation. They mark out their territory in front of the mosque with a stall selling books and magazines, and their junior supporters, typically smartly suited and booted, coolly patrol the vicinity in search of unsuspecting Muslims, who have not yet realised the potentials of their faith. The flyers and leaflets they hand out freely are all paid out of their pockets.
I walk over to the stall, where a few people are already talking animatedly. Or rather, the designated person looking after the stall is gesticulating energetically. He is not pleased. Your Muslim brothers and sisters are being massacred around the world by the West, he says. There is a hint of embarrassment in the questioner's face at being subjected to such an unexpected display of emotion. No matter how privately posed a question on world affairs may be, it is a religious obligation for the Hizb-ut-Tahrir speaker to spread word of the injustices perpetrated against Muslims far and wide. Any conversation is explored for opportunities for howling oratory. But what is also clear from this spectacle is that senior members of the group are carefully observing the member's performance from the sidelines. And he knows it.
After a while, the man with the question purchases some literature and moves on. I pretend to be looking at a book entitled "The Economic System of Islam". The guy in charge of the stall now turns his attention to me. He seems quite aware that I was in earshot of his little rehearsed monologue.
"Assalaamu Alaikum, brother", he says.
"Wa-alaikum salaam", I reply.
He says nothing, but keeps looking at me expectantly.
"So", I say, smiling.
"Brother, have you been given one of these leaflets?" He holds out one for me to take. I already have one. His accent is a slurred English, although he is clearly more articulate than the imam. I have had many run-ins with the group's suburban mujahideen elsewhere, and I know their type well.
"Actually, no", I lie. "So, what's a khilafah? What does it look like?".
He is pleased at the question, but before answering he quickly glances around to gauge earshot potential. He already knows his seniors are listening.
"Brother, the Islamic khilafah is the Islamic State. It was destroyed in 1924, and ruling by Islam in the state and society ceased", he says emphasising the last word. "Ruling by Islam ceased when the khilafah was destroyed by corrupt rulers who were agents of the kuffar".
Huh.
"Brother, the implementing of the khilafah is a great obligation upon each and every Muslim. It is haram [forbidden] to remain for more than three days without a pledge to a khaleefah being on your neck. It is haram to rule by anything other than Islam and to stay silent about the implementation of kufr laws over us".
His voice is carrying across the courtyard and he shifts to third-person.
"Due to this, Muslims all over the world are sinful in the sight of Allah and they will all receive punishment except those who involve themselves in establishing the khilafah and restore the ruling by that which Allah has revealed. The sin will not be lifted from their necks until the khilafah is established, and whosoever dies without a bay'ah [oath of allegiance to a would-be khaleefah] on his neck will die the death of jahiliyyah [ignorance]."
As Americans are fond of saying: like, whoa.
"So, it is obligatory for every Muslim to help establish the khilafah?", I ask.
"Yes, brother". He looks at me pointedly. "The daleel [evidence] is laid out in the Koran and the Sunnah, and any Muslim who refuses to help establish the khilafah has committed a clear act of kufr and this takes them outside the fold of Islam".
His mention of apostasy is pregnant with implications of punishment by death. And by this time, more of his colleagues are gathering around to listen to this exchange.
"So, you're basically saying: it's obligatory for every Muslim to be subject to all the laws and customs of Islam but the only way for this to come about is by establishing the khilafah, right?"
"Brother, it's not me who is saying this". He holds up a Koran. "Rather, this is God's command to each of us as laid out in the Koran and Sunnah. To be ruled by Islam is an obligation upon our necks. Establishing the khilafah is the only method for establishing Islam over our heads. Only in the presence of the khilafah can the laws of Islam exist and in its absence they are suspended. Brother, there is a very important, well-known Shari'ah principle that says: that which is necessary to achieve an obligation is itself an obligation".
Much of this explains why many of the Hizb-ut-Tahrir members I have met think themselves superior to those Muslims who are considerably more religious than themselves. If you happen to believe that you are already working towards the greatest obligation, that of establishing the khilafah, then all the other religious stuff can just, well, get in line.
"Isn't that principle illogical, though?", I reply. "That's like saying: It's obligatory to free slaves, so it's therefore obligatory to keep slaves so we can free them".
The area goes quiet. The man behind the stall is unsure of how to respond.
"Who's talking about slaves here, brother?"
This is the best response he can come up with?
"What is your name?" comes a voice from behind him. A fat man with spectacles steps forward.
"How is that relevant?"
"Because you do not have knowledge. You clearly need to gain knowledge. You should discuss these matters in greater detail with us - in private".
It seems I have touched upon a criticism that his colleagues were not trained to publicly respond to.
"Actually, you haven't answered my original question", I reply.
"God's logic is not the same as your logic. These things cannot be understood unless one has understand the proofs as laid out in the Koran and Sunnah, and this means learning the process of extracting them, by first having knowledge of how one may reason about the manaat [reality] of the text".
He seems touchy.
"What's the difference between your version of Islam and that of this mosque's?", I ask.
"There are no versions of Islam. There is only one Islam, that of God and His Prophet. Who are you to be asking such questions?", he says.
There is actually not much difference between the "moderates" and Hizb-ut-Tahrir. Islamic teachings stipulate that if a Muslim ever happens to find himself in a position of power, no matter where he is, then there is a clear religious obligation upon him to implement the laws of Islam. That is what Muslims usually described as moderate or traditional believe. The main difference is that moderates believe that the establishing of Islamic Shari'ah is conditional, since it depends upon having a Muslim in power in the first place. If there is no Muslim in power, then there is no religious obligation to reach that point. However, they have every desire to implement Shari'ah, given that Islam's own vision of itself has become locked such that it cannot pretend to exist as a minority culture. Hizb-ut-Tahrir, on the other hand, believes there are no strings attached in the pursuit of power. The reign of Islam is religiously obligatory, and whatever leads to it also becomes automatically obligatory. Both are deeply anti-Semitic, anti-women, homophobic, anti-science, and anti-freedom. They are dangerous movements and need to be combated strenuously. Moderates and militants differ in degree, not in kind. One is not the solution to the other.
In fact, militant Islamists spend more marketing effort in distancing themselves from the moderates than vice-versa. The more militant a group is, the more effort they spend in delegitimising those who are less so. Hizb-ut-Tahrir markets itself as being heavily divergent from moderates, and constantly brings attention to what it sees as huge errors in the moderate position. While there is little of actual substance between the two, given the main difference is over a question of whether a certain principle is to be expressed conditionally or not, most Muslims have come to accept Hizb-ut-Tahrir's line that the differences to, and errors in, the moderates are huge.
Moderate imams and their colleagues therefore face a dilemma. On the one hand, they refuse to take on the ideology of radical Islamists for fear of looking incompetent to Muslims at large; on the other hand, by refusing to police the radicals the imams look incompetent to non-Muslims at large. The truth is that they are incompetent on both counts; radical Islamists and the not-so radical imams are not so terribly far apart in their aspirations. One seeks to advance their cultural supremacism in a clear-cut way by installing a universal Islamic state, and the other seeks to spread it diffusely, with weakest areas being targeted first. Differences between the two are mostly down to questions over methodology.
The solution adopted in the face of the dilemma is thus: Most Muslim leaders and communities attempt to alleviate their public incompetence by shifting the burden of action onto non-Muslims, claiming that unless they start acting responsibly by stop acting so "belligerently" towards Muslims, then "small groups with little knowledge" will flourish and be attracted towards extreme ideas. Indeed, the chairman of the mosque described has updated this argument of late: these extreme groups, which range from Hizb-ut-Tahrir to al-Qaeda, are all government conspiracies.
Now I am feeling rather more uncomfortable than I did when I entered the mosque's vicinity. There are plenty of people milling around me, but there is also this group of unimpressed-looking men asking me who I am and what I am up to. The fat Hizb-ut-Tahrir man with spectacles is trying his best to be intimidating, but he seems unsure as to whether I'm buying it. I'm not.
"Let me ask you, what if it turns out to be true that those who were arrested last month actually were planning to murder that British Muslim soldier?", I ask.
"Astaghfirullah. And let me ask you, you call that kafir a Muslim? Let me ask you, where is the evidence that these well-respected, peace-loving community members have done wrong? Show me! People are supposed to be innocent until proved guilty, yet the kuffar accuse Muslims of being guilty through trial by media. The kuffar accuse us advocating a police state, yet try to silence Muslims so they can justify their foreign policy! Why? So they can get on with the butchering of Islam and abuses of Muslims across the world!" He jabs his finger violently in my direction. "You need to smell the coffee! Tell me, where do you stand? Do you support the harm done against this Muslim community?"
"I think you're hysterical", I say.
"Hysterical? Hysterical? What about our Muslim sisters and children in Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan? Tell me, do they have no right to be hysterical about their situation? Do you expect us all to just sit back and enjoy seeing our Muslim sisters being ripped of their honour at the dirty hands of the kuffar? Especially when an apostate aids the kuffar in abusing their dignity and livelihoods? Do you expect us to stay silent and instead dance to Bush and Blair's tune? Tell me!"
"You're misguided, aren't you?"
"This is a Muslim area. Get out", says one of his comrades.
"Actually, sunshine, this is my country."
Now several guys are facing me. Some step closer. But there are many people still in the vicinity.
"You would contemplate attacking me? For what? What do you think you can get away with in broad daylight?", I ask.
"I do not suffer apostates", the fat man says.
"You want to take over this country? Over my dead body".
He stares at me directly. His look is almost apologetic.
"Yes, exactly. That is the material point".
And they chuckle.
This article has been adapted from a book that Adil is currently writing.
Sunday, February 25, 2007
Islamic Hate Text-books, in the United Kingdom
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Radicalization of Young British Muslims
A new poll came out, showing that 40% of Muslims aged 16-24 would prefer to live under Sharia law in the UK. 36% of the 'young-uns' believe in death for apostasy, 13% admire al-Qaeda, and 74% of young people believe women should wear the veil (as opposed to 19% of those over 55). (see poll results here) A full 84% also said they did not experience 'Islamophobia.'
Think about this for a second. Digest this.
These are not young people in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. These are young people in the UK.
Think about this some more.
Then think about multiculturalism, and wonder about how effective it has been.
A new paradigm is clearly needed. After you think about that, then consider the recent debate between Ken Livingstone ("Red Ken," mayor of London), and Daniel Pipes. Consider the points they brought up.
And wonder about what sort of world we are heading for, with above numbers like those.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Emma Thompson Joins Group Devoted to Israeli Hatred
An actress I formerly greatly admired has joined the muck and mire that is the political leanings of her compatriots, Alan Rickman and Vanessa Redgrave.
This actress is Emma Thompson. In the wake of the Eilat bombing, seeing another such esteemed actress showing her side of hate (by joining the group "ENOUGH")...just...no words. Well, I will just quote Emma's 'words.'
The launch will come only days after a report, funded by the British government, warned that Israel's separation wall (a wall of defense that has been largely, though no totally, successful in blocking terror attacks) is trapping 250,000 Palestinians. (of course, the lives of Israelis are meaningless) The report on Israel's separation wall was produced by the Israeli planning and rights organisation Bimkom. The report says the wall is cutting off Palestinians from employment, education, healthcare needs, undermining social and family life and isolating farmers from markets. (end terror, end the need for wall - that's simple!)
Ms Thompson said: "This report cites the devastating effects on Palestinians' health and livelihoods of Israel's separation wall. It shows the vital need for our ministers to make fresh moves for a just peace. It is high time the UK government matched its rhetoric with action which can save Palestinians and Israelis from another 40 years' conflict."
That's all fine and dandy. Except the tag for the group "ENOUGH" is "End Israel's Occupation, Peace and Justice for Palestinians."
I slogged through the website of "Enough!" to see exactly what they stand for. Let me Fisk it all for you...
2007 marks the 40-year anniversary of the Six Day War, in which the Israeli army took military control of the Gaza Strip and West Bank, including East Jerusalem. (this ignores the fact that Israel fought a defensive war against annhilation and immediately offered the land right back, after it won the land, only on condition of recognition and peace - which was refused!) Since that time the government of Israel has built 'settlements' in the Occupied Palestinian Territories (loaded term!) and assisted its citizens in setting up homes and businesses using land and resources stolen from the Palestinian people. (LIE!) This situation has continued to the current day despite Israel being in violation of international humanitarian law and over 60 UN resolutions. (let's ignore all of the wrongs of Hamas/Fatah/etc, or the fact that the UN is a feckless, corrupt, terror enabling organization!)
This wonderful organization goes on to explain what it stands for...
The Occupation has created serious poverty for the Palestinians, as well as severe human rights violations. (WRONG, terrorism creates the 'occupation!') But Palestinian suffering dates back further to 1948, when the state of Israel was created and 750,000 Palestinians were driven or fled from their homes. (WRONG, Arab Israelis fled on their own (which was commonly known, until Benny Morris made up history), and were most certainly not called 'Palestinian' (a made up ethnicity) by this point in time) The United Nations asserted the refugees' right to return home in 1948, but Israel has refused to allow this. (LIE: see 20% of Israelis are Arab Israelis, and moreover, these 'refugees' in fact left to wage war on Israel! Moreover, most of Israelis are themselves refugees, a conveniently ignored fact!) Meanwhile the refugee population has grown to over four million, one of the largest in the world, many of whom live in camps waiting for international law to be upheld. (Yes, that is only because Palestinians are allowed to consider fourth generation 'refugees' to be refugees, and moreover, it is also because of the pathetic definition of 'Palestinian,' as someone with two years of ties to the land!)
This 'organization' goes on...
Britain bears a particular responsibility for this suffering. (that I agree with, see, the White Paper, amongst many other things!) From 1917 to 1948 Britain controlled Palestine. Along with the US and many EU countries, the UK government is today involved in a close military, economic and political relationship with Israel, and fails to stand up for the rights of the Palestinian people. (What is that supposed to mean? Standing up for the Palestinian people means standing AGAINST the Nazi PLO, which Britain is ostensibly doing!)
Finally, this organization concludes with 'pearls'...
We say Enough! We are a group of charities, trade unions, faith (Islamist and Dhimmi, I am sure!) and other campaign groups. We have come together because we want peace for Israelis and Palestinians alike. (hahahaha, riiiiight, they really care about Israelis!) This can only be built on justice, equality and freedom. (True, except, this group does not stand for justice, equality, or freedom.) In order to achieve this goal governments like the British government must stand up for international law and human rights. (Yup, which means standing with Israel and against murderous thugs who are killing not only Israelis, but Palestinians alike.)
What a total and complete joke. I just frisked through almost every single word of the organization's website, an organization that an actress of Emma Thompson's calibre thought it fit to join.
Sad. Seems Emma Thompson has joined the ranks of the useful idiots.
Tuesday, January 9, 2007
The Political Parties Are Really Starting to Cheese Me Off Now!
For their lack of will to take on the BNP in a serious political debate that translates into an understandable framework for Joe-public to understand. The BNP is gaining ground in certain areas of the UK, where the likes of Labour and co have lost ground. As it is the labour government's immigration system is a complete shambles.
I don't mind immigration as it's a natural human trait to move to places where there are better sources of food and money.
My fear is that the BNP will cause and exploit problems with the many varied ethnic community's that make up the UK. They could for example worsen the situation with Muslims and lead to more home grown terrorism. Rational debate is needed on the whole issue of immigration to the UK.
It's been shrouded under the cloak of Political correctness for too long and has allowed the BNP to gain ground that the major parties used to occupy.
The BNP's latest tactic to gain respectability is to recruit middle class English people. Like the ballerina Simone Clarke.
Of course the fuss caused will just generate more publicity for the BNP. I'm just extremely frustrated with the Labour government and the Tories for not addressing the issue properly, but instead just like to score cheap party political points over the issue. David Cameron may have something to offer on the issue, but if it contains any substance will be a different matter, as he has to appease his Party on issues like this. Even if he does cover it up in a bit of fluffy spin to make the Tories look united and not divided.