Sunday, December 10, 2006

Taking A Break

Thanks to all readers who enquired after my welfare. I am OK but heavily snowed under with work. Therefore, I regret that the site will probably not be updated any time before the new year at the earliest.

It may also be time for a change in tactic. It is all very well sharing ideas amongst ourselves but we are rather preaching to the converted. What may be more effective would be to preach to those who oppose us.

It is my recommendation that you spend time leaving comments on those websites of those who encourage extremism. Let them know the truth about what is really happening in the world and do your best to counter their lies. Places like MPACUK are full of half-truths and complete fabrications which should be exposed. Of course they will not allow you to have a free say - they could not allow that - but flooding their servers with hundreds of comments exposing their lies and countering their propaganda would do more than this site could ever do.

Please take on this new tactic and spread it around to your friends. Good Luck.

Friday, December 01, 2006

Weekend Open Thread

Picture for the weekend: (an old photo but relevant)

No Checks

The Home Office has revealed that its staff do not have to declare whether they are members of radical Islamist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir. This information came to light after newspapers discovered that a senior IT worker was a leading figure in the group.

Yet one more thing the Government is failing on.

Hat Tip: USS Neverdock

What on Earth

Can anyone decipher what MPACUK are trying to say. They have taken an article from the BBC about a local council that was reprimanded for badly handling the sale of a piece of land. A bid was put in to build a mosque on it but the council decided to make it into sheltered homes for the elderly. An investigation was launched after claims that the decision was racially motivated. The investigation concluded that it was not.

However, MPACUK have this on their front page:

Local Government Ombudsman Anne Seex investigated a claim that the decision was taken in response to racially motivated opposition in the area. ("If you don't like it leave? Hello, isn't exactly freedom to practice reliugion part of Democracy and sets us differant from the dictators in the world?)
Besides the poor spelling and grammar, and ignoring the fact that there is a clear attempt to give the impression that the case was indeed racially motivated when the article states that it wasn't; what is the author trying to say in the brackets?

At least they got the headline correct:
Silly Muslim's Playing the “Victim Mentality” Again
They may have been trying sarcasm but in this case they got it spot on.