The London Horror and Jihad Denial

1369265011181.cachedIt began on Tuesday in Woolwich, London, when two young men in a car deliberately ran over an off-duty British soldier who was walking to a nearby military installation, then “hacked and chopped” at his body and attempted to decapitate him as they shouted “Allah akbar!” They forced witnesses to film the scene, saying: “We swear by Almightly Allah we will never stop fighting you. The only reasons we have done this is because Muslims are dying every day.” When police arrived, the murderers “charged at them wielding firearms, knives and a machete.” They were apprehended alive, and are now in hospital. It has since emerged that one of them, a son of Nigerian immigrants, was born in Britain as Michael Olumide Adebolajo, converted to Islam in 2003, changed his name to Mujaahid (i.e., jihadist), and for several years attended meetings of the group Al-Muhajiroun, founded by terrorist preacher Omar Bakri Mohammed. Late Thursday afternoon, U.K. time, the murdered soldier was identified as 25-year-old Lee Rigby, a drummer in the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers and the father of a two-year-old son.

Just like this week’s nightly riots by “youths” in Stockholm, the brutal slaughter in Woolwich was plainly a jihadist act. Yet just as the Swedish elites are continuing to dance around that uncomfortable core truth, their British counterparts are engaged in some fancy footwork of their own – led by Prime Minister David Cameron, who described Tuesday’s atrocity as “not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life” but “also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.” (Does it need to be said that for a British leader to haul out this ragged, repulsive lie in the year 2013 is itself a betrayal – a shameless, craven betrayal of precisely what Cameron pretends to be standing up for, namely “Britain and…the British way of life”?)

The papers were full of the standard-issue stuff. The Muslim Council of Britain made the usual assertion that the latest heinous act committed in the name of Islam had “nothing to do with Islam.” Baroness Warsi, a Pakistani-English Muslim who serves as “Communities Secretary” in the current government, painted the familiar pretty picture of “faith communities coming out together” in the wake of said heinous act “and showing a unified condemnation of this.” The Guardian ran the obligatory hand-wringing article about the “fear of backlash” against Muslims in the wake of the heinous act in question. (The headline of another Guardian article actually indicated that there had been “Anti-Muslim reprisals after Woolwich attack”; it turned out that one man was “in custody on suspicion of attempted arson after reportedly walking into a mosque with a knife in Braintree, Essex,” and that “police in Kent were called to reports of criminal damage at a mosque in Canterbury Street, Gillingham.”) And Ken Livingstone, the loathsome ex-mayor of London (which he described as “the most successful melting pot in the history of the world and the city of the free”), warned those less evolved than himself not to “scapegoat entire communities for this barbaric act.” This from the sometime host, defender, and chum of Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who is famous precisely for encouraging such barbaric acts.

Newspaper commentaries on the atrocity added up to a depressing profile of the pathetic, obstinately reality-challenged psychopathology of the British elite when confronted with Islamic violence. The prize for sheer inanity of approach must go to Laborite Dan Hodges, who spent a whole column in the Telegraph elaborating on the theme that “for me, yesterday’s barbaric act of terror in Woolwich was literally senseless. None of what happened actually made any sense.” The murder, he asserted, was “confusing, horrific, bizarre.” He proceeded to repeat this refrain in one paragraph after another: “none of it made sense….Still none of it made sense….It didn’t make sense….It didn’t make any sense….Yesterday was the senseless day.” Reading this feeble, embarrassing nonsense, one could not help wondering: was Hodges equally stumped by 9/11, 7/7, Madrid, Bali, Beslan, the Boston bombings? One of the things that didn’t “make sense” to Hodges was that one of the murderers spoke of “our lands,” meaning the Muslim world, even though “he had a south-east London accent.” It was as if the Woolwich killers were the first “home-grown terrorists” to ever come to Hodges’s attention. How remarkable that during all these years when the non-Muslim world has been racked by one death-dealing jihadist assault after another, Hodges’s contemplation of these incidents has apparently yielded absolutely nothing in the way of awareness or insight.

Brendan O’Neill, also writing in the Telegraph, was also purportedly baffled beyond all hope by Tuesday’s events, professing to find it “shocking” and “bizarre” (that word again) that one of the terrorists “claimed to be acting on behalf of all Muslims,” speaking “as if he were a representative of the ummah.” Again, one would have thought that this was the very first time such a thing has ever happened. “How can a couple of men,” O’Neill asked, “so thoroughly convince themselves that they speak for all Muslims, to the extent that they seriously believe their savage and psychotic attack on a man in the street is some kind of glorious act of Islamic resistance?” Unlike Hodges, however, O’Neill had a theory. A certain kind of thinking, he posited, had led directly to the Woolwich atrocity. Jihadist ideology? Nope: contemporary British identity politics. You see, “in this era in which any old fool can claim to be a ‘community spokesperson’, and can be treated seriously as such, these murderous loners seem to be trying a psychotic version of the same trick – claiming that by dint of shared skin colour or common religious sentiment they have the authority to speak on behalf of millions of people they have never met or whose lands they have never visited.” Somehow, O’Neill would appear to have missed the news that it’s not only in Merrie Old England that jihadists have proudly proclaimed themselves to be jihadists.

Some observers emphasized that it was crucial to “keep calm.”  Writing in the Independent, sociologist Frank Furedi urged Brits not to “over-react” – and, moreover, not to “redefine” this “incomprehensible act of violence” (yes, he was mystified too) as “an act of political terrorism.” If O’Neill saw the two killers as products of British identity politics, Furedi, calling it “unlikely” that they had “been busy reading al-Qaeda’s terror manual,” cast them instead as products of “reality entertainment” culture, noting their decision to record their monstrous actions on camera. “The murderers may have adopted the role of idealist jihadists as one of them chanted ‘We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,’” wrote Furedi, “but what they really meant was that we will never stop performing.” Furedi’s advice to his readers: don’t give “recognition to two self-obsessed killers who did not deserve it.”

Michael White made a similar argument under the headline “Woolwich attack: let’s try a bit of keeping calm.” Hey, here’s a thought: could it be, just possibly, that official Britain has been too damn calm for too damn long? How about finally getting a little angry? Just to begin with, how about reforming the insane immigration and deportation policies that have made London a sanctuary for some of the most contemptible preachers of Islamic terror on the planet? How about cutting out all the smooth lies, the slick euphemisms, the talk of “Asians” when the subject is really Muslims? How about somebody in a position of authority screwing up a little courage and facing a few facts – and thereby maybe, just maybe, causing Churchill to stop spinning in his grave?

White had a lot to say. Protesting that the publication of photos of the Woolwich perpetrators’ “rusty knives and meat cleavers” was “indecent” and “voyeuristic,” he proposed that today’s Brits adopt the “Keep Calm and Carry On” attitude of their World War II-era forebears – in other words, turn away from the gruesome images and don’t exaggerate the importance of these evildoers (who might just as easily have been members of some street gang unrelated to Islam rather than “ill-educated and unemployed young men…who have been watching jihadi video nasties on the internet”). Suggesting that the Woolwich killers are “lone wolfs” (sic) whose acts have no wider meaning or organizational backing, he maintained that “the only visibly organised conspiracy” in the picture is the English Defence League (that tacky pack of unspeakable rowdies). He went on to insist that, in any event, ordinary street gangs are “a greater problem for life in our big cities than wannabe jihadis.” And he found it appropriate to add that British soldiers of the non-Islamic persuasion are, after all, sometimes “attacked” or “even occasionally murdered” by “their drunken co-religionists.” So why make a fuss about the Islamic roots of this unfortunate affair? (For good measure, White worked in a passing reference to the nightly riots in Stockholm by “the unemployed.”)

What artful dodgers! The lesson was clear: with very few exceptions, the British elite is terrified to call jihad by its rightful name. It would rather condemn the English Defence League for the thousandth time than choke out even the most muted, gracefully nuanced acknowledgment that there might, in fact, be something of a causal connection between the instructions to the faithful spelled out in the Koran and the actions carried out in Woolwich on Tuesday afternoon. Yet it’s precisely that elite’s dishonest, irresponsible, lily-livered response to abominable transgressions like this one that is driving more and more people into the arms of the EDL. For while Cameron, Livingstone, and company were responding to the Woolwich killing by defending Islam, feigning perplexity, and/or dismissing the idea that this murder had any larger significance, EDL leader Tommy Robinson was speaking the plain and simple truth, accusing the country’s leaders of being “scared to say the word Muslim” and flatly rejecting the fatuous falsehoods about Islam that are proferred in Britain’s classrooms and endlessly reiterated in its media. Said Robinson on Tuesday: “Our next generation are being taught through schools that Islam is a religion of peace. It’s not. It never has been. What you saw today is Islam.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    ” but “also a betrayal of Islam and of the Muslim communities who give so much to our country.”

    How could Britain's Prime Minister be so ignorant? Or has he been paid off?

    From "My Noble Koran" published in Saudi Arabia by the “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an, Madinah, K.S.A.

    “Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). Allah’s Word is made superior, (His Word being Lailaha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfill this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.”
    http://www.muslimfact.com/bm/misc-articles-about-

    By the way, "My Noble Koran" published in Saudi Arabia by the “King Fahd Complex for the Printing of the Holy Qur’an, Madinah, K.S.A. is by far the most widely distributed Koran in the world as 80 percent of the world's mosques are built, owned, and operated by the Saudis and virtually all Korans are distributed through their vast network of mosques by them as well.

    Indeed, jihad is given the "utmost importance in Islam" (not my words, but the Koran's words) and "is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim" (again the Koran's words). Therefore, per the most widely distributed holy Koran, all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world are jihadists in one form or another.

    That also means, by the way, that Muslims, like the two that murdered the young British soldier in cold blood, were not radical extremist Muslims in the least, or as Barack Hussein Obama refers to them, "violent extremists." Instead, they were both mainstream orthodox Muslims that decided suddenly to pursue jihad violently as opposed to non-violently via stealth and deception as the astronomically vast overwhelming majority of Muslims usually do.

    Nevertheless, violent jihad, as opposed to non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, is the highest form of jihad because it usually ends up in martyrdom for the perpetrators, which garners them a one-way ticket to Allah's version of carnal paradise, and that's a very powerful incentive for young male jihadists.

    Moreover, jihad is not terrorism. As a matter of fact, terrorism is not holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam. Indeed, terrorists like the Unabomber, Timothy McVeigh, Bernadine Dohrn, and Bill Ayers, didn't perpetrate their desperate acts of terrorism for the cause of Allah. They did it because they were political extremists, in stark contrast with mainstream orthodox Muslims who all wage jihad, as we see per the text and tenets of Islam, either violently (a tiny minority) or non-violently (the vast overwhelming majority).

    In addition, terrorism is a product of all societies with the only exception being Islamic society, as Muslims and Muslims alone all wage jihad in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam.

    Furthermore, while terrorism is always only violent, jihad, on the other hand, manifest both violently and non-violently. Indeed, the astronomically greatest majority of Muslims in the world are non-violent stealth and deceptive jihadists with only a tiny minority of Muslims being violent jihadists. However, all terrorists, in stark contrast, are always only violent. Hence, its name, "terrorism"! Not to mention, that terrorists, unlike all mainstream orthodox Muslims in the world who are also jihadists in one form or another, are political extremists that are actually outcast from mainstream society. Hence, calling violent jihadists radical Islamic terrorists or violent extremist Muslims is utterly absurd, since they are actually products of mainstream orthodox Islamic society.

    Therefore, pundits in the West need to cease immediately conflating what is really jihad as being terrorism, because it totally confuses the public regarding the actual threat emanating from Islam, leads to people totally ignoring non-violent stealth and deceptive jihad, such as mass Muslim immigration to the West for the long-term strategic purpose of Islamization, since people have become completely conditioned and brainwashed to focus only on stopping terrorism, which is always only violent, and because it also minimizes the actual threat of violent jihad because it lumps it altogether as being terrorism that is perpetrated for various political causes as opposed only for the establishment of Islam.

    Indeed, why did OBL attack us on 9/11/2001? Was it because of America's aggressive foreign policy, as the self-hating Left and Ron Paul kooks all like to claim? No! It was holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, i.e., it was jihad.

    • Parenthetical Phrase

      Question: "How could Britain's Prime Minister be so ignorant? Or has he been paid off?"

      Answer: Yes, he's been paid off by the elite political establishment, by the Saudis, by the politically correct crowd who'd like to destroy what is left of Britain and the West and by the Lefties who feel they can set the whole country alight with riots if they decide to press "let's all riot" button. Any politician who tells the truth can and has been destroyed and Cameron is looking out for himself and playing the game.

  • ObamaYoMoma

    In fact, if jihad was called what it really is, jihad, as opposed to not what it isn't, terrorism, then people would soon begin to learn and understand that jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, and that it is not only the most important pillar of Islam, but also that it is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim.

  • Bashy Quraishy

    Was the London killing of a British soldier 'terrorism'?

    What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

    BY Glenn Greenwald
    Guardian. UK
    23 May 2013

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/

    Two men yesterday engaged in a horrific act of violence on the streets of London by using what appeared to be a meat cleaver to hack to death a British soldier. In the wake of claims that the assailants shouted "Allahu Akbar" during the killing, and a videoshowing one of the assailants citing Islam as well as a desire to avenge and stop continuous UK violence against Muslims, media outlets (including the Guardian) andBritish politicians instantly characterized the attack as "terrorism".
    That this was a barbaric and horrendous act goes without saying, but given the legal, military, cultural and political significance of the term "terrorism", it is vital to ask: is that term really applicable to this act of violence? To begin with, in order for an act of violence to be "terrorism", many argue that it must deliberately target civilians. That's the most common means used by those who try to distinguish the violence engaged in by western nations from that used by the "terrorists": sure, we kill civilians sometimes, but we don't deliberately target them the way the "terrorists" do.
    But here, just as was true for Nidal Hasan's attack on a Fort Hood military base, the victim of the violence was a soldier of a nation at war, not a civilian. He was stationed at an army barracks quite close to the attack. The killer made clear that he knew he had attacked a soldier when he said afterward: "this British soldier is an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."
    The US, the UK and its allies have repeatedly killed Muslim civilians over the past decade (and before that), but defenders of those governments insist that this cannot be "terrorism" because it is combatants, not civilians, who are the targets. Can it really be the case that when western nations continuously kill Muslim civilians, that's not "terrorism", but when Muslims kill western soldiers, that is terrorism? Amazingly, the US has even imprisoned people at Guantanamo and elsewhere on accusations of "terrorism" who are accused of nothing more than engaging in violence against US soldiers who invaded their country.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?

      How convenient and perfect timing! Thanks for coming around as you are exactly the kind of self-hating leftwing loon I need to make my point.

      Indeed, by conflating jihad as being terrorism instead of what it actually is, it opens up the door for these kinds of self-hating leftwing moonbats to stupidly blame America, the UK, and its Allies' foreign policy for creating terrorism and terrorists.

      Nonetheless, jihad is not terrorism. Instead, it's holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam and has been ongoing aggressively and perpetually non-stop against non-Muslim infidels since shortly after the Hijra in 622 AD.

      However, if you conflate jihad as being terrorism, instead of what it really is, holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, then you end up with millions of these kind of self-hating flakes blaming everything and the kitchen sink for terrorism while at the same time never ever realizing that it's actually jihad in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam.

      Anyway dude…thanks for helping me make my point.

    • ziggy zoggy

      Bashy Queerashy,
      "'Terrorism?' What definition of the term includes this horrific act of violence but excludes the acts of the US, the UK and its allies?"

      A factual definition. That's what a definition is – a term that defines reality.

      The US, the UK and their real allies do not commit atrocities to promote islam.

      Being a civilian does not give islamopithecine jihadi terrorists a free pass. Even your boy Barack Hussein Obama wanted to imprison his soul-mate Osama Bin loser for a ridiculous criminal trial but the Navy SEALS who caught up to him wisely shot him dead to prevent just that.

      Mujahaadid Michael is a civilian and I assume you are too. Why should we believe that a civillian's life is worth more than a soldier's, you scum sucking piece of filth?

    • Omar

      What about the constant attacks that Russia and China commit against Israel and Tibet? What about Moscow and Beijing's support for the Baathist dictatorship in Syria? The Communist and neo-Communist governments of Russia and China (as well as their allies) are worse than the fascist regimes that ran Europe prior to World War II.

    • Ghostwriter

      Sorry,Mr. Quraishy. Your arguments DON'T hold water. YOUR people have been attacking us for years,simply because we don't subscribe to the same religion you do. You and your ilk have never condemned a SINGLE terrorist attack on Americans. Save your sob stories. We in America are getting a little tired of Muslims denying what everyone else knows,these attacks are wrong. Please stop insulting our intelligence by pretending otherwise.

      • Bashy Quraishy

        Here is me, denouncing the London murder publicly.
        I hope that you would appreciate this effort, which is part of very strong condemnations by other Muslim leaders.
        Kind regards
        Bashy

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFDJICK_c7E&fe

  • ObamaYoMoma

    Other than the taqiyya coming from the usual suspects, who is actually speaking out in the Islamic society and condemning the unjustified cold-blooded murder of the young British soldier? Only silence, I'm afraid. Nevertheless, we are inviting millions of Muslims to immigrate to America in mass. Indeed, under Barack Hussein Obama, Saudi Arabia, home of fifteen of the nineteen 9/11 jihadists, has a new visas express program. In other words, it's mass Muslim immigration of jihadists without even US scrutiny.

    In any event, people need to recognize that mass Muslim immigration is really stealth jihad for the long-term strategic purpose of Islamization, then ban and reverse it ASAP.

  • damir

    The problem of political correctness, multiculturalism and cultural relativism has it's roots in freemasonry and their influence on politics and media. Almost all high ranking politicians are members of a lodge. Unless all western countries outlaw that cult of freemasonry and arrest as many as possible of them our countries won't get rid of political correctness, if we don't get rid of it, muslims will overrun the west with mass immigration.

    • Mary Sue

      freemasonry? Really? REALLY? Come on, you can do better than that.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "The problem of political correctness, multiculturalism and cultural relativism has it's roots in freemasonry and their influence on politics and media. "

      Multiculturalism created freemasonry, not the other way around. Obviously. How could one created freemasonry out of nothing without previous consensus that all religions have value and all of that nonsense?

      "Unless all western countries outlaw that cult of freemasonry and arrest as many as possible of them our countries won't get rid of political correctness, if we don't get rid of it, muslims will overrun the west with mass immigration."

      You're jumping the gun. It's not freemasonry as a root problem. They do enable leftist policies for sure. But they're just a religious faction of the insane deluded leftists. Want to outlaw all of them too? Nice dream.

  • clanger

    In the 60s the frightfully politically incorrect Enoch Powell – brilliant UK politician, MP and once on a short list for PM – gave a visionary speech intitled "rivers of blood" which predicted exactly what we are seeing now and he paid for it with his political career. I encourage the interested to go on YOuTube for the video. You will be amazed.

  • Mark

    There have been more than 28,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 and they all have one thing in common; they were carried out by Muslims… Yet, here we have the liberals and the media and communists, all one-and-the same, decrying that Islam is a religion of peace. I have personally read the Bible and the Koran even though I am an atheist. Having read the Koran thoroughly, any one that states that Islam is a religion of peace is either a fool or a liar. It is time for white people to stand up and do what we have always done… defeat anyone that stands against us. I do not care for political correctness and am not afraid to call a spade a spade. Islam is mainly a religion for uneducated people of color that are mad at the world to begin with and they are using that anger to carry out ritualistic religious and racial murders at every opportunity they get. This young Brit soldier served his country and returned home only to be killed by the very same enemy in his own country. That is pathetic and shameful!!! The defecation is about to hit the oscillating rotisserie and when it does, these cowards are going to have a rude awakening when the timid white folk get mad enough to strike back. I actively try to push these Pakies over the edge where I live because I just need a reason to stop their hearts from beating. I have been over there and they are nothing more than savages with no value of human life whatsoever. I hope they pull some crap like that in Oklahoma… I will start killing Muslims wholesale and teach them what true terror really is.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      There have been more than 28,000 terrorist attacks since 9/11 and they all have one thing in common; they were carried out by Muslims… Yet, here we have the liberals and the media and communists, all one-and-the same, decrying that Islam is a religion of peace.

      Everyone of you guys that conflate jihad and jihadists as being terrorism and terrorists instead of what it really is, holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, which unlike terrorism is both violent and non-violent, but astronomically far more non-violent as opposed to violent, has been brainwashed by our government.

      Indeed, if jihad was called what it really is, jihad, as opposed to not what it isn't, terrorism, then people would soon begin to learn and understand that jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, and that it is not only the most important pillar of Islam, but also that it is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim.

      Having read the Koran thoroughly, any one that states that Islam is a religion of peace is either a fool or a liar. It is time for white people to stand up and do what we have always done… defeat anyone that stands against us. I do not care for political correctness and am not afraid to call a spade a spade.

      With all due disrespect, your reading comprehension sucks to high heaven, but really….only white people? Give me a break! How about all non-Muslim infidels regardless of race or skin color standing up united against Islam hand in hand as brothers instead of just only white people? That's a much better solution in the long run, as unlike you, Islam is colorblind.

      Islam is mainly a religion for uneducated people of color that are mad at the world to begin with and they are using that anger to carry out ritualistic religious and racial murders at every opportunity they get.

      Apparently, your cognitive capacity also sucks to high heaven, which also, by the way, explains your idiotic racist allegiance to white supremacy. Nevertheless, Islam is a totalitarian cult that masquerades as being a religion and that like Communism before seeks to dominate and subjugate the world into totalitarianism and in this case specifically Islamic totalitarianism.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Nothing Mark wrote was rascist or supremacist.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          Okay…so you agree with him, which means you are also racist and a white supremacist. You loons are a dime a dozen. Big deal!

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Nothing Mark wrote was rascist or supremacist."

          This was racist. I'm not crying about it but if it's really all about being white…then maybe Hitler had a good plan for Germany. Think about it.

          He wrote: "It is time for white people to stand up and do what we have always done."

          It's time for all Western non-Muslims to stand up and do what we don't do often enough.

    • Parenthetical Phrase

      I understand your anger as I share it but reducing the attraction to Islam to a racial level is simply wrong. The world over, throughout the history of Islam, its victims have been people of ALL races and those who bravely stand against Islam are of all races. The Muslims themselves consist of a good many white people, both born into the religion and who convert to it. Just ask the Chechins who are white as are the Bosnian Muslims and those in Kosovo. Even the UK has quite a number of white Muslims including the former mayor of London, Ken Livingston. Let's not give the Left a reason to call us racists. The battle against true Islam and it's call for jihad is not about race: it is about justice and good over evil. That's all.

  • asdf

    The only reason for a "backlash" would be that the authorities are not protecting the general public well in the first place. If the authorities were more honest about the problem and fearlessly called evil out whenever it presented itself, no "backlash" would be necessary.

  • Qu'far Victory Now

    Uhud, Uhud, Mahamud,
    Jaish al-Qu'far saya'ud!!!

    • Drakken

      In response hadji, I say Deo Volente!

    • ziggy zoggy

      You sound like you have a mouthful. Is that haram or kosher?

      • ziggy zoggy

        Qu'eerfor Victory Now.

  • William Sanchez

    I Think the sollution to Europes mess is its experiement with socialism is coming to a conclusion. In both Britian and France, both social and economic systems where set up for the current citizenry and not for immegrants. IN France two Families have to step up and assume the crown, but only one will be the ultimate winner. This time the crown will have to reestablish the plend St. Joan of Arc was fighting for but never achieved. The new King will have to dedicate the country and anounce it in public to the Sacred heart of Jesus. I would like to see how many people in France would jump on his side? This King will be the one great king that was Prophesized to defeat the anti-Christ. In England both currents prince William and Harrie will resume leadership and place Paliment and Prime Minister will have to report and take his or her post at the royal palace, then they will fight the anti-christian forces in their country, there will be many battles some they will lose and some they will win, they will have allies in the northern part of their country. Europe will once again go threw another tribilation

    • Omar

      England is not a country. England is one of four internal divisions (along with Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland) of the country known as the United Kingdom (or Britain). Calling the UK "England" is offensive to Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

  • dannyjeffrey44

    Coming…A New Round Of Terrorism http://www.freedomrings1776.com/2013/05/cominga-n

    • Smote

      Interesting and fascinating.

      So much better to fight for what is right than to die on your knees!

      • dannyjeffrey44

        Said like a true warrior.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Except it isn't terror, it's jihad, which in stark contrast to terror, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam and manifest, also in stark contrast to terror, both violently, as in the cold blooded murder of the young British Soldier, or non-violently via stealth and deception, as in the millions of Muslim stealth jihadists posing as Muslim immigrants in Britain while flat out refusing to assimilate and integrate.

      Indeed, if jihad was called what it really is, jihad, as opposed to not what it isn't, terrorism, then people would soon begin to learn and understand that jihad, in stark contrast to terrorism, is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, and that it is not only the most important pillar of Islam, but also that it is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim.

  • http://www.atlantarofters.blogspot.com SanityInspector

    "Unless we let the terrorists win, the terrorists will have won."
    /multiculturalism

  • http://www.atlantarofters.blogspot.com SanityInspector

    "Entire House Of Lords Beheaded in St. James Square; Police Brace For Backlash" — Guardian headline of the future

  • guest

    Denial? Really? Do you think the elites are just having some
    psychological difficulty here?

    It's not denial if you're doing it on purpose.

    Why are they doing it, that's another question.
    To find this answer, you have to take their perspective,
    and then imagine you're them, and set aside your morals.

    For it to be denial, you grant them such leeway.

  • RUI

    Thank you Dr Bauer for reminding me again why I've read your books tens of times. Each one of your sentences is laden with information and sarcasm. If Orianna Falaci was a poet, you sir are a scientist!

  • RUI
  • Parenthetical Phrase

    This piece by Bawer is the most brilliant writing on the subject I have read and I hope it circulates endlessly. As for the spineless and impotent nincompoops that he quotes, if they weren't real people actually saying these things, one would think they were making up a comedy routine. Tommy Robinson of the EDL, comes off like a statesman. Maybe he's Churchill reincarnated.

  • DrLivingstoneNot

    Family

    Livingstone married Christine Pamela Chapman in 1973; the marriage ended in divorce in 1982. Around that time he became involved with Kate Allen, now director of Amnesty International in the UK; the couple separated in November 2001.[334] Livingstone and Emma Beal, also his office manager, have a son, Thomas, born 14 December 2002 at the University College Hospital, London, and a daughter, Mia, born on 20 March 2004 at the Royal Free Hospital in Hampstead. He also has three other children whose existence was only revealed during the 2008 mayoral election. Neither the children nor their mothers have been named in the media, although it is said that "all the children meet up for Sunday lunch – while his former lovers take it in turns to cook".[335] The children were born to two different women while Livingstone was involved with Kate Allen, according to an article by Decca Aitkenhead:
    In his memoir, he describes how one was an old friend who was keen to have children but feared she was running out of time. "We had never been involved romantically but I knew her well enough to know she would be a wonderful mother and so I said I would like to be the father of her children." A daughter was born in 1990, and another in 1992. Then another friend said she'd like to have children: "And we agreed to have a baby." Their son was born within weeks of his daughter in 1992.[336]

    Livingstone and Beal married on 26 September 2009 in the Mappin Pavilion of London Zoo. They live in North London.[1]

  • Douglas

    People should refer to the late great Lawrence Auster's answer to the Islam question.

    My opinion is a rather depressing on. We have gone over the cliff. Nothing short of an armed resurrection against the elites will stop our plummet. We must get the local police and military on our side much as the French did during the French Revolutiom. However, we proceed, it will be difficult and bloody.

    • Omar

      The French Revolution was a Communist coup led by Robespierre and his Jacobin henchmen. The Jacobins overthrew King Louis XVI (who was an American ally) on the orders of King George III of Britain. The French Revolution inspired Marx to further intensify Communist aggression against the people of the world.

  • ProudLiberal

    We have to ask: why are these young immigrants so disaffected? Have we addressed their grievances adequately? It is time to re-examine not only our foreign policy, but also be honest about the racism so prevalent in our society. We also badly need an honest inter-faith dialogue.

    • Drakken

      Cowards like you you really bloody well irk the hell out of me, it is our western culture that brings us into the 21st century you effing dolt. If you want to sacrifice yourself on the alter of political correctness and multi cultural stupidity, you go right ahead, the rest of us who are proud of our culture and our weastern accomplishments won't, we will give you total war before that happens, God may forgive you, the rest of us won't.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      I hate to rain on your moronic self-hating parade, but racism or foreign policy isn't a factor whatsoever you self-hating loser, as Muslims have been waging jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, perpetually, aggressively, and preemptively against non-Muslim infidels since shortly after the Hijra in 622 AD, (i.e., Muhammad's migration from Mecca to Medina after being cast out of Mecca).

      Hence, if you blame the 9/11 violent jihad attacks on America's foreign policy, which according to most leftwing loons like you creates terrorism and terrorists, then you are a certified moonbat. As jihad, again holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, and terrorism are not one and the same manifestations as you morons all stupidly assume.

      For instance, terrorism is always only violent and terrorism is never ever holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam. Indeed, terrorists like Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and the Unabomber didn't do it in the cause of Islam, they did it instead because they were unhinged leftwing loons! Meanwhile, jihad, on the other hand, is both violent, as in the two Jihadists that killed the young British soldier, and non-violent via stealth and deception, as in the millions of jihadists living in the UK and posing as immigrants while at the same time flat out refusing to assimilate and integrate and instead forming Muslim no-go zones ruled by sharia. Indeed, Muslims never ever migrate to the West to assimilate and integrate. Instead, they migrate to the West to eventually dominate and subjugate via the eventual imposition of sharia.

      • ziggy zoggy

        Ted kaxzynski was not a terrorist or leftist. He was a brilliant conservative who became a murderer to seek revenge.

        • ObamaYoMoma

          He was a leftwing enviro-wacko who morphed into a terrorist. Now quit bugging me.

        • objectivefactsmatter

          "Ted kaxzynski was not a terrorist or leftist. He was a brilliant conservative who became a murderer to seek revenge."

          He was critical of leftists but apparently because they were sell outs and didn't get serious enough about revolution. He wanted to "conserve" the environment.

          He's a maniacal and insane leftist with so much hubris that he can't see himself as part of anything in any established movement. It seems that other leftists were not radical enough for him.

          You'd have to try very, very hard to associate him with conservatives and it would be very easy to destroy your arguments.

    • Omar

      You're not a liberal. You're a leftist. You have nothing in common with real liberals like John Locke, Adam Smith and George Washington.

    • ObamaYoMoma

      You're conflating what is really jihad, which is holy fighting in the cause of Allah for the establishment of Islam, as being terrorism and then blaming racism and our foreign policy for creating it. Do you know how unhinged that is? You self-hating leftwing loons are beyond brain dead!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "We have to ask: why are these young immigrants so disaffected? Have we addressed their grievances adequately? It is time to re-examine not only our foreign policy, but also be honest about the racism so prevalent in our society. We also badly need an honest inter-faith dialogue."

      This is a joke, right? You're parroting brain-dead leftists. I get it.

      Maybe the guy in London couldn't launch his boxing career according to his dream, or the delusions fed to him by lying leftists made him feel like a victim for having dark skin.

  • Burlington

    In response to this horrific murder of Sgt. Rigby , the soldiers at the nearby military barracks were either requested or ordered to wear civilian clothes off base. This is the definition of dhimminitude. I would hope that the British soldiers would all go off base in full uniform wearing a scabbard and bayonet.

  • http://twitter.com/DebraCostanzo2 @DebraCostanzo2

    as Fred explained I'm amazed that people can earn $8836 in four weeks on the computer. did you look at this page… up444.c­om

  • jzsnaake

    Bruce I can't say it enough, you are the greatest.

  • http://twitter.com/quillerm @quillerm

    Yusuf Ibrahim, a Muslim man, targeted and murdered two Coptic Egyptian Christian men who lived and worked in New Jersey. He beheaded them and cut off their hands. This attack happened in February 2013, but few Media Outlets covered the incident. What's the big deal about some guy getting beheaded in London? Our State Controlled Media doesn't cover such trivial events. The threat of mass hysteria due to Islamophobia is far more important than the truth.

  • bolg

    Have you noticed the new term coined overnight – 'self-indoctrinated'? It is supposed to suggest 'nothing to do with islam, nothing to do with hate preachers, nothing to do with radical groups'.
    Nice try…

    • ObamaYoMoma

      Actually, all mainstream orthodox Muslims are jihadists in one form or another, as jihad is a holy fundamental duty incumbent upon all Muslims. Hence, the last thing those two Muslim jihadists that killed the young British soldier were, are radical Muslims. Indeed, they are as mainstream as it gets since again all mainstream orthodox Muslims are jihadists. Otherwise, they are blasphemous apostates in which case they must be executed. Indeed, our respective governments and politicians are lying to us, or otherwise incompetent as hell.

  • Hans

    Is this the new human that the reds wanted?

    Do you know that they wanted to mix humans and monkeys?Thats no joke!The want people with no brain but many muscles.

  • Steve Fraser

    The Inner Party's most important and essential goal is the destruction of common sense. Then the individual will cease to exist and the State will become all powerful.

  • Winston

    Just thinking about “Islamic denial” makes me wonder if this complete and thorough blindness… a veil drawn over the spiritual eyes… is what transforms normal human thinking into having an anti-Christ spirit controlling the mind. THE Anti-Christ will take over the world along with the false prophet with Satan working through both… and they cannot have minions of followers (false believers) without their mind being controlled.

  • Ellman

    The depth and strength of the denial that these defenders and apologists of Islam possess is at least as powerful as that of down-and-out drug addicts on cocaine and heroine. I don't know any other way to describe or to understand their complete disconnect from such an obvious reality: the jihadists are real, they are dangerous, they are true believers, they are devoutly religious, they read the Koran assiduously and it is the Koran and their religion which motivates them and EXPLAINS why they commit such atrocities. One has to be delusional or work extremely hard to transform their barbarism into justifiable homicide and to blame it on the host country and its culture! These are savages who need to be incarcerated and/or deported!

  • mutosheep

    I am torn between my sympathy for the English citizens who are under siege by the Ummah and my fear for America which is also under the foreign rule of Saudi Arabia. As a veteran of OIF4 I state that we should’ve declared open war against the Saudis a long time ago before ever going into Iraq or Deuchebagistan. We also should have killed every Muslim in Syria. Syria, like Constantinople, never was a rightful part of Dar Al Islam. The queers and druggies on the left should show some solidarity because they are the first to be brutally raped, tortured, and killed in every land the Muzzies invade.

  • Mikael T

    Shame of craven mainstream leftist media of Britain.

    Muslim apologists and Muslim-sympathizers ardently want us to be more tolerant, or rather meek, towards Islamic dogma and the misdeeds of its adherents, yet these disingenuous, deceitful sophists are perfectly alright with a whole slew of hate crimes engendered by hateful, opprobrious nonsense that these very Islamic beliefs spread against every other faith.

    Islam, a form of severe psychosis, is the ultimate bane on modern civilization.

  • Leevi Koskivuori

    A good read… Nice first step to mild down the casualties would be actually understanding that these people are extremists, instead of blaming a whole religion for whatever crimes mentioned people convict.