A reader sent me this picture of an article apparently from weekly newspaper The Jewish Chronicle.
I haven't been able to find any information on this story on the 'net so I don't know how true it is. However, if true it is completely disgusting that waving an Israeli flag outside a mosque gets you arrested and tried while holding posters saying "Jesus is the slave of Allah" and "Pope go to Hell" outside a Cathedral is totally OK.
Friday, September 29, 2006
A reader sent me this picture of an article apparently from weekly newspaper The Jewish Chronicle.
Muslim leaders in Bradford have responded to John Reid's call for the government to support moderate Muslims to root out extremism. Compare their responses in a local newspaper and see which one you think is moderate.
1) President of the Pakistan Society of West Yorkshire Rashid Awan: "The Government is committed to rooting out extremism by really identifying the problem"
2) Dr Bary Malik, chairman of Ahmadiya Muslim Association: told the paper that people could not keep blaming Muslims for world terrorism and extremism.
3) Ishtiaq Ahmed, spokesman for Bradford Council of Mosques: "Extremism is a problem that cuts across the country and Mr Reid cannot keep suggesting that it is a Muslim issue."
For those who are having trouble figuring it out allow me to give you a clue. Terrorism carried out in the name of Islam or Allah is done so because of an ideology spreading through the world. That ideology is based on the necessity to impose Islamic Law over all the inhabitants of the world through whatever means necessary. That ideology is not spreading through Christian communities, nor through Jewish ones, nor through Hindu, Buddhist or any other community save the Muslim community.
Any Muslim who refuses to recognise that it is the Muslim community that is best placed, and therefore most responsible, to confront that ideology is not a moderate.
The Jawa Report says that Abu Izzadeen has started a weblog. Indeed, there is a blog supposedly by him. However, I think this is most likely a fake for two reasons.
1) He allows members of blogspot to leave comments which doesn't seem like the kind of thing an Islamo-fascist would do.
2) The timing is very suspect.
3) This is the most compelling. His first (and only so far) post starts with "as salaam alaikum".
Yet, on the, now famous, muslimintro profile (that almost certainly was from him) he writes the same message as "as salam wa alaykum". (Check DFH for the screenshots). It seems unlikely he would have such major differences in writing something which, presumably, he writes often.
UPDATE: This supposed Izzadeen has now deleted his entry in which he makes the welcome quoted in number 3 above. His reason is that "some kaffar make discusting comments". I am assuming that would be me pointing out that they do not fit. I don't have a screenshot of the original post but a search on google has the original comment still visible:
He has though now tried to counteract point number 1 above by stopping anyone from posting comments. However, he has provided more proof that this is a fake. Abu Izzadeen started life as Trevor Brook, born and bred in England. He is a fluent English speaker. The entries on his blog are written in appalling English and this simply isn't Izzadeen.
UPDATE: I was right, the blog is a fake. Check it out now.
The Independent is reporting that Tony Blair has ordered a review of the entire British Security Services. One hopes that one of the recommendations of this review will be to acknowledge that radical Islamic terror starts with an ideology and that that ideology should be dealt with as well.
The article has another piece of good news:
He also said that a forthcoming anti-terrorism Bill would contain measures to limit the human-rights defences alleged terrorists can deploy in court.While Human Rights Laws are important, they are too vague and are open to abuse, both from criminals and leftist judges. Also today, it was reported that the Lord Chancellor's office will be producing new guidelines on how to use the Human Rights Act.
The FSA have declared that "holy water" being sold in Britain has three times the normal levels of arsenic in them. Its good that the FSA have stopped the selling of this water because arsenic can lead to cancer.
What puzzles me, though, is that the FSA declared that genuine Zam Zam water (this Muslim holy water) cannot be exported from Saudi Arabia for commercial purposes. This begs the question of why it was allowed to be sold in the first place.
The planned "mega-mosque" being put forward by Tablighi Jamaat, a group called an "antechamber to fundamentalism", will not rest with any accountable body. The Mail on Sunday reports that an unelected quango, the London Thames Gateway Development Corporation, will decide. However, the madness does not end there. If they approve the project there will be no right of appeal, but if they reject it Tablighi Jamaat will be allowed to appeal the decision!
Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity, said: "The corporation has already said that the new mosque will make West Ham a 'cultural and religious destination'.
"This will be nothing less than an Islamic quarter of our capital city. But has anyone asked the people of West Ham? The non-Muslims? The moderate Muslims? The Muslim women?"
I am reminded of the outrage of the left when Ken Livingstone was suspended by a quango. Will the left (who are in bed with radical Islam) make the same outcries against this quango?
MPACUK has posted a poster on their website calling for an end to the occupation of Palestinian lands. Very noble you might say. But, the poster goes on to say that the occupation has been going on for 58 years, i.e. since the inception of Israel in 1948.
A moderate Muslim group or Islamo-fascists?
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Two stories on the BBC have me concerned about the attitude of our police force and government towards dealing with terrorism. Both are to do with money, essentially. The first is that police forces cannot afford to buy proper protective gear for dealing with WMD attacks. The second is a report that the cost of investigating the plot to blow up planes is extremely high and unsustainable.
Now, two thoughts spring to mind. The first is that the government should be giving the police as much funding as they need to do their difficult job. The second is that the police should act when they have an opportunity. They spent however much money investigating the protest at Westminster Cathedral and concluded that no "substantive" offences were committed. Yet, some way down the track some of the people at that protest will probably go further in expressing their hatred of the West. When that happens the police will have to spend much more to investigate.
If they would act now to deal with the individuals and also with the root cause, the ideology, they would save themselves a lot of money and the country would be safer.
The Metropolitan Police have finished their investigation into the protest outside Westminster Cathedral. They have somehow concluded that no offences were committed. Sir Ian Blair said "It is the job of the Met to hold the line of the freedom of speech". So apparently that is why no prosecutions will be brought.
This is made even more interesting when you consider that South Wales Police managed to arrest a protester for handing out flyers with quotations from the Bible at a homosexual parade. They later charged him with:
threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby, contrary to section 5(1) and (6) of the Public Order Act 1986Now, am I the only person who thinks that that same offence was committed by just about every person present at the protest outside Westminster Cathedral? This has nothing to do with enforcing the law and everything to do with being politically correct and not upsetting Muslims.
Mirza Tahir Hussain (A dual national British and Pakistan) is currently on death row in Pakistan. He was found guilty of murder by a Sharia Court and sentenced to death. Now, MPACUK and IHRC are trying desperately to have the British Government intervene.
Of course they should try and intervene. However, it should be noted that MPACUK and IHRC have both encouraged the kind of ideology that wants to install Sharia Law in Britain. Will this make them think again about the stance they have taken?
Families in the US have won the first step in a legal battle to sue the NatWest bank for supporting terrorism. The case concerns Interpal, a charity supposedly raising money for Palestinian people but quite possibly using some of those funds to support the terrorist group Hamas.
Interpal is banned by the US as a "specially-designated global terrorist". NatWest argued that they were innocent because the UK Charity Commission had investigated Interpal and found them innocent of any wrongdoing.
It should be noted that the BBC produced a documentary into Interpal and the Charity Commission are now investigating again.
Three men have appeared in court on terrorism charges. The BBC report implies that the main charge is incitement to murder. Tucked away in the middle of the article is a reference to a charge of conspiracy to murder.
Allow me to refresh the memories of the BBC. The Mirror report from the time of their arrest makes clear that, in fact, they were planning to plant a large car bomb. The report has this quote from police:
"We are convinced that if we had not acted swiftly a massive bomb, designed to kill and maim hundreds of innocent people, would have been set off in London, probably before the end of the year and possibly during the Christmas rush."
Also, it should be noted, that one of the defendants, Younes Tsouli, has been names in a case in America as having been sent information about targets in Washington DC. According to the local newspaper in the US he ran a website teaching terror tactics and called himself "Irhabi (Arabic for terrorist) 007".
If you're wondering why I am picking on the CND it is because they have decided to align themselves with the Stop the War Coalition and radical Islam.
The BBC has a report that two of their members were arrested at a protest in Manchester yesterday. The report states:
"The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) also claimed it was stopped unveiling banners which read: "No Trident replacement".
A CND spokeswoman said the group was saddened the protest was prevented. "
Interestingly, Yahoo news has a nice photo of the same demonstration with a nice big banner:
Is it my imagination or is there a nice big banner in that protest? Maybe CND are just upset because they couldn't unfurl that particular banner?
Also conspicuously absent from the BBC report are a couple of details provided by The Independent:
Greater Manchester Police said last night that a Section 14 order, compelling the protesters to disperse, was served after they "refused to co-operate"....he was told by officers that CND had failed to provide advance notice of the protest....Police said they believed the group "intended to cause disruption to the city centre and conference area".
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Last week, this blog revealed that Abu Izzadeen was actively seeking a 2nd wife. (screen shots available at DFH)
Well, it seems that Abu Izzadeen has now become shy and has deleted his profile from the muslimintro site. I guess that confirms that was indeed him.
UPDATE: The MSM has finally caught up with us. The Daily Mail is reporting this story today. Of course, they do not say how they found out about it, but in one paragraph they do make mention of "One blogger". When will the MSM in this country catch up with their American colleagues in recognising the impact of us bloggers and give us the credit we deserve?
UPDATE: The Times has picked up on this story, and gently pokes fun at those who reported it a week after the blogs. There's even a link to the story on this site. A big thank you to them.
I reported just the other day about a gang known as "The Muslim Boys" who are apparently fond of using forced conversion to Islam.
Today a local newspaper reports that a student in Solihull was also threatened with forced conversion to Islam. It is tucked away in the story and don't expect to hear any mention of it on the MSM.
Is this sort of thing becoming more widespread in Britain?
It has emerged that Worcestershire County Council has been providing halal meat in its schools without informing parents.
Let me start by saying that halal slaughter (like Jewish slaughter) is, despite claims by NGOs, an extremely humane way of slaughtering. Not to mention the fact that even if it wasn't humans trump animals any day of the week. Those claiming that this somehow breaches parents' rights to provide humane food for their kids are clutching at straws. No information is provided regarding what condition workers were put under to produce bananas or other products. The issue here is not that halal meat is somehow intrinsically wrong.
However, the question burning in my mind is why halal meat was used. It is definitely more expensive than normal meat, no question. So, why would the local authority pay extra for it?
Bear in mind that according to the 2001 Census Muslims make up just 1.8% of Worcester's population. So, was this the council trying to accommodate a tiny minority? Something strange is definitely going on there...
The BBC Editorial Guidelines reveal that BBC reports should "avoid the term" terrorist. The reason given is that the term "itself can be a barrier rather than an aid to understanding".
The guidelines go on to say:
We should use words which specifically describe the perpetrator such as "bomber", "attacker", "gunman", "kidnapper", "insurgent, and "militant"
It sounds convincing at first glance, but is, in fact, flawed.
The BBC claims to avoid the term "terrorist" because it is not factual but is subjective. However, this is simply not true. The term "terrorist" can be defined and then applied to situations that meet that definition.
The problem here is not that the term "terrorist" is undefined. The problem is that the BBC is unwilling to make a decision about how to define a "terrorist". Perhaps instead of spending £1.2m on hippos, they could spend £12.50 on a dictionary.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The BBC is reporting that a man made a protest at the sale of pictures supposedly drawn by Hitler. The tone of the article is strikingly harsh. The headline reads "Protesters invade Hitler art sale" and goes on to say that "Protesters have stormed an auction house" [my emphasis].
Now, compare that to the coverage ofAbu Izzadeen's protest last week.The BBC headline for that read "Reid heckled during Muslim speech" and then that "He was interrupted by activist Abu Izzadeen" [again my emphasis].
Now, here is a quote from The Scotsman's report:
"We don't think this incident is worthy of any comment at all," said a spokesman for Jefferys auctioneers that held the sale. "It was a schoolboy prank."
Quite clearly, the BBC disagrees. They have devoted a whole article to this incident. And why does the BBC use such harsh tones with regards to this but not with regards to the other incident? A clue: One was carried out by a raging Muslim terrorist, the other by a Jewish comedian.
A local newspaper is reporting that a "gang" known as "The Muslim Boys" is being dispersed, because its leaders are in prison. The report mentions that this "gang" performed forced conversions. It also claims that "they adopted Islam to get better treatment in prison".
However, earlier this year The Mirror reported that this group, far from being dispersed, was taking control of Belmarsh Prison, and using it to recruit new members.
"These people hold religious services every week. Around 125 Muslims attend and top members of al-Qaeda preach. None of the staff has a clue what they're talking about. Six officers attend each service, but all they can do is stand and watch. Those in the chapel could be planning a major terrorist attack but the officers wouldn't know. We can't even tape the service and get it translated because it is against Human Rights. It's frightening."The BBC has made no mention of this gang at all within the last year, and don't expect them to do so anytime soon. Also, don't expect the powers that be to do anything to stop this.
A few months ago, the Gay Police Association produced an advert condemning the Church for homophobic attacks. The advert featured The Bible next to a pool of blood. The advert received 50,000 complaints. But, yesterday, the CPS decided to drop the case.
This is all very well if the policy of the police and other LEAs is to uphold freedom of speech. Indeed, they did not act to stop the extremely offensive and threatening protest outside Westminster Cathedral.
Yet, this is not their policy. Stephen Green was arrested for handing out flyers with quotations from the Bible regarding homosexuality. The Daily Mail reports that the police acknowledged that he was not acting in an aggressive manner, and that he was arrested purely because of the contents of his flyer.
It seems that the police only uphold freedom of speech for some minorities but not others.
A few months ago the Gay Police Association placed an advert in The Independent blaming Christians for homophobic attacks. The advert featured a large picture of The Bible next to a pool of blood. The Police received 50,000 complaints but yesterday the CPS dropped the case.
This would be fine, except that the CPS is prosecuting Stephen Green for handing out a leaflet with quotations from the Bible about homosexuality. The police admitted that he had not been violent but that he was arrested purely because of the content of his flyers.
Yet, the police refused to do anything about those Muslim protesters whose flyers were far more threatening and abusive.
All this comes just days after it was revealed that Gloucestershire Police were discriminating against white males. It is about time that the police and other law-enforcement agencies started using the same rules for everyone.
Monday, September 25, 2006
The FT reported that the City of London will be hosting a ceremony at mansion House for Ramadan. It is apparently being organised by the Lord Mayor and the MCB. So, naturally, I wanted to find out more.
Well, you see, there is a problem. The MCB doesn't make any mention of this event on its site, neither does the City of London, Mansion House or the Lord Mayor. So, does anyone know anything about this secret ceremony?
I was perusing the MPACUK website and noticed they had a forum, so I went to take a look. Imagine my surprise to discover that some of the forums were hidden to non-members. What's more is that members have to "introduce" themselves to the forum before being able to view those hidden forums.
The two forums I am most interested in are "Current Affairs" and "Islam and Politics", the latter declaring that it is to "discuss...political jihad".
I have emailed MPACUK asking them about why they feel the need to hide these sections from the public. I eagerly await their response.
A local newspaper is reporting that Muslim football teams have asked for matches to be suspended during Ramadan because their players cannot take part due to fasting. This would involve scrapping over 50 games to accommodate these teams who will be unable to play for a month. The matter has been referred to the FA.
While I sympathise with their problem I feel that they have gone too far. If the FA decides that games should be postponed or scrapped then presumably the same would apply for all FA matches. Essentially, any Muslim player in any league could cause havoc by insisting that he cannot play during Ramadan. What will inevitably happen is that the football season will have to be modified to suit Muslim players.
Now, we all know that most football matches take place on Saturday. Jewish players, therefore, make a choice between religion (they cannot play on their Sabbath) or football. Unfortunately, the same question now faces these Muslim players. But that is their problem and should not be made the problem of the Christian majority.
Last week I reported that the AP had decided that Hamas were no longer militants.
Now, not to be outdone, the BBC has decided that Al Qaeda are no longer terrorists but are in fact "militants".
UPDATE: Not only has the BBC decided that Al Qaeda are not terrorists but they have also decided that British Security Services are not reliable sources. Compare these two pictures:
That's right, the one discussing the killing of an Al Qaeda terrorist leader has the now-infamous quotation marks meant to indicate that it may or may not be true. Whereas the one reporting on the assassination of an Afghan official is devoid of quotation marks, because that is in no doubt.
The Guardian reports that a woman has been charged with two terror offences. Normally, I wouldn't make a big deal out of this, but this time is different.
When this woman was arrested last week there was a protest outside the police station where she was being held. The protest went pretty much unreported, although I did mention it here. Neither The Guardian nor the BBC, in its report, make any mention of the protest.
UPDATE: The Manchester Evening News is reporting that this woman is the "partner" of Habib Ahmed who was also charged with terrorism offences. So, is Islamic terror only from radically devout Muslims? Seems not.
The row over the new cemetery in Nottingham in which all headstones will face Mecca to accommodate Muslims grows.
The council has dismissed the complaints as "bordering on racism". However, let me remind you of what is happening. All graves will face Mecca in accordance with the minority Muslim tradition and the majority Christians will have to make special requests to have the gravestones aligned according to their tradition.
Truly this does border on racism, but against the Christian majority not the Muslim minority.
Gordon Brown has just finished his speech to the Labour Party Conference. In it he spelt out very clearly what we need to do to fight extremism and other social ills; we need to be British.
He spoke of British values, of responsibilities as well as rights. He insisted that people learn to speak English. He said that people in this country must abide by British values and British rules. Finally, there is a glimmer of hope that pride in Britain can be restored. Not just pride of our present but also pride in our past.
Remember that Gordon Brown was the man who, earlier this year, floated the idea of a Britishness Day, a day to celebrate British values and British culture. Let's hope he will be given the chance to act on that and that Britain will once again become the open, free and proud nation it once was.
Minnette Marrin, in The Times, has an important piece about Britain's ability to stand up to Islamic terror. Worth reading.
I will take this opportunity to address one of the burning questions of the whole Islamic terror debate: "What is a moderate Muslim?"
Those in charge of running our country think that a moderate Muslim is one who does not advocate violence against Britain. However, this is only moderate when compared to the violent extremists who want to impose Islamic Law on Britain.
In truth, a moderate Muslim is one who wants to live in Britain according to British Law and British values. One who wants to practice their religion in their community but no more. When the government called in "moderate" Muslims for talks about extremism these Muslim leaders issued a set of demands for the government including their own public holidays and the implementation of Sharia Law (at least for family matters).
This is not moderation, this is trying to establish a de facto Islamic state within Britain. And given that up to a third of Muslims would like to see Britain become an Islamic State, just how moderate are British Muslims?
Earlier I brought your attention to an article discussing plans for an "Islamic Village" being planned for West Ham. The article raised concerns that the Mosque and complex was being built by Tablighi Jamaat a Muslim group described by French Intelligence as "an antechamber of fundamentalism".
The Observer reports that attempts are being made to find out who is actually financing this project and to prevent it from becoming a tool for extremists. Surprisingly, the desginer would not comment on who was funding the project.
UPDATE: Opposition is growing to this new "Mega-Mosque". The Telegraph has an opinion piece asking the same questions as everyone else regarding the funding of this mosque. But the article goes further to question the impact it will have in creating a "Muslim area" much like Abu Izzadeen already thinks exists.
Perhaps there is still hope for Britain.
Sunday, September 24, 2006
It might be a little late, but better late than never. The Stop the War Coalition organised a rally in Manchester on Saturday to ask for Tony Blair to resign as PM. That, of course, is their right. However, I would like to make note of a couple of points.
I went to the Stop the War Coalition homepage to look for photos of the rally. They had a link to a blog where I could find them. Strange, but true. So, while on that blog I thought I would have a quick look. First entry after the rally was a nice picture of Hugo Chavez at the UN, with the caption "You can't help loving this guy." That kind of gives you a taste for the kind of people we are dealing with here.
Anyway, on to the photos. In truth there is only one photo that I need bother to share with you. On a nice peaceful rally we have some lovely support for the terrorist organisation Hezbollah:
MPACUK a supposedly moderate Muslim group has called for a new Prime Minister who is more "ethical". One is forced to wonder what sort of "ethics" this imagined PM will behave according to? Tony Blair, from what I can gather, is a fairly religious Christian with, at least what he perceives to be, Christian ethics.
Equally irritating is the reiteration that altering foreign policy will stop Britain being a target for Islamic terrorism. This is patently not true (a discussion for another time perhaps). However, if it were true, it would not be a reason to change policy. There has always been an understanding that you do not negotiate with terrorists and certainly do not give in to them. All those people who insist on telling us that British foreign policy is responsible for terrorism and then go on to insist that foreign policy must be changed as a result of the terrorist threat are, in fact, handing over the list of demands from the terrorists and saying "Surrender!".
One interesting side-point. The MPACUK website carries a "news" item "exposing" the "British Israel lobby". Who is it? The various party friends of Israel. Yet, on the same page that carries this article decrying the influence of this lobby is a report of the "Arab Labour Group" which is doing the same thing. Yet more anti-Semitism from this "moderate" group.
Friday, September 22, 2006
Just two days after Abu Izzadeen told the Home Secretary he wasn't allowed into "Muslim areas", The American Spectator makes a scathing attack on Ken "Imam" Livingstone. The article is in reference to plans to build a huge mosque just 500 yards from the Olympic Village for the 2012 games. Worth a read.
The High Court has upheld a decision to control benefits given to the families of suspected terrorists. This should stop our own taxpayers' money from going to terrorists.
The men accused of trying to blow up buses two weeks after the 7/7 bombings are on trial. They have asked for special treatment during Ramadan. These people wanted to kill themselves and others in order to impose Islamic law over British Law. And even now they haven't given that up.
On the MPACUK's website they are currently running a "news" story about a Rabbi who has called for the extremination of Palestinians from Israel. Obviously, this statement is shocking and abhorrent. But the article is deeply anti-Semitic in nature and factually inaccurate and misleading. In fact, the article is copied from a blog, like this one. But, unlike this one, it is a blog that doesn't bother to check it's facts.
You see, this man's statements was made 3 years ago. And why has it come up now? Because he has been arrested for incitement. Of course, the article makes no mention of his arrest. The article goes on to mention Rabbi Kahane and the Kach Party. Again, no mention that the party has been banned as a terrorist organisation by the Israeli government. And also no mention that Rabbi Kahane was killed by an Arab terrorist.
This article is nothing other than an attempt to incite hatred against Jews and as such it is shocking that it should appear on the MPACUK's website.
After all the Israel bashing at the Party conference it now emerges that Sir Menzies Campbell is going to meet former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami, according to The Times. This is a man who in a recent statement praised Hezbollah and refuses to recognise Israel's existance.
Will the Lib Dems be making their efforts to destroy Israel part of their manifesto?
The Western Media has spent months dodging the word "terrorist" in conjunction to Hamas, preferring the term "militant". It now seems that they aren't even that. In an article in The Guardian about Hamas's refusal to recognise Israel they are described as "The ruling Hamas group". Even the BBC is still calling them militants. Soon we'll be calling them "peace-loving moderates"!
On closer inspection it turns out that this isn't limited to The Guardian. Fox News also says the same. In fact, the two articles are all but identical. The reason? They are both taken from Associated Press.
Thursday, September 21, 2006
In my first post in reaction to the protest during John Reid's speech I suggested that maybe the protest was organised by the same people who organised the one outside Westminster Cathedral. My reason was the similarity of the wording on the posters. I have finally managed to find a video of the second protestor today and captured a screenshot from Sky News showing his poster:
Pay close attention the black line with the white writing on it, that is at the bottom of the poster. Here is a picture of a similar poster taken from Joee Blogs, taken at the Westminster Cathedral protest:
It too contains the same black line and white writing, although this time it can be read.
So, here you have it. Proof positive that the organisers of this protest organised the other one as well. Now, who are these organisers?
Well, the main speaker at the Westminster Cathedral protest was Anjem Choudray, a leader of the banned Al Ghurabaa group. The first protester today was Abu Izzadeen, a member of Al Ghurabaa. So, who is organising these protests?
UPDATE: News reporters are now saying that the second protestor was in fact Anjem Choudary, the organiser of the Danish cartoons protest who is already under investigation for calling for the Pope to be given "capital punishment". And The Sun article carries a clearer picture of one of the posters used in the protest. Further evidence that Al Ghurabaa is behind these events and needs to be shut down.
The Liberal Democrat conference has now ended and the party has placed itself as the anti-Israel party.
Yesterday the party passed a motion condemning Israel for its "disproportionate" response. They call for a prevention of arms reaching Hezbollah and in the same sentence call for a "review" of arms exports to Israel. (see http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2006/09/liberal-democrats-on-israel.html)
Today, Sir Menzies Campbell questioned Israel's right to exist. (see http://littlebulldogs.blogspot.com/2006/09/lib-dems-question-israels-right-to.html)
And new developements are that Lib Dem peer Baroness Tonge has made yet another anti-Semitic slur: "The pro-Israeli lobby has got its grips on the western world, its financial grips. I think they've probably got a grip on our party." She's been called in for a meeting with the leadership. Will they expell her from the party? Don't hold your breath.
Finally, the BBC is reporting that due to anti-Israel feeling at the conference the Lib Dem Friends of Israel group has closed its stall.
Obviously the Lib Dems are gunning for anti-Israel vote. Extreme Feft meets Extreme Right?
George Galloway has written an open letter to Dr John Reid discussing the protesting at his speech. I found the letter on MPACUK's website. In it Mr Galloway suggests that the heckler was allowed in precisely to give Muslims a bad name.
"Either our police and security services are so fantastically incompetent that Bin Laden himself might have slipped in to beard you at your podium. Or someone somewhere wanted to engineer precisely this confrontation to show you in a certain light and to portray the Muslims of Britain in the most aggressive violent and extreme way possible, as a justification for the utterly counter-productive policies you are following"
In George Galloway's own words; this is "preposterous". How low will this man stoop to defend extremists, terrorists and tyrants?
PS: The BBC is accutely aware of this letter because they quote from it on their website. Odd that they didn't mention his crazy conspiracy theory.
I mentioned before that at the Liberal Democrat Conference it was suggested to stop all arms exports to Israel because they “pose risks to regional stability".
Today Sir Menzies Campbell gave his keynote speech. In it he says the following:
"As long as this [Israel's "humiliation" of Palestinians] continues, Israel's legal and moral right to live in peace behind secure and recognized borders will be undermined."
So, not only have the Lib Dems proposed to strangle Israel's ability to defend herself, they are also calling into question whether it has the right to exist. Is this the kind of party we want in Britain?
Yesterday it was proven, on this blog, that Al Ghurabaa is active; that it has been responsible for two vile protests in the last week. Yet, the BBC is whitewashing the connection to any banned group.
This is the BBC article:
In the box on the right the BBC declares that Abu Izzadeen is an ex-member of this group. This is extremely odd. During the live News 24 coverage of the incident, the BBC declared him to be a member. Later it said that he denied being a member. And now, he is definately an ex-member.
Also note, that the second heckler is given one sentence and all references to his threats against the Home Secretary have been removed. This is the man who proves that all the protests are linked thanks to the poster he held (also remeber that he was shouting "You are an enemy of Islam and Muslims" exactly what Abu Izzadeen had first shouted).
Isn't it time the BBC started doing its job?
Wednesday, September 20, 2006
Surprise, surprise, the MCB has rejected John Reid's comments that terrorism has nothing to do with foreign policy. The MCB released a statement which is most equivocal in its support for parental responsibility. For a start they make a point of stating that "all parents, both Muslim and non-Muslim" have a responsibility to be vigilant. John Reid was making a very valid point that Muslims must face up to their responsibility, yet the MCB wants to ignore that and pretend that they have no more responsibility to stop Muslim extremism than anyone else.
Then they moved on to reiterate that it is British foreign policy that is causing extremism. While it is true that foreign policy is used as a rallying call, it is not true that it causes Islamic terrorism. And John Reid specifically stated that no government "worth its salt" will change its policies to accommodate terrorists.
Once again, the MCB has shown that it acts as a mouthpiece for the Islamic terrorists. Also note, that the MCB didn't mention the protestors.
The Chairman of the Islamic Human Righst Commission, Massoud Shadjareh, has said that the Home Secretary's request that Muslim parents keep an eye on their children to stop them being brainwashed was, "not demanded from any other community", according to the BBC. He went on to say that the government was the root cause of Islamic terrorism.
Frankly, I'm getting tired of this sort of thing. Of course Muslims are being targetted, whether by politicians, police, media etc. And the reason is so shockinly obvious; they are the problem. Or at least, the problem emerges from their community. Why on earth would John Reid go to a Jewish group and tell them to keep an eye on their kids? Their children do not blow up London Buses.
Perhaps Mr Shadjareh needs to read his own words. The Muslim community "needs to come out of this state of denial, stop pointing fingers at others and instead recognise the root causes and its own responsibility."
Anyway, after I read this I decided to check the IHRC website, see what they are up to. The main thing going on at the moment is the "Islamaphobia Awards". A nice list of people has been drawn up, worth checking just for the humour value of some of the entries. The usual suspects are there but there are a couple of shock entries. My personal favourite is the "Coalition of pro-Israel Hollywood stars". The reason given for their Islamophobia is "For marching against Hizbullah and Hamas whilst the Lebanon and Gaza offensives were still on."
Might I suggest that anyone who sees this go to the site and vote for no-one. You may also consider making your own nomination. Perhaps Osama bin Laden for giving Muslims a bad name. Or Ahmadinejad or Abu Izzadeen etc. You get the idea.
After Abu Izzadeen decided to make a fool of himself by interrupting John Reid's speech today, I decided to do a little research about him. I found a small profile of him in The Times. And another in asharq alawsat. I also found an entry on a Muslim dating agency - Muslimintro. Now, I'm not saying that this the man on Muslimintro is the same Abu Izzadeen but I will point out the details listed on Muslimintro which are the same as those of Abu Izzadeen of heckling fame:
1) He is 31
2) He is married
3) He has 3 children
4) He was born in London
5) He lives in London, E11 - a map shows Leyton which is where our Izzadeen lives.
6) He has black hair and no glasses
7) He says the thing he would most like to change about the world is to see Islam dominate the world
8) He converted in 1994
On the profile he is says he is seeking a 2nd, 3rd or 4th wife.
Is this the same Abu Izzadeen? What do you think?
I've just finished watching John Reid's discussion with Muslims in Waltham Forest. He made some important points. I can't remember his exact words but he did quite clearly identify the goals of the terrorists; to impose their values on us.
He was also interrupted by protesters. One of them was reported by the BBC (on News 24) as being a member of Al Ghurabaa. I must assume that he told this to the waiting cameras. I wonder then why he was not arrested by police for being a member of an illegal organisation. There were police around the man but they made no effort to stop him or arrest him.
Another protester emerged holding posters that read (from what I saw) "John Reid you will pay" and "John Reid go to Hell". These messages remind me of the placards from previous protests. At the Danish Cartoons we had "Freedom go to Hell" and more recently "Pope go to Hell". We also had "Europe you will pay...".
Is there someone or a small group who are organising all these events and thus they all have the same formats for their protest?
Perhaps Anjem Choudray is behind these protests too. He has described himself as a spokesman of Al Ghurabaa and was behind both previous protests.
UPDATE: The first protester has been identified by The Guardian as Abu Izadeen. He is a member of Al Ghurabaa and therefore has close connections to Choudray. I guess my theory that this group is behind all these protests is not so far from the truth. Will he finally be arrested and prosecuted?
UPDATE: Confirmation that one of the placards said "John Reid go to Hell". The major news sources are reporting that one placard said "John Reid you will pay" but only one has so far mentioned this other poster. Could it be that the MSM recognises the link between this protest and the others and are shying away from it?
UPDATE: I earlier suggested that both protesters were connected and this might be tied in to Anjem Choudray. I have just watched a news report on Sky News and the second protester was shouting "You are an enemy of Islam and the Muslims." This is the same thing that Abu Izzadeen was shouting. Also, they interviewed Anjem Choudray just outside the pavilion in which John Reid had been speaking, so he was certainly nearby.
In an article in the Sun newspaper the Home secretary calls on Muslim parents to keep an eye on their children to tackle extremism. He said:
I appeal to you to look for changes in your teenage sons - odd hours, dropping out of school or college, strange new friends. And if you are worried, talk to them before their hatred grows.
However, his calls for Muslims to take action against extremism has been attacked by The Muslim News. Their editor, Ahmed Versi, accuses the UK government of trying to divide Muslim families.
In the Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003 the responsibility for stopping anti-social behaviour was placed to a large degree with parents. Fines could be imposed of up to £1000. Did the editor of The Muslim News decry that as an attempt to split families?
Instead of accepting that parents are responsible for their children, this news organisation is trying to make it another case of West against Islam.
UPDATE: The Daily Mail is now running this story, better late than never.
A thought struck me as I read about Bush's speech at the UN. In it he discussed Iran's nuclear programme and then he spoke directly to the people of Iran rather than the leaders. It reminded me of something similar he did a few years ago.
In his speech giving Iraq a 48 hour ultimatum he did the same thing. He spoke direct to the Iraqi people. Is Bush planning an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities?
Former Archbishop of Canertbury, Lord Carey of Clifton, has addressed the issue of Islamic violence. He didn't pussyfoot around, he called a spade a spade. According to The Times Lord Carey quoted Samual Huntington:
“Islam’s borders are bloody and so are its innards. The fundamental problem for the West is not Islamic fundamentalism. It is Islam, a different civilisation whose people are convinced of the superiority of their culture and are obsessed with the inferiority of their power.”
He also said, concering the association of Islam and violence,
"The Muslim world must address this matter with great urgency"
Will the MCB condemn him for this? Will we see more violence to disprove him? Time will tell...
Two friends in Cambridge have produced a board game concerning the war on terror. It comes with game cards for terrorists to launch suicide bombings or dirty bomb attacks against "empire builders". Quite rightly the game has been condemned as insensitive. But look a bit deeper and listen to why the creators made it.
"It's designed to make you question who the terrorists really are. Are they the ones blowing people up with suicide bombers, or the ones destroying countries with planes?"
This way of thinking is not new; it is an old feeling of guilt that many in the West have succumbed to.
During Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech at the UN he accused the US and the UK of using the UN for their own purposes. Frankly, besides the fact that every country does so, I think it is sickeningly hypocritical for any Muslim leader to level such an accusation. A little research reveals how the Muslim bloc of the UN has manipulated it into spending a hugely disproportionate amount of time discussing the "evil Zionsit regime".
Also, former Iranian nationals staged a protest outside the UN denouncing Ahmadinejad as a terrorist.
Furthermore he denounced Israel again: "the pretexts for the creating of the regime occupying al-Qods al-Sharif (Jerusalem) are so weak that its proponents want to silence any voice trying to merely speak about them."
In other words, he should be allowed to continue denying the Holocaust and calling for Israel to be destroyed.
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
With the Liberal Democrat Party conference underway, now is a good time to pay close attention to what they have to say on important issues. Michael Moore, the shadow foreign secretary, gave a speech about British foreign policy. Mostly, he raised questions without offering solutions. That's what opposition parties tend to do. After all, elections are not won, they are lost.
However, when it came to Israel, he did have a concrete suggestion; stop exporting arms to them. The reason: "licences should not be issued for export where the arms or equipment “pose risks to regional stability.” "
The Liberal Democrats are now of the view that Israel's ability to defend itself is a cause for concern, and their solution is to remove it's ability to continue that defence, even as it condemns the violence against Israel carried out by terrorist groups.
The solution the Lib Dems are suggesting for ending Middle Eastern problems vis-a-vis Israel, is remarkably similar to that of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He told a conference in Malaysia "the main solution is for the elimination of the Zionist regime". Have the Lib Dems now joined him in that thinking?
Monday, September 18, 2006
The Metropolitan Police is investigating the protest that took place outside Westminster Cathedral. About 100 people demonstrated against the Pope's comments and held posters reading: "Pope go to hell" and "Islam will conquer Rome".
The Guardian reports: "It is understood that some of the complaints relate to reported comments by the outspoken Islamic figure, Anjem Choudary - the former UK head of al-Muhajiroun." This is the same man who organised a similar rally over the Danish cartoons.
Two points spring to mind. Firstly, the content of some of the posters at this rally are remarkably similar to the ones used in that Danish rally. Placards at that rally read "Freedom go to hell" and "Islam will dominate the world".
Also, I found in the Daily Mail that after that protest Mr Choudary was investigated. He recieved a £500 fine. The maximum fine for the offence he was convicted of was £1000.
So, the same man has organised another rally, which is again being investigated. I for one hope the Met and the CPS will take serious action this time round.
Welcome to my new blog. I hope to provide a forum to raise awareness about the growing threat of radical Islam in Britain and the world. I make no apologies for singling out members of this great religion for criticism. Besides the obvious fact that radicalised Muslims present a large and growing problem, I have a right to focus on whichever group I please, so long as I do not break any laws.
Al Muhajiroun is a banned, extremist Muslim group headed by Omar Bakri Mohammed. The group was officially disbanded in October 2004 but it carried on under two new names: Al Ghurabaa and The Saviour Sect. In November 2005 these two groups officially merged into Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah or Followers of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah. Their leaders and member are the same and so, for all intents and purposes, the names are interchangeable.
Organised the Danish cartoons protest in February 2006.
Organised a protest outside in September 2006 at Westminster Cathedral over the Pope's speech.
Organised the heckling of John Reid's speech to Muslims in September 2006.
Attacked police during a protest at the trial of Mizanur Rahman
The group operate through a private Internet forum.
Omar Bakri Mohammed: The spiritual leader of Al Muhajiroun. He fled to Lebanon in August 2005 fearing that he would be arrested and sent to prison. He continues to lead his group via the Internet.
Anjem Choudary: Omar Bakri's right hand man and one of the main leaders of the group. Fined £500 for organising the Danish cartoons protest without a licence.
Abu Yahya: A leader of the group. He was arrested for his part in the Danish cartoons protest and found guilty in February.
Abu Izzadeen: Also known as Omar Brooks. One of the hecklers of John Reid. He was arrested in February 2007.
Mizanur Rahman: He set up the Internet forum now used by Al Muhajiroun. He was convicted in November 2007 of inciting racial hatred for his part in the Danish cartoons protest.
Abu Uzair: Leader of The Saviour Sect.
Sulayman Keeler: Founder of Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah.