GayJihadi - here, queer and Islamic - get used to it

Jewish rant in the Telegraph

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 28 Nov 2006 01:28:00 +0000

Another rant in the Telegraph again, from Janet Daley who says that we are in a war to the death with Islam

At the heart of her rant is this: That we Muslims are out to get the West, and that if the majority of 'moderates' don't go out of their way to show that we're not out to conquer it, then we're complicit in supporting the terrorists.

This piece of xenophobia is nothing new for the Telegraph, but the writer outdoes herself in her double standards. She is asking British Muslims to pass a test that she would not be able to. Not that she is going to let a little hypocrisy like that get in her way. Daley is another Jew (an American immigrant in fact) in the media who is clearly motivated by an animus against Muslims, because she has more loyalty towards Israel than she does to her adopted country, the UK.

I am not saying that all Jews are Muslim-hating pro-zionists. However, if we are to take her argument at face value - that all Muslims are indistinguishable from terrorists unless they speak out against them - then it must be true that all Jews are Muslim-hating rabid zionists if we take her arguments at face value, because apart from a small number of outstanding individuals and organisations, I do not see many Jews who are speaking out against Israel's daily atrocities, but instead are silent in their complicity with it. In fact, many so-called 'British' Jews have more loyalty towards Israel than the UK and are complicit in terrorism against the Palestinians.

If a Muslim wrote an article about Jews that the Daley has written about Muslims then (a) it wouldn't be allowed to be printed and (b) if it was, then that Muslim would be automatically painted as anti-semitic.

We should have a debate about why a number of Jewish newspaper and media commentaors are prepared to support an apartheid state exclusively for the use of Jewish immigrants, based on the premise that Jews can't get along with anyone else in the world (which is why they stole Palestine to set up their racist little state in the first place).

This would explain why the 'Israel-first' media lobby is always keen to protect the zionist state. For example, Daley states:

Never mind that the hereditary grievance of almost all British-born Muslim terrorists is the Kashmir question, to which the almost entirely irrelevant Palestine issue has been tacked on by political manipulators with larger ambitions.... It is not adjustments to our stance on Israel-Palestine that the international Islamist terror movement wants.......That demand was just a bin Laden afterthought that went down a treat with the old reliable anti-Semitic interest in Europe

Which planet does she come from? Mars? The US? Is there any difference between the two? The first, last and primary political issue which unites every single Muslim in the world today is Palestine, Jerusalem and specifically the Al Aqsa masjid - something that certain media, with the help of people like Daley, have deliberately kept people in the dark about. And in fact, Palestine has always been at the forefront of Bin Laden's open messages (you can read more from the books listed on the right hand side panel).

So sorry Daley - you might want to keep Palestine out of it, but that's not going to happen. People like Golda Meir kept on insisting that Palestinians didn't exist. Through their bombs and their intifada, the Palestinains reminded the world that they do exist, not least in the minds of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.

Daley's comments are not out of the ordinary with their stereotypical conjecture and hateful incitement. However, Muslims should recognise the clear motivation behind them, which is nothing to do with keeping England free from the Muslim hordes, but everything to do with protecting the zionist state at any cost. She is not writing for a British audience, but in order to protect an Israeli one.

Palestinian women - a force to be reckoned with

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 22:41:00 +0000

It shows the extent of the tragedy in Palestine when a grandmother feels that she has no other choice than to use her body as a weapon against the zionist occupiers.

May Allah bless Fatma Omar An Najar, who blew herself up near a group of zionist soldiers in Gaza, injuring two. Other media outlets mention this fact, without mentioning the crucial bit - that the Israelis destroyed her house and killed her grandson. Her daughter is quoted as wanting to martyr herself in the same way.

This show of courage is nothing new - earlier this month, one woman was killed and 10 injured by Israeli terrorists as they surrounded a masjid in Gaza to protect the inhabitants inside.

That a grandmother has committed this act of martyrdom must show the extent of Arab hatred towards the vicious occupation they have endured for nearly 70 years. When your land is occupied, your home destroyed and your family killed, how many of us would stand by and do nothing? Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak once said that if he was a Palestinian then he too would be a terrorist. But then 'terrorism' is a war of the oppressed against the powerful, whilst 'war' is the terrorism of the powerful against the oppressed.

Caving in to Arab extremists

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Fri, 24 Nov 2006 19:49:00 +0000

We are constantly reminded by the establishment that giving in to Middle Eastern religious fanatics is the wrong thing to do. Except that when the Arab extremist happens to be a Christian, it's acceptable.

Apparently, BA are going to have a uniform review following the media fuss and hype over the case of Nadia Eweida, who refused to go to work because BA would not allow her to wear a cross at the check-in counter.

The case raised some hackles from the media, religious and political establishment. The very same people - like Dr John Semantu and Jack Straw - who criticise Muslim women for dressing according to their religion, had no shame suddenly supporting women who want to make a show of their religion - as long as they are Christian. Over 100 MPs signed an Early Day Motion criticising BA's decision. It would have been too much to expect them to do anything similar on behalf of Muslim women. Instead, we were treated to a series of 'debates' about how Muslims don't fit in because they want to dress in a certain way, or want to force their religion on everyone else and so on. To call this hyprocrisy of the highest order is to understate their words and actions.

There are several good reasons why Eweida should not be allowed back at work:

(a) She knew what she was doing when she signed her contract of employment, binding her to BA's terms and conditions. She agreed to those terms and she is bound by them.

(b) BA allowed her to wear the cross at the check in desk, as long as it was not visible. She refused. BA allowed her to wear the cross and it was allowed to be visible as long as Eweida did other duties. Eweida still refused. BA went out of their way to accommodate her wishes and she was very unreasonable in not agreeing to the alternatives.

(c) It is not a requirement of her faith to wear a cross so that it is visible for everyone to see. This is different to a nun's habit, hijab or Sikh turban where the whole intention is to hide a part of the body for reasons of modesty. Eweida is not interested in modesty. She simply wants to make a point about her Christianity for the sake of it. As such, it is perfectly fair for BA to treat her icon for what it is - a piece of jewellery.

I have no problems with people expressing their religious identity. I personally don't mind someone wearing a cross at a checkout desk. I do have a problem when people turn these sort of issues into a competition between religions, and especially when the same people who whinge about Muslim dress suddenly cry foul when one of 'theirs' falls foul of a dress rule.

British Jews - fifth colum?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 23 Nov 2006 23:26:00 +0000

Hizbollah fodder

I wonder what the reaction would be if a newspaper did a romantic report on young British Muslims joining the Mujahideen in Palestine or Iraq, in order to kill Jews and Christians in the defence of Muslim lands. No doubt we would be faced with another barrage of opinion pieces on the violent tendencies of Muslims and the threat to British society from Islam.

Yet, apparently it's OK for British Jews to engage in terrorist activities. The Guardian wrote an article today on young British Jews signing up for service in Gaza and the West Bank. That is to say, they are killing Arabs in illegally occupied Muslim territories. They still carry a British passport, which means that not only do they subscribe to the racist ideology of zionism and an apartheid Jewish state that gives Jews dominion over everyone else simply because they are Jews, but they also want to use Britian as a resource to support their illegal activities.

I have no problems with Jews who want to join the IDF, as long as it's also OK for British Muslims to join Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah. With any luck, these Jews will get their just desserts at the receiving end of a suicide bomber or a Hizbollah rocket.

What I do object to however, is the fact that a fifth column of so-called 'British' Jews should be able to do what they do and still be allowed to remain citizens of this country, because clearly their loyalties lie elsewhere. They have forfeited their right to be citizens of this country and if fighting for Israel is so important to them, they can jolly well do it full time.

This issue may be symptomatic of a wider problem within the Jewish community. For example, Melanie Philips refused to answer a question by fellow Jew Will Self on a BBC Newnight programme, as to who she would support if there was a war between Israel and the UK. If this is typical of the mentality amongst British Jews here (one has yet to hear the voices of moderates speaking out against this type of thinking), then one can only imagine the dangers to UK national security if those same people also have had military training and access to weapons.

VIGIL exposed

Talking about a fifth column, this site exposes VIGIL, the shadowy organisation which BBC Newsnight used to produce a piss-poor documentary slandering Hizb Ut Tahrir. If there was any doubt that right-wing pro-Israeli organisations are cynically manipulating the BBC to further their own agendas, then this should set you right.

'Intelligence' = Lies

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:49:00 +0000

White terrorists = OK

Another Islamic scare story and another ‘alleged airline bomb plot’ against the El Al airline dominated the headlines this morning, this time from Germany. Haaretz exposed the farcical nature of the ‘intelligence’ behind this story since:

(a) At the time of writing, 5 of the 6 suspects involved had been released without questioning, leaving a lone suspect in a conspiracy of one;
(b) Haaretz reported: ‘El Al sources said Monday evening they were surprised to learn of the report. According to the source, the airline, a national flag carrier, had not been notified by German authorities of the incident and but learned about it from media reports’

El Al would learn about this alleged ‘plot’ from the media because that’s probably all it was – another media scare story. El Al has the most comprehensive security of any airline and so it would be a most incompetent terrorist who would favour targeting it above another airline – say Lufthansa. I reckon this story will disappear quickly like other similar stories. Talking of which, whatever happened to the ‘alleged bomb plot’ suspects here in Britain that we were all getting so panicked up about a couple of months back?

Whilst the press were chasing German Islamic phantoms, a militant white terrorist stormed a school in Germany, seriously wounding several teachers and students. The would-be suicide bomber was foung dead – having killed himself – with explosives strapped to his body. The 18 year old was a loner and took a keen interest in the military and weaponry. A teacher said ‘Last month on a website he said the school would be the scene of an attack.’ Why didn’t the so-called German intelligence investigate him? Is it because he was white?

Bomb Israel

Haaretz also reported Bush supporting an Israeli attack on Iran. Apparently, Bush told President Chirac of France that he did not rule out Israel bombing nuclear sites in Iran. Bush is reported as saying that if it happened, he would understand why.

However, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has leaked a CIA document which says there is no conclusive proof that Iran is developing any weapons. What Seymour says in a BBC interview is even more interesting, because he confirms that this is a repeat of the dodgy dossier allegations about Iraq’s allegations, when now, as then, Israeli intelligence is talking up the threat from Iran, as they did with Iraq.

This is a typical case of the tail wagging the dog. American foreign policy has been hijacked by a foreign Jewish power. Israel plays up the threat, and then uses this as an excuse to either get America to do it’s dirty work and invade another country, or threatens to do it itself. Bush says that he would ‘understand’ Israel but under the circumstances, I would certainly understand Iran if it attacked Israel, or went after the Great Satan himself. Bush and Israel are sabre rattling and Iran would be wise to step up efforts to defend herself. A bank of Iranian nukes pointed at Tel Aviv and Washington, and a ready army of suicide bombers should deter the war mongers.

Banning HT - maintaining Imperial interests

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 13:32:00 +0000

Blair’s latest attempts to ban Hizb Ut Tahrir have run into opposition from the police and the Home Office, the very people who would have normally backed him. The Home Office is concerned that any legal successful challenge by HT would be damaging.

What Blair is saying to British Muslims is this: We can do whatever we want in Muslim countries and you Muslims are not allowed to even speak out against it. If you do then you will be banned.

Blair is encouraging young Muslims to go out and blow themselves up on London’s tube trains and buses instead. His fascist proposal completely undermines the official government line that young British Muslim should be encouraged to engage in legitimate means of expression instead of turning to violence. If you ban a legitimate form of expression, then people will turn to violence to make a point. They will strap bombs on themselves and we will end up with a civil war in this country. If Blair really is interested in open and honest debate and the national security of this country, then he should be talking to HT instead of seeking to ban it.

However, this is an aside. Blair cares nothing about national security anyway. He is using the cloak of terror as an excuse. HT are dangerous to him because they highlight the obvious hypocrisy and Imperial ambitions of the man. It’s fine for the West to invade and have regime change in Muslim countries under the name of freedom and democracy, but it’s not OK for Muslims to hold their own despotic leadership to account in their own countries. Again, as long as those regimes support the West’s strategic interests in the Muslim world (namely the flow of energy from East to West and the existence of the Jewish State), then Blair cares nothing about freedom and democracy.

HT have consistently questioned the corrupt, despotic regimes of Saudi-Occupied Arabia and Jordan, amongst others. These regimes have consistently squandered the resources of the Ummah in order to line their own pockets and ingratiate themselves with the Americans. They pay lip service to the sufferings of their own people whilst they secretly support the Zionist occupiers of Al Aqsa. In particular, the Al Sauds squandered billions of pounds buying American and British military hardware, nearly bankrupting the country, receiving kickbacks from military providers to support their lavish lifestyles, as exposed during an investigation into a £40 billion British defence contract.

In HT’s case, we have to look beyond the domestic government posturing. This is not about national security or inciting violence – far from it. This is all about maintaining the Western status quo. Blair is scared that Muslims all over the world are beginning to wake up to what has to be done in order to control their own future. He calls it ‘turning to extremism’. Muslims should encourage it.

Newsnight: Desperate measures to slander the Ummah

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 20:25:00 +0000

After the botched attempt to slander Hizb Ut Tahrir on Newsnight a few days back, the programme came back for a second go with a special 20 minute film yesterday, just in time for the Queen’s speech today, in which security and terrorism featured heavily. Newsnight denies the film was politically motivated, so the timing must be a coincidence then. Plus, it must be a complete coincidence that they used the services of heavily pro-Israeli Glen Jenvey (hat tip: Islamophobia Watch)

There is so much wrong with it that it’s difficult to know where to start. Suffice it to say that it confirms the extreme bollocks that self-professed so-called ‘experts’ like Richard Watson come up with. So much so, that it was a no-brainer for HT leader Dr Abdul Waheed to contemptuously dismiss the film on the programme, a job which he did remarkably well despite the harassment from Jeremy Paxman. All in all, HT came out of this looking better than ever.

Watson promised us with ‘alarming new evidence’ about the methods used for radicalisation. And the best he could come up with was – shock horror! – a chatroom where people in Lebanon put forward their views on what should be done with raping and murdering American and British occupiers. That is to say, the same sort of views you’ll hear on thousands of other places, including many right-wing websites that don’t hide their anti-Muslim prejudices, and are forever advocating the expulsion of Muslims and the bombardment of their countries. In other words, it’s no great shakes unless you’re someone who has never heard of the Web. But why stop at the Web? If it’s OK for people like Nick Griffin & Co. to get away with saying that they want to shoot Muslims coming out of their mosques, then I’m fine with Bakri to say the same thing about westerners, especially if they’re the scum that go around invading other countries.

After that flop there wasn’t much for the film to go on. So Watson filmed some random allegations (through other people of course, just to make it Halal), and by editing the film to move between different topics (watching videos, gang initiation and violence, alleged threats to Imams), made it appear that all these allegations were related to HT, which they weren’t. In a final act of desperation, Watson provoked a confrontation with an individual outside a mosque where some leaflets were being handed out, with the result that his microphone got pushed. I mean – wow – if that’s all the evidence he can record as evidence of Muslim ‘extremism’ then to call this film a pile of shite is giving it more credibility than it deserves.

Talking of shite, we also had a reminder that there are still Muslims around who are keen to maintain the relationship between the slave master and his wog. So these wogs will do whatever it takes to malign the Ummah as long as it gets them their 10 seconds on TV and it pleases the master. Either this or else they are extremely naive. People like Musa Admani of the London Met Uni, and Shuaib Yusaf (with the put on 'posh' accent) of the Croydon Masjid. I saw them on the film, decked out in their best suits and their poppies. I mean for crying out loud - which self-respecting Muslim wants to wear a poppy in the Masjid of all places? I reckon Watson put them up to it. I couldn’t believe the attitude of Yusaf, who accused HT of wanting to get on the Masjid committee. When did participating in the affairs of the Masjid ever become a crime? The hypocrisy of his statement was breathtaking. Complaining about non-participation is what these committee members do all the time. With stupid, ignorant attitudes like this, is it any wonder that Muslim leadership is so ineffective and why the Masjids are so irrelevant to many of our youth today?

Blair: a sense of self importance

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 14 Nov 2006 21:51:00 +0000

I was at work and had to stifle a giggle when viewing poor Tony’s performance at the Guildhall today, setting conditions for Syria and Iran to be ‘partners for peace’ over the future of Iraq and the Middle East. Especially when said that

"They help the Middle East peace process, not hinder it; they stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon or Iraq and they abide by, not flout, their international obligations.

"In that case, a new partnership is possible. Or, alternatively, they face the consequence of not doing so: isolation."

Either poor old Tony is deluded or he thinks we are. Not about the fact that this is a complete U-turn on Iran and Syria – everyone knows that of course. But does this man really think that he is in a position to set any conditions? The reality – and everyone knows this – is that both Bush and Blair are in trouble over Iraq. This is why Blair is turning to Syria and Iran in desperation, but he still has to sound tough so he doesn’t look a complete and utter fool.

Let’s look at the facts. The biggest winner in all of this is Iran. The Yanks and the Brits got rid of Saddam, Iran’s biggest enemy, and installed a compliant Shia regime. And they financed it, their men died for it, and they’re still dying for it. And all the Americans and British have received in return is criticism, bombs in London, international isolation and loss of any remaining respect or confidence amongst Muslims all over the world. Al Qaeda couldn’t have hoped for better.

Iran and Syria don’t have to do anything. They can comfortably sit back and watch more American and British occupiers die, courtesy of Al Jazeera TV. The reality is that Iran and Syria have the upper hand here, and they’re in the position of making demands to Blair, not the other way round.

Question is, what do Iran and Syria get in return for cleaning up this mess? Here are a few conditions I would set for Blair:

(a) No interference in Syria or Iran’s affairs
(b) Iran and/or Syria reserve the right to pursue nuclear technology, civilian or military
(c) Lifting of all sanctions against the two countries.
(d) Recognition of Hamas and Hizbollah. Lifting of the embargo against the democratically elected Hamas government of Palestine
(e) Israel to be reigned in. Syria to be given back the Golan Heights, and Lebanon the Shebaa farms.
(f) Dismantling of Israel’s Apartheid wall, dismantling of it’s settlements, and the end of it’s occupation of Jerusalem
(g) Israel’s border to be drawn back to the internationally recognised 1967 border. UN resolutions to be enforced against it, including the right of return of all Palestinians expelled since 1948.
(h) Iran and Syria should be funded and supported military in Iraq.

Blair said that the Israel/Palestine conflict was key. If he is serious about that, then he shouldn’t have any problems with the above extremely reasonable key conditions.

BNP: Freedom to hate

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 22:32:00 +0000

Why did the government shoot themselves in the foot and give the BNP a propaganda coup? This week, Nick Griffin was cleared by an all-white Leeds jury of inciting racial hatred after a series of poisonous statements against Islam and Muslims, exposed in a BBC programme where, amongst other statements, Griffin’s colleagues expressed a fantasy to shoot down Muslims coming out of their mosques.

At the same time, another jury convicted Mizanur Rahman of the same crime, who led a protest against the Pope’s speech of the Prophet, even though Mizanur had made no statements against any particular race or religion.

This double standard, where a person who is a Muslim is automatically guilty of a crime, whereas a criminal who incites hatred against Muslims is not, should not be a surprise to anyone. The rhetoric of the BNP has now become mainstream, aided and abetted by politicians and the media, to the point where they are now a serious electoral challenge to Labour in certain areas where white people are likely to fall under the influence of extremism.

This point was recently emphasised by Labour MP John Cruddas who said that the language over the veil, immigration, race, and the ‘war on terror’ does not reassure people but actually feeds the BNP narrative. Today, the Alliance Of Civilisations presented a report to the UN which criticised the inflammatory language used by politicians and amplified by the media, and the Joseph Rowntree Trust accused ministers of playing to the tabloids and ‘exploiting the politics of fear’.

It’s not surprising to see the response of British newspapers to the Griffin episode. Like the Telegraph and the Daily Mail, they will pretend to distance themselves from the BNP but defend Griffin’s right to ‘free speech’ while having another dig at Islam and Muslims for doing exactly the same thing. Most of the user comments on the Telegraph website support Griffin, which tells you something about their readership. Next, they’ll pretend to be shocked when the BNP returns a number of MPs at the next election, having practically encouraged people to vote for them.

Ministers have called for a review of existing race legislation after the Griffin case but some people, like Lord Ahmed, are not impressed, since the government failed on previous promises on race hate laws. But here is where I think that Muslim organisations are getting it tactically wrong. What we don’t want is a series of new laws against religious hatred, because that will bring up the inevitable arguments of free speech and the right to criticise religion. Instead, Muslims should push to expand the definition of race to cover Muslims, in the same way that it currently covers Jews. This is pragmatic and would circumvent the religious objections. Above all, it would send a clear signal that the so-called ‘debate’ around Islam and Muslims is nothing but an excuse to vent Islamophobic prejudices.

Muslim 'radicalisation' - a Fun Da Mental response

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 22:53:00 +0000

Following on from the crock of bull that are the latest media pronouncements of Muslim 'radicalisation' from police chiefs, intelligence chiefs, Blair, Brown and others, I simply can't be bothered going into why they're barking up the wrong tree and making matters worse - maybe deliberately. I don't know.

So I'll leave it up to Fun Da Mental's latest video. Enjoy.

BBC Newsnight: Muslims refuse to play the media game

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 12 Nov 2006 00:35:00 +0000

It is now common practice for the media to cause fitnah and division within the Muslim ranks by trying to play to Muslims off against each other on air. Often, a so-called 'moderate' is pitted against an 'extremist'. The aim of this is to stifle any legitimate discussion and debate by trying to portray it as extremism or pandering to terrorism.

This was the aim of Fridays' BBC Neswnight (see Google clip) when they interviewed Maajid Nawaz (Hizb Ut Tahrir) and Abdul Haqq Baker (chairman of the Brixton Masjid). They were asked to comment on the latest Islamic scare story pushed by MI5 and Tony Blair of up to 30 UK terror plots in the making, and the alleged radicalisation of Muslim youth.

It was clear at the outset that Newsnight’s Kirsty Wark intended to paint HT as the bad guys, and worked hard to cause disagreement between Nawaz and Haqq. But it was also clear that Nawaz and Haqq, to their credit, were wise enough not to fall for the trick. Instead, Wark ended up with egg on her face.

Watch the clip and you’ll see the way that the media works. First, Wark tried to say that Nawaz disagreed with Haqq on the issue that radicalisation had begun before the invasion of Iraq. When this didn’t work, Wark asked Haqq whether he thought that HT were dangerous, to which Haqq replied that he didn’t think so.

Wark then tried to inflame the situation by asking HT whether they would discourage anyone from reporting suspicious activity to the police. The assumption behind this question was pretty outrageous as it supposed that HT were engaged in supporting criminal activity. When she got very desperate, Wark accused HT of provoking radicalisation, by suggesting that their stance on voting (it is Haram) had something to do with it. Again, this is something that Nawaz and Haqq both dismissed on religious and legal grounds.

Instead of Newsnight achieving their objective of division and discord, they only ended up reinforcing the argument that the Iraq invasion has been a disaster which has made this country a target for terrorism, something that both Nawaz and Haqq were keen to stress.

The interview is a textbook example of how Muslims should conduct themselves in the media. Unfortunately, we see too many examples of people who are falling over themselves to prove themselves as moderates and add to the Islamophobic narrative that all Muslims are a problem. Not only do they damage their own credibility in the process, but they make it incredibly difficult for others to articulate legitimate grievances without them being labelled as extremists in advance. It is time that Muslims stood up and argued their case without apology. We could do with more performances like we’ve seen on Newsnight.

The Times: We want trial by media

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 07 Nov 2006 23:41:00 +0000

Amongst the many sensationalist news stories and articles dealing with the Dhiren Barot case, one which stood out was in the Times, because now it wants the right to prejudice the trials of other so-called 'terror suspects' by publishing in lurid detail the sensationalist hype over nothing that was surely the defining feature of this complete non-story. The article says:

It is vital, however, that the threat posed by such men is understood. Had it not been for a determined effort by this newspaper, together with the BBC and the Associated Press, no detail of what Barot was planning or of his sentence could have been made public.

Really? What I understand is that the musings of a fantasist were written down in a notebook in Pakistan some years back and this has been used as evidence to convict him. I too have many fantasies about Bush and Blair being blown up (preferably by rocket lauchers) as justifiable revenge for their atrocities around the world, and for William Hague to be hanged in the same manner that he wants to see Saddam Hussein to meet his fate. However, I know that these would be fantasies, even if I wrote them down and made comments about how easy it would be to sneak into the House of Commons or the White House and carry out the deed. That's not to say that I wouldn't cheer and throw a big party if someone actually did it, because I would. But it's still a fantasy.

And why did the media go into such extreme detail about what Barot allegedly planned and observed? Surely, if these things are a threat to national security, then the one thing you ought not to do is to publicise them to the whole world. There is something sickening about the gleeful way in which these things are reported, a bit like someone making a video footage about someone being raped in order to screen it to show what a bad thing rape is.

Fact is, this has nothing to do with protecting the public or national security. What the Times and the British media really wants wants is to use this case and similar cases to poison the public attitude against Muslims, by focusing on perceived threats by people who happen to be Muslim, while ignoring others by white extremists (for example, the recent record haul of bomb-making chemicals, rocket launchers and nuclear biological suits found in BNP homes near Blackburn). They want the right to a trial by media and turn the public into a braying mob of anti-Islamic extremists. The article carries on to say that this case...

must surely now provoke a full debate on how terrorist cases are prepared, tried and reported. Dozens of suspects face trial on terrorism charges, and the virus has a long way to run before it is eradicated. British justice had yet to find ways of accommodating old and fair procedures to this challenge.

In other words, forget about justice and the rule of law. The 'debate' the Times wants to provoke is a predicatable one where racists and Islamophobes are given public space to vent their prejudices through a constant fear factory of scare stories. Otherwise, Joe Bloggs might get on with his life as normal and we don't want that do we?

We are told that the world has changed. What's really changed is the attitude of the media and politicians who seem more interested in provoking fear than anything else. Mrs Thatcher and her government, even when they were directly targeted by the IRA on more than one occassion, always stressed that it was important to get on with life as normal because otherwise the terrorists win. Nowadays, we are told to panic even when we're not in danger.

Church of England: Dual Hypocrisy

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 05 Nov 2006 12:00:00 +0000

THE Church of England’s only Asian bishop has attacked Muslims for their 'dual psychology', in which they desire both 'victimhood and domination'. From today's Times:

In the most outspoken critique of Muslims by a church leader, Michael Nazir-Ali, the Bishop of Rochester, said that because of this view it would never be possible to satisfy all their demands.

"Their complaint often boils down to the position that it is always right to intervene when Muslims are victims, as in Bosnia or Kosovo, and always wrong when the Muslims are the oppressors or terrorists, as with the Taliban or in Iraq," said Nazir-Ali.

"Given the world view that has given rise to such grievances, there can never be sufficient appeasement and new demands will continue to be made."

First of all, it's a bit rich for a person who converted from Catholicism to Protestanism, and whose own father converted from Islam to Catholicism, to go and accuse others of 'dual psychology'. Methinks Nazir-Ali has his own demons to exorcise in a crisis of identity and so he's going round blaming Muslims for the failure of his own Church to engage society. He must be really pissed off that at a time when masjid attendances are climbing, CofE attendances are at an all-time low.

Secondly, he accuses Muslims of desiring domination. But who is dominating who? Are Iraq and Afghanistan dominating America and the UK, or the other way round? It's extremely hypocritical of the bishop to accuse Muslims of domination when Muslims themselves are being dominated by others in Palestine, Iraq, Kashmir, Afghanistan, Chechnya and other places. What takes the biscuit though, is that when those Muslims fight back, they are labelled as 'terrorists' by the very same people who are occupying them.

The West did no favours to Muslims in Bosnia either. The UN disarmed Muslim groups and then stood by as the unprotected Muslims were slaughtered in places like Srebrenica.

Muslims don't want any favours from the West. They just want the West to stop interfering in their affairs. Muslims want to exercise their right to self defence. If Nazir-Ali really is serious about tackling this 'dual psychology' then he should support Hamas and Hizbollah acquiring weapons and suicide bombers, and let them get on with it in Palestine. He should applaud when American, British and Indian soldiers are blown up by the insurgencies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Kashmir. He should be the first one to congratulate Iran when it eventually builds the nuclear bomb. But he won't do any of these things because what he really wants is for Muslims to lie down, get kicked in the face, and not complain.

Muslims in Britain can do their part, and acquire military training. I'm glad to see that the British Army is now on a special drive to recruit Muslims for exactly this purpose.

Nazir-Ali says that Christian values "need to be recovered to help us to inculcate the virtues of generosity, loyalty, moderation and love." Was it generosity and love that drove those hired Christian thugs, Bush and Blair, to invade two Muslim countries? Are these the same Christian values that The Evangelical Alliance said in the Telegraph must be protected, in a menacing report, by violence?

Jesus said: "And do not judge, and you may not be judged". This is exactly what Nazir-Ali has done. If senior church figures are so blind to their obvious hypocrisy, then it's no wonder that the church is a joke.

Pink Islamophobia

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 00:01:00 +0000

Even the queers can't resist having a dig at Muslims when it suits their agenda. The worst offender seems to be Outrage, headed by militant Peter Tatchell. Outrage recently released a tabloid-style press release claiming that a Manchester Imam had said that killing gays was OK

Except that he didn't. The meeting was supposed to be a private meeting between the Imam and someone called Dr John Casson, who sought out the Imam to initiate a dialogue about gay people and Islam. The Imam gave the Shariah Law view on homosexuality and Dr Casson then saw fit to publish a press release about it, which in my view, is a flagrant breach of trust.

Tatchell said in his press release "Muslim and gay people know the pain of prejudice and discrimination.We should be working together to challenge homophobia andIslamophobia. I hope liberal Muslims will speak out in defence of thehuman rights of lesbians and gay men,"

And they did. Tatchell quite rightly got slated by Imaan, a gay Muslim organisation, on their boards for promoting Islamophobia. As one gay Muslim put it:

"How is this going to 'encourage a dialogue on lesbian and gay issues'? It is an attempt to get a juicy quote so that Outrage can go to the media with screaming headlines..... As a gay Muslim, I am sick and tired of middle class, middle aged white men like Tatchell and Casson telling people like me what we should do and how we should react while they're going around kicking Muslims in the teeth."

Others made the point that this was supposed to be a private meeting, and wasn't Outrage promoting homophobia by publicising the private views of the Imam, who was only quoting Shariah Law on the subject, which are similar to Christian and Jewish views on homosexuality?

This isn't the first time that gay Muslims have had a go at Tatchell, who stands accused of a history of Islamophobia and has allied himself with unsavoury groups, and most notably some Israeli propaganda agencies who sought to agitate the British media over Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi's visit to Britain last year (see example here ).

I'm glad to see gay Muslims finally making a stand against Islamophobia, especially when it's done in the name of fighting homophobia. It's only by standing by our Muslim brothers and sisters that we'll get a dialogue and progress. As the commentator above said, we don't need another old white man to tell us what we should do and how we should think when we're being provoked.

Sun headline a load of crap (surprise, surprise)

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 24 Oct 2006 11:33:00 +0000

Pickled Politics reported a front page Muslim-bashing story in the Sun which turned out to be false. The story was that Muslims yobs wrecked a house “to stop four brave soldiers” moving in after returning from Afghanistan. They even got Tory MP Philip Davies to say of the attack: "This is outrageous. If there’s anybody who should f*** off it’s the Muslims who are doing this kind of thing. Police should pull out the stops to track down these vile thugs."

What this proves is that the media cannot stoop low enough to slander Muslims. Here is what we can do about it:

Complain to the Press Complaints Commission

Email Philip Davies (Daviesp@parliament.uk) and cc in his boss David Cameron (Camerond@parliament.uk), the Sun (news@the-sun.co.uk) and the Press Complaints Commission (complaints@pcc.org.uk).

SPOILER TV studio 'debate' : Are Muslims a threat to free speech?

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:45:00 +0000

**** WARNING: SPOILER ******

I was invited along to a studio recording of a Channel 4 Dispatches programme to be aired this coming Monday. The programme was recorded in the form of a debate about Muslims and free speech. The audience was invited to possibly comment during the show, and were given these contraptions to record our views during the show.

For a programme about Muslims, there weren't that many Muslims in the audience. Evidently this was another commentary that excluded the subject of the discussion. There was one practical reason why this turned out to be the case - we were supposed to turn up to the studios at Iftar time, during Ramadhan. No food or drink available, and no prayer rooms. Not surprisingly, not many Muslims could actually make it. Whether this was a deliberate ploy or not remains to be seen. Let me just say that I've never seen so many white faces together in a studio. I really didn't want to come along and want to 'debate' such an obviously loaded and offensive issue - imagine the fuss caused if a Muslim TV station decided to have a debate about whether Jews were a threat to world peace for example - but I didn't want any potential racists to get away with anything either.

Kenan Malik appeared for the side advocating full free speech with the right to offend, and Imran Khan (the Stephen Lawrence solicitor, not the cricket player) appeared for the side that advocated the view that this was not free speech, but an attack on Muslims. Jon Snow was hosting.

Various guests were invited to be questioned by Malik and Khan, including the Danish Imam who publicised the Danish cartoons mocking the Prophet which then led to a boycott of Danish goods, a French journalist who published the same cartoons in a newspaper, a colleague of Theo Van Gogh who was killed after producing a provocative film about women and Islam, a member of Hizb Ut Tahrir, Ibrahim Mogra of the MCB, and Shami Chakrabarthi from Liberty (what doesn't she get involved in, I wonder?)

During the show, Snow suddenly asked the audience whether the Danish cartoons of the Prophet should be shown on the programme, and he said that he had some copies in an envelope which he held up. Here is spoiler 1: 67% of the audience agreed for them to be shown, but Simpson didn't actually show them, stating that they had already been shown as part of another item on a previous C4 prograame, were provocative and should only be shown if there was an overriding editorial reason to do so, which there wasn't here.

The Muslim guests were quite compelling. I was particularly taken by Ibrahim Mogra from the MCB. He was quiet, gentle, and made the point that although there were many things that he disagreed with, he often swallowed his pride for the sake of community cohesion. You can't have unfettered free speech (no such thing exsits in law) without causing chaos. Why couldn't Jack Straw do the same?

I think they also had an effect on the audience. In the end, we narrowly won the vote when asked whether Muslims were indeed a threat to free speech (spoiler 2: 52% said no, 48% said yes). For me, that's still worrying but apparently the figure was a shock to Snow, who said that he was not expecting it.

Blair: Blame the Muslims

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:16:00 +0000

When wars weren't going well for Hitler, he blamed the Jews. None of this nonsense about having a 'debate'. Blaming them for the Germany's ills was enough. The public lapped it up and gave him more votes.

So what's Blair's problem? I have more respect for Nick Griffin and indeed Hitler, who at least are/were honest in their intentions. Today Blair joined the chorus of voices calling for a 'debate'. Not only that, but he joined Phil Woolas and broke ministerial convention by commenting directly on a Aishah Azmi's case before an Industrial Tribunal. Still, he won't let a little matter like that get in the way of a good Paki bashing. Open racism is a matter of priority for the Prime Minister, ahead even of the continuing crisis over North Korea's alleged nuclear weapons testing (which is fine, because when - Inshallah - Iran builds the bomb, the British government will be as impotent as they were over Korea). And it diverts attention away from the unravelling fiasco in Iraq, when even the head of the Army recently disagreed with Blair. The US is now thinking of completely changing tack in Iraq, and have practically derserted Afghanistan, leaving Blair high and dry. He needs to point the finger, and so enter the Muslim scapegoat.

I don't think that these developments are entirely a bad thing though, not because I think Muslims should feed the racist government narrative, but it's clear that there really was no 'moderate' and 'extremist' Muslim in the first place. We can dispense with these divisive label because every Muslim is an extremist, according to the narrative. Muslims do not need the approval of Islamophobes and therefore should not go out of their way to prove anything by trying to appear 'moderate', like some Muslim MP goons have been trying to do.

I also applaud the stance taken by the MCB. At last they had the guts to stand up to patronising ministers by strongly disagreeing with government policy in public, as well as refusing to attend any more spin managed lectures. So what if that Catholic extremist, Ruth Kelly, withdrew government funding? I say that's good, because now they have the opportunity to be truly independent and representative, and not be encumbered by the conditions which come with funding.

What Muslims should not do is cower before the bully. The White Master assumes that the wog will do as he is told. It is time we Muslims disabused the White Bully of that notion. We should have an open debate - for example, isn't 'Israel' is a racist, apartheid state built on stolen Palestine (something that was aided and abetted by the British)? Aren't Hamas and Hizbollah genuine freedom fighters? Doesn't the Iraqi and Afghan resistance have a duty to target the British and American occupiers? Such thinking is a sign of freedom and independence and should be encouraged. Muslims - whether they are students or housewives - have a duty to debate these things and argue them without apology.

So yes Mr Blair - we Muslims will have a debate. Unfortunately for you, it will be on our terms and not yours.

BNP supports Jack Straw

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:20:00 +0000

As an indication of how low public discourse about Muslims has become, the BNP are now praising Jack Straw, Ruth Kelly, Phil Woolas, Gordon Brown and a host of others for "leaving BNP spokesmen trailing, by a series of statements which show that some of our rulers are capable of speaking the truth and acknowledging commonsense after all."

Well done. Perhaps the next step would be to invite Griffin into the cabinet, as minister for community cohesion perhaps, or race relations. After all, New Labour have been singing from the BNP hymn sheet, so why bother to hide it. Why not hear it from the real thing?

Griffin was exposed in a Panorama programme which also featured his colleagues who remarked, amongst other things, that they would love to machine-gun Muslims coming out of their mosques in Bradford. And also let us not forget that an ex-BNP member was recently found with what police stated to be a record haul of bomb-making chemicals near Straw's Blackburn constituency.

When Straw went back to Blackburn, he was greeted with a chorus of cheers from people who shouted that if Muslims didn't like it here, they should go 'home' wherever that was, which is the typical attitude that he is trying to buy into. Government ministers are fond of taking the line that Muslims are 'not doing enough' to intergrate. Yet what happens when a bunch of ethnics try to 'integrate' into places like Barking and Dagenham? The whites vote for the BNP. This comes on top of a survey commissioned by the Home Office that non-Muslim pupils are far less tolerant and liberal than Muslim pupils.

So no surprises there. Politicians have done much to whip up hysteria and hatred and turn people into hate-filled extremists. And instead of confronting this white extremism and segregation, politicians pander to it. Whether they are doing this in order to win the BNP vote in places like Barking and Dagenham, or whether they are consumed by their hatred of Muslims, remains to be seen. I am just surprised that they haven't been holding talks with Griffin and his like to co-opt them into the government. It's far more honest and transparent.

Personally, I don't hold out much hope at least for the near future. Maybe it is too much to expect a 'western civilisation' that thought nothing of wiping out millions of Jews, gays and gypsies, to change in a mere 70 years. Muslims seriously need to prepare themselves, even if it's self-defence classes to protect them against the racist thugs and their political masters.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/news_detail.php?newsId=1184
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/6033155.stm

Lets have an open and honest discussion about white people

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 00:37:00 +0000

It has become routine in this country for those who wish to give vent to prejudice to insist that they only wish to start a 'debate'. According to Harriet Harman, the 'debate' about Muslim veils will move into Parliament when it returns from recess (Sunday Times, October 8th).

This week gone has seen a parade of complete non-stories given an obscene amount of coverage, simply because it's another opportunity to have a go at Muslims. All the better because it's the month of Ramadhan, and it's even better to kick a person when they're down, right? Politicians have joined this latest round of Paki bashing (also known as 'having an open and honest discussion'), all the more because it's party conference season, they've got to appeal to their voter bank (like the charming electorate who made the BNP the official opposition in Barking and Dagenham), so what better way than to adopt the language and behaviour of white extremists to gain cheap credibility? This is what the 'debate' about Muslims will be all about.

We are witnessing a spiralling race to the bottom as to which party can malign the Muslim community the most. The Tories have professed reform on the environment, sexuality, racism and social justice, but their new found optimism does not extend to the Muslim community, as Cameron's 'Ban Muslim ghettos' Evening Standard headline showed. And despite the caring, sharing new Conservative image he was careful to foster at the Tory conference, one of the delegates from Islington started on an astonishing rant from the podium about how Muslims weren't integrating, that they were doing nothing about terrorism, that they had come to meetings with the government to demand shariah and Muslim bank holidays. He left the stage to rapturous applause.

And here I was, thinking Reid's performance at the Labour Party conference was extreme. Clearly, this is the level of debate we are now expecting from politicians.

Let's take the government's case on it's merits though. We are all repeatedly told that security, terrorism and extremism are the foremost issues which we should be worried about. That this is a Muslim problem and that Muslims aren't doing enough about it. Therefore, when the alleged bomb plot broke the headlines, with our without John Reid's help, we had wall to wall coverage of the issue for weeks, with continual commentary from politicians and media about the Muslim Problem, how we don't integrate, how we have a ghetto mentality, how we harbour extremists and the same, tired old slanders and stereotypes which we are now accustomed to. Reid wasted no time and energy to continually remind us that we're under threat from people of the Islamic variety. He went on to lecture Muslim parents about how to brainwash their children into believing that the Iraq and Afghan invasions didn't happen and that even if they did, the
government didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction, didn't punish the Palestinians for electing a government called Hamas, and didn't prolong the Israeli bombing of Lebanon. Allah forbid that teenagers start thinking for themselves! - they must be showing 'signs of extremism'.

Last week, the Lancashire Evening Telegraph broke a story about how the police had found a record amount of chemical explosives at a home belonging to an ex BNP member. Given the emphasis the government has made on matters of national security, one would have thought that perhaps there would be some commentary from the likes of Reid, or maybe Jack Straw, who happens to be a local MP. Amazingly, in contrast to the rabid prophecies of gloom and doom a few weeks before, we heard not a peek from either. Reid didn't take a trip up to Lancashire to lecture white parents on the dangers of their children turning into bomb-making BNP fanatics. The item didn't even make it into the national news because the next day, Straw thought that blaming Muslim women for wearing a piece of cloth on the face was clearly a higher priority than a mere comment of the clear and present dangers from white extremists. This is shocking stuff. I can understand Reid for not bothering to comment - he's too busy being the BNP's poster boy - but what was Straw's excuse? *

So this is the government's 'war on terror'. It's turned out to be nothing more than a cynical ploy to beat Muslims in order to win cheap votes from an increasingly intolerant and ugly electorate, fed a continual venom of hysteria and fearmongering from the politicians who are supposed to protect us. So if it's a Muslim, then all hell breaks loose, but if it's white then it's all right. Under the circumstances, politicans can no longer blame Muslims for thinking that this is a war on Islam. If there was any doubt of that even from the so-called 'moderate' quarters, this one incident has proven that the 'extremists' have been right all along.

We are now told by politicians that there shouldn't be any areas that shouldn't be open for debate or discussion. I've got a few ideas. For example, the contribution of Britain's foreign policy on radicalising Muslim youngsters, and in particular the war on Iraq, which the government has been keen to avoid like hell. Let's have a debate on that. And to be perfectly fair and consistent, politicians should have an 'open and honest discussion' about whites. I couldn't have put it better than Gary Younge from the Guardian who wrote:

"Let's have an open and honest discussion about white people.

Let's start by talking about how they don't want to integrate. The stubborn rump of around 10% of whites who, according to a 2002 Mori poll, are hostile to racial equality and antagonistic to the very existence of non-white people in this country. Given a percentage point either way, that is the consistent figure who believe that to be truly British you must be white and who do not believe it is important to respect the rights of minority groups.

Let's discuss their inability to choose moderate leaders and the propensity of the leaders they do choose to murder innocent civilians abroad by their thousands. Let's analyse their vulnerability to extremists such as the British National party, not to mention elsewhere in Europe, where fascism is once again a mainstream ideology.

Let's talk about the religious intolerance that rages in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and can be found in the highest levels of the state, where only Protestants can marry into royalty. And let's not forget the terrorists white people have been rearing at home for years, whether they are bombing Brick Lane, parliament or shopping centres in Manchester, and the no-go areas in housing estates, football terraces and boardrooms.

Only then perhaps will it become sufficiently apparent for those with insufficient imagination just how crude and crass the framing of the debate about Muslims has been. Any group of people will rightly bristle at the demand to answer collectively for the acts of individuals with whom they share an identity but over whom they have no control."

Now there's a debate.

(* Hint: Deputy Leader)

Brixton is a closed area

noreply@blogger.com (Anonymous) — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:37:00 +0000

The trouble with Muslims is that they don't tend to tell it how it is. The nearest we get is people like Abu Izzedeen, who told rent-a-thug John Reid where to go at a meeting in Leyton. Now I'm no fan of Izzedeen but a silent cheer went up in my heart when he disrupted that meeting. I'm just sorry he wasn't armed with rotten eggs. It comes to something when an Islamophobic government minister has the gall to tell Muslim parents that they should be spying on their children. The whole point of being a teenager surely, is that you do things that you keep hidden from your parents. Certainly in my experience this has been the case.

The point is though, that once again, people like Reid and the media conveniently shift the narrative to one where Muslims are problematic and condone violence and terrorism. So the biggest criminals in this whole sorry episode are not Reid or Izzedeen, but those hand-picked Muslims who once again allowed a stage for government characters to patronise and lay the blame on the whole community. If they want a good kicking from a jack boot fascist, that's no skin off my nose, but I don't want it done in my name please.

At his speech at the Labour Party conference, Reid said there was no area of Britain that was a closed area to him, and that he'd be back in East London to have another go. Whilst he's on the subject, I wonder whether he's also planning to go to Brixton to give black parents a lecture about guns and black-on-black violence, following the recent shooting at a McDonald's there. Somehow, I don't think so.