Article

2005-07-20 Britain

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 12:09|| || Front Page|| [11138 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Well, then there's the screen! Line 'em all up, and if they won't "sit with the government", let them sit on a slow boat home.

If you don't recognize the government where you live, why are you there?

Hey! That applies to you, Fat Mikey!

Posted by Bobby 2005-07-20 13:05|| 2005-07-20 13:05|| Front Page Top

#2 This is why I think Hewitt is wrong about his comments regarding Tom Tancredoâs statment about hitting Mecca. We are in a war with the destructive force of Islam. Now, if there are "moderate" forces at work, they either need to step up and take down the zelots, or get out of the way. Keeping Mecca on the target list shows we are willing to go ALL-THE-WAY if nessisary. If we have to, we will wipe out every trace of your corrupt and evil civilization, including your prized mosques. We value our lives and children. You value your books and Mosques. We will take yours to preserve ours. Period. If there are "Moderate" Islamic forces, they need to start denoucing and taking care of the zelots in their countries, or we will. You haven't fully pissed us off yet and you had better pray you don't.

Posted by mmurray821 2005-07-20 13:10|| 2005-07-20 13:10|| Front Page Top

#3 Well I like TGA's idea of just taking all of their assets. Let them have Mecca. Who wants it. Don't forget that the wahabbists actually look down on revering muslim holy places as a form of idoltary. They've destroyed lots of big-Mo's life sites. I want to know when the muslims are going to get disgusted with their so-called religion and decide that another path is better.

Posted by remoteman 2005-07-20 13:16|| 2005-07-20 13:16|| Front Page Top

#4 My new policy, sttarting today, is to post any photos of these thugs we can. Let the world see the face of evil...

Mr Livingstone also defended Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the controversial cleric who visited London at his invitation last year and who had been scheduled to attend a conference in Manchester next month.
He said Mr al-Qaradawi was a "leading progressive Muslim" who was not actually going to the conference and who had condemned the London attacks.
Asked about Mr al-Qaradawi's apparent support for Palestinian suicide bombers, Mr Livingstone said the cleric's views had been misreported.

Yusuf al-Qaradawi

Anjem Chudary who is quoted above...

Chudary in 2002 BBC article

Omar Bakri Mohammed
(What? No hat?)

Posted by BigEd 2005-07-20 13:36|| 2005-07-20 13:36|| Front Page Top

#5 I want to know when the muslims are going to get disgusted with their so-called religion and decide that another path is better.

Hmmm. Let's see...it's 2005, Mo had his first vision in 611, carry the 1, subtract from 5, why that's almost 1400 years of head-chopping, wife-beating, honor-killing hijinks.

Yeah, they'll change any day now.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-07-20 13:39|| 2005-07-20 13:39|| Front Page Top

#6 Note that Choudary considers "even the British police" to be "real terrorists".

Looks like he forgot his lessons in taqiya. And how revealing that is.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 13:48|| 2005-07-20 13:48|| Front Page Top

#7
And a non-practising Moslem is an apostate, deserving of death according to Islamic Law

--
Not exactly true. Most moslems consider apostasy only if a person publically renounces Allah or the Koran or Mohammud - you can be an atheist in private. If a person practices a type of Islam you don't like, it is also sometime called apostasy but that is less common. Simply neglecting to pray 5 times a day, etc. is not punished. In fact, you can conveniently redeem yourself by participating in jihad.

Posted by mhw 2005-07-20 13:56|| 2005-07-20 13:56|| Front Page Top

#8 Apostasy is public disloyalty towards Islam by any one who had previously professed the Islamic faith. Blasphemy is showing disrespect or speaking ill of any of the essential principles of Islam. There is no sharp distinction between these concepts, as Islamic Law teaches there can be no blasphemy without apostasy.

Don't you think al-Muhajiroun's point is precisely that Moslems who show themselves cooperating with the UK government are disloyal to Islam? "Non-practising" is their code for "watch out! or you'll be deemed an apostate."

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 14:17|| 2005-07-20 14:17|| Front Page Top

#9 mhw, how do you think Al-Zarqawi justifies the murder of children and other civilians by his terrorists in Iraq?

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 14:18|| 2005-07-20 14:18|| Front Page Top

#10 Kalle

Actually, I think the recent terrorist attack on children may cause Zarqawi to revise his theological thinking.

His current position is that, while regrettable, the death of innocent Iraqis is an acceptable sacrifice given the importance of the goals at stake (e.g., reimposing the Caliphate, destroying Shiitism, killing American) and, in any case, the innocents who die in this cause will go to paradise. This (minus the paradise stuff) is essentially the same rationalization as the Communists had during their mass murders.

The recent atrocity was so unpopular, even among the jihadis, that Zarqawi denounced the particular action. He has not, however, yet come up with a theological theory that justifies other suicide bombs but not the one that killed the two dozen plus children.

The problem of deciding which suicide bombings are OK and which are forbidden has been a subject of much discussion amongst the jihadi theorists. Hezbollah, for one, has developed the theological position that suicide bombers have to be personally assigned a job by an iman (I don't know what kind of flexibility the suicide bomber has - this may be part of the instructions).

Posted by mhw 2005-07-20 15:09|| 2005-07-20 15:09|| Front Page Top

#11 You're missing the point.

Al-Zarqawi has labelled anyone working for the Iraqi State and all Shi'ites apostates.

That's how he justifies his terrorist activities against Moslems. Apostasy.

That's what Al-Muhajiroun thinks of Moslems who want to work with the UK government.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 15:22|| 2005-07-20 15:22|| Front Page Top

#12 yah, al muhajiroun thinks the moderates are just apostates. So what? why the hell should we buy off on what al muhajiroun thinks? Theyre like, the enemy, man.

If you want to say that there are no moderate muslims, only muslims who think that they are moderate, but that the salafi-jihadis think are apostates, I wouldnt object. I dont see that tells us anything useful though.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-20 15:53|| 2005-07-20 15:53|| Front Page Top

#13 yah, al muhajiroun thinks the moderates are just apostates. So what? why the hell should we buy off on what al muhajiroun thinks? Theyre like, the enemy, man.

If you want to say that there are no moderate muslims, only muslims who think that they are moderate, but that the salafi-jihadis think are apostates, I wouldnt object. I dont see that tells us anything useful though.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-20 15:53|| 2005-07-20 15:53|| Front Page Top

#14 So what? I don't see any Moslem leaders arguing for and defending moderate interpretations of Islam. That's what.

Completely missing are the Mythical Moslem Moderates who would speak out and denounce the extremists and affirm that there are variant interpretations of Islam, compatible with freedom and republican institutions --and they, the MM Moderates, will by God stomp on the extremists.

Instead of that, the only people who claim that there are Moslem Moderates seem to be Deluded, Modern-Liberal Westerners.

Maybe the time has come to re-read Patrick Henry's speech on the Illusions of Hope.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 16:02|| 2005-07-20 16:02|| Front Page Top

#15 When they start exposing the radicals, I'll believe in moderates. I still have some hope, but it's running thin.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-07-20 16:08|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-07-20 16:08|| Front Page Top

#16 RC,

I think the issue with the "moderate" Muslim is not that they don't exist; it's the level of their influence.

As an example, I have a coworker who is a Shia, who homebrews beer in his basement. No doubt he's moderate and has no use for jihadis (who would probably kill him first for his fondness for beer), but he's moderate to the point where he'd have just as little idea what's going on at the local mosque as you and I. He's of no use to us in the fight for the heart and soul of Islam because he's taken himself out of it.

Think of mainstream Protestant and evangelical churches that attract a completely different type of worshipper. Neither has much influence on the other. Likewise, I think the hope of some optimistic folks that moderate Muslims are going to stop their murderous brethren is seriously misplaced.

Posted by Dreadnought 2005-07-20 16:27|| 2005-07-20 16:27|| Front Page Top

#17 Kalle,

I don't think we are yet ready for the war against Islam. For now, the war is against terrorist Islam and we have moslem allies in Iraq.

I'll grant you that the moderate muslims in the west are too afraid of their more vicious coreligionists to give effective resistance and that even the moderate muslims generally oppose the global war on terrorism, pray for the death of Israel, support the terrorists in Iraq (except for the Iraqis) etc. But all that might change if Iraq really turns around. It is possible it may not change - we will have to see.

Posted by mhw 2005-07-20 16:28|| 2005-07-20 16:28|| Front Page Top

#18 Patrick Henry: The Illusions of Hope, aka The War Inevitable, aka Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!

For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery ... it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope... Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the [Moslems] for the last [1400] years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. ...

Read it all, as they say.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 16:39|| 2005-07-20 16:39|| Front Page Top

#19 mhw, the war has already been declared, by Moslems against non-Moslems. They have been waging it for almost 1400 years. Bin Laden has repeated in 1998 that Islam is at war against the West (with reference to all sorts of things Moslems dislike, such as the liberation of Spain in the 15th century).

The Moslem "allies" you claim we have in Iraq are mainly of two kinds: those who wish they were free from Islam, and those who wish to rule Iraq with Islam but without Saddam. About as useful as our "allies" in Pakistan in the long-term.

The point made by Anjem Coudary is that there is no such distinction as moderates vs extremists in Islam -- either you're a Moslem or you aren't. Either you submit, or you die. That is the very specific message and ideology of Islam.

And, granting your premise that there are moderate Moslems who would rather live in peace with the West, were there not "moderate Germans" in Nazi Germany? should we have waited for them to save the world from Germany?

I observe that Islam as such is a death cult, and we have no option but to fight Islam if we value our lives and freedoms.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 16:51|| 2005-07-20 16:51|| Front Page Top

#20 "And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the [Moslems] for the last [1400] years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. ..."

During most of the last 1400 years most muslim regimes were corrupt, cynical monarchies - ie they were like all NON muslim regimes. They used christians and jews in positions of high power, despite the koran. There muslim thinkers who were distinctly not fundamentalists. There were also fundamentalist movements that took power from time to time.

Now these regimes were NOT democratic, and did NOT give equal rights to all. But those are enlightenment notions, from the 18thc century.

Now these notions orinated first in the west and were established in the west. So the west is better - YAy, west. OK?

Over the course of the 19th century many muslims attempted to come up with forms of islam compatible with ideals of equal citizenship. Some bitterly fought these changes. Most were to removed from modern life to care.

In the 20th century more muslims left traditional forms - though many or most adopted secular ideologies that were authoritarian, often borrowed from the west.

Today muslims are wrestling with the future - a large minority are looking to enlightenment notions - a VERY large minority are fighting enlightenment vicisiouly - many are distrustful of both sides - and some are still too removed from modern life to care.

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-20 17:38|| 2005-07-20 17:38|| Front Page Top

#21 "were there not "moderate Germans" in Nazi Germany? should we have waited for them to save the world from Germany?"

We shouldnt wait for moderate muslims to save us. And we're not. But Germany was a state, which could be attacked - we have a different problem now.

We could rely on moderate muslims less, I suppose. We could decide to fight the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq without afghan and iraqi troops for example. Are we willing to expand the military to do that? we could stop relying on the Pakistani state to run Pakistan. I dont think its feasible to expand the US army enough to occupy Pakistan. I suppose we could hope India would take over Pakistan. Im not sure they would, or that they would run it in our interests if they did.

As for finding radical islamists in the west, I think we should use all reasonable intell methods, and not just rely on moderate muslims - but they could certainly be a big help

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-20 17:50|| 2005-07-20 17:50|| Front Page Top

#22 "The point made by Anjem Coudary is that there is no such distinction as moderates vs extremists in Islam -- either you're a Moslem or you aren't. Either you submit, or you die. That is the very specific message and ideology of Islam."

Yup, you either say "there is no god but allah and muhammad is his prophet" or you dont. If you do youre a muslim, if not, not. But some of those who are muslims follow different schools of law, some requir women to wear veils, some dont, some believe in killing jews and christians, some dont, etc, etc. Its seems logical to me to call some of them moderate muslims. Of course the fundie denies their true muslims, thats what fundies do.

Fundie christians deny that members of certain churches are actually christians. Fundie jews deny that what i practice is judaism (they acknowledge me a jew only cause judaism is determined in part by birth)

Posted by liberalhawk 2005-07-20 17:54|| 2005-07-20 17:54|| Front Page Top

#23 I kinda-sorta commented on this thread on the thread about Mohammed Atta's father, here.

Posted by Phil Fraering 2005-07-20 18:46|| http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com]">[http://newsfromthefridge.typepad.com] 2005-07-20 18:46|| Front Page Top

#24 liberalhawk, are you aware of the Magna Carta and John Locke's treatise?

Your revisionist history aims to ridicule the West and ignores early achievements of Anglo-Saxon civilization. Further the Enlightenment was the fruit of the Renaissance, which was a rebirth of Roman and Greek ideals --something the Moslems had almost managed to erase completely.

Spare me the Moslem myth that they somehow saved ancient literature for our sake. They didn't. A few fragments came out from the reconquista but the Western rediscovery of ancient literature had been well on its way since the 11th century thanks to Byzantine monks seeking refuge in Italy. Refuge from Moslem invaders in the East. And these monks didn't bring Arab fragments with them.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 21:38|| 2005-07-20 21:38|| Front Page Top

#25 In the long history of combating violent ideologies I can't recall a single example where patience, understanding, and cultivation of a moderate core within the group resulted in the downfall of the group itself or the group's renunciation of its ideals. It doesnât really matter if you apply that statement to Bushido Japan, Nazi Germany, the Klan, Soviet Communism or any other group. Successful strategies have always employed force, credible threat of force, containment by same and/or aggressive prosecution to either weaken the group as a whole or make association with it so unpalatable as to drive the moderates away from the core and back into mainstream society and theyâve always done it with a very clear intent to contain or destroy the source of the ideology itself.

Thereâs little doubt that few Germans would have supported the overall actions of the Nazis had they been aware of them, the majority of Soviet citizens would likely have preferred to live under American style democracy rather than Soviet communism, most members of the Klan in the organizationâs heyday likely affiliated with it to fit in and socialize with their neighbors rather than from any deep belief in the correctness of the violent acts it perpetuated. And yes, thereâs little doubt that some percentage of Muslims, most especially those whoâve fled their homelands to settle in the west, probably donât agree with the actions of some of their brethren. But it took decades of open and cold warfare and economic isolation to bring Soviet communism to heel, a worldwide conflict to thwart the Nazi ideology, and decades of aggressive prosecution to attenuate the influence of the Klan here in the US.

This discussion highlights our sheer ineptitude in dealing with Islam. As any Muslim will tell you, just before they begin to fight amongst themselves, there is only one Islam. Are we physically containing the ideology to the parts of the world it already infects? Attempting to destroy it by force? Peeling away members to push them back into mainstream society while exposing the rotten core group beneath? None of the above, unfortunately weâre stuck at a point where weâre absolving the Islam for its sins rather than forcing it to confront them.

Somehow, despite clear historical lessons, we continue to absolve members of the Muslim community for the ideology their community bred and perpetuates. We canât hope to contain Islam as we did Soviet communism if we canât even begin to admit that itâs the ideology itself and the religion that bred it thatâs the enemy. Nor can we openly war against it as we did Nazi Germany when the religion is continually absolved of its own wrongdoing. Neither can we engage in an aggressive prosecutorial campaign to forcibly disassociate moderates from extremists while we continue to allow moderates to assert that Islam does not give rise to the ideology of terror.

Of course one is either Muslim or not but finish the thought that is always thrown in our faces following the latest Islamofascist atrocity, ââ¦ but these terrorists were not Muslim.â Thus Islam is absolved in the minds of âmoderatesâ whoâd rather not deal with the problems their faith has thrust upon the world and we continue to handcuff ourselves by refusing to believe that yes, Islam that wonderful, peaceful, and tolerant religion, is the source of the problem. Clearly this problem cannot be effectively dealt with until and unless a vast majority of both Muslims and non-Muslims can agree that, yes Islam IS to blame. I am not optimistic.

Posted by AzCat 2005-07-20 22:34|| 2005-07-20 22:34|| Front Page Top

#26 A truly excellent post, AzCat. *standing ovation*

Posted by .com 2005-07-20 22:44|| 2005-07-20 22:44|| Front Page Top

#27 Thank you AzCat.

Your mention of methods by which we defeated various violent enemies in the last century is a useful perspective, as we need to find the appropriate lever to shatter the death-grip of Islamofascism on the Moslem world.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 22:58|| 2005-07-20 22:58|| Front Page Top

#28 Kalle IMHO the first tiny step in that journey will occur when we stop absolving Islam of responsibility for the problems it has created in the world. That doesn't mean we should be biggoted against Muslims, it merely means that we will make no progress with the problem so long as we refuse to acknowledge the truth and require that others acknowledge it as well. Admitting one has a problem is the first step towards recovery, no?

Posted by AzCat 2005-07-20 23:11|| 2005-07-20 23:11|| Front Page Top

#29 Yes, Moslems have to do it. Hard to do when their central claim is to be the final, eternal, immutable truth --and those who disagree deserve death.

Posted by Kalle (kafir forever) 2005-07-20 23:59|| 2005-07-20 23:59|| Front Page Top

23:59 Kalle (kafir forever)
23:52 jules 2
23:49 .com
23:41 bigjim-ky
23:41 jules 2
23:36 macofromoc
23:34 bigjim-ky
23:34 Death B4 Dhimmi
23:32 Phil Fraering
23:23 Alaska Paul
23:20 Alaska Paul
23:11 AzCat
23:00 Alaska Paul
22:59 Alaska Paul
22:58 Kalle (kafir forever)
22:51 ed
22:48 ed
22:48 Alaska Paul
22:44 .com
22:44 Alaska Paul
22:42 Phil Fraering
22:42 Kalle (kafir forever)
22:41 Stephen
22:39 Phil Fraering