Tuesday, 24 March 2009

I've heard it all now

I've just been watching Sky News who were doing a World News piece on Pakistan following the bomb attack on a police station and I had to rewind the coverage to make sure I heard what I thought I heard, and unfortunately I did.

Jeremy Thompson announced "...I have been speaking to a number of people, especially moderate Pakistanis about the violence in the area..."

I didn't know you could get a moderate Pakistani? Do they come in radical too? Of course, this is an attempt to remove any reference at all to their country's religion or it's followers (i.e. Islam or Muslims) when talking about violence, bombing, killing, maiming, and intolerance regardless that these traits are well woven into any Islamic regimes on Earth you can care to mention.

This is almost as sickening as Obamas rebranding of terrorism to 'man caused disaster'.

Regardless of what they call it, it's NOT going to go away, the moderate whatevers or man-caused disasters will continue to happen and only the stupid will still believe that they are random and unconnected instead of being inspired by an evil ideology not seen since Nazism.

They also had Imran Khan (ex cricketer) spouting something about Pakistan not experiencing suicide bombings until after the Allies had invaded Afghanistan - are you sure Imran? What about this?

"The first suicide attack was occurred in the
country's capital Islamabad in 1995 when the bomber rammed his explosives-laden
truck into the embassy of Egypt which killed 14 people. The bomber was

Now correct me if I'm wrong but we didn't invade Afghanistan until 2001 which is after 1995? Of course, it doesn't matter though because he's said it and the leftists will lap it up and store it as another soundbite to use when preaching their anti-American, pro-Islam bullshit.

Saturday, 21 March 2009

Stop press: IDF state the obvious, Western Media in tailspin

"You are fighting a religion war against gentiles: What Rabbis told Israeli soldiers in Gaza" - Daily Mail (20/03/09)

Why is this news? Muslims are attempting to kills as many Jews as possible as dictated in the Quaran:

Quaran 2:193 - "And fight them until there is no more fitnah [disbelief] and religion is only for Allah. But if they cease/desist, let there be no hostility except against infidel disbelievers."


Quaran 4:55 - "Sufficient for the Jew is the flaming fire"


Quaran 2:96 - "We will not remove a Jew from the punishment. They know the shameful thing that awaits them."

Infact, there are simply too many to quote from the Quaran which reads like a poorly written hate manifesto but the point is that Muslims are simply carrying out orders given to them by Satan...I mean...Allah.

Furthermore, Hamas are open about their objective, a Jihad against Israel. Last time I checked Jihad meant holy war so they consider their actions to be religiously motivated.

So now we have a 'revelation' that the IDF were told by a Rabbi that the war was a religious war and this somehow makes the news as an attempt to portray the Jews as the terrorists. This is no different than Chaplains blessing British troops before they go into battle yet it doesn't make us crusaders.

This is not a revelation, it's just another attempt at making Israel look like the bad guy and rubbish the Jewish faith to those who are receptive to the message without checking the details i.e. Muslims and left wing moonbats who are in bed with them.

But what about being authorised to kill civilians? Civilians always get in the way but targeting them directly (which is what Hamas do yet there is no outrage?) is a no no. But this came from the IDF right? Wrong. Melanie Phillips explains. Yet another case of blatant media bias publishing fiction as fact which may or may not get a retraction but by then it doesn't matter, the fix is in.

Why don't the IDF don't just bulldoze Gaza into the Mediterranean? This is a war. The press will demonise them whatever they do so why not just get the job done? All you need to do is give Hamas a warning - the next rocket that lands on our soil triggers a 10 day unstoppable countdown. Safe passage will be arranged for anyone wanting to relocate in the West Bank or other Arab nation that will have you [chuckle] and anyone left will be fair game - hopefully lefties will flock there in a bid to act as human shields so they can be dispensed also. Carpet bomb it first, then napalm to flush out any fox holes, a period of surveillance and then the armour goes in followed by bulldozers. Job done.

They have declared war on you, what are you waiting for?

Gallows for Galloway

Let's start the weekend with some good news:

"Canada bans George Galloway on ground of national security" - (Daily Mail 20/03/09)

The best quote of all "...a spokesman for Canada's immigration minister Jason Kenney insisted the decision, taken by border security officials, would not be overturned for a 'infandous* street-corner Cromwell' (*'infandous: too odious to be expressed or mentioned)."

Finally, one Western country grows a pair. Too bad Britain can ban him too. Galloway is a traitor and if I were PM I would have him hung for treason. He is colluding with the enemy, spreading their lies, and preying on common senseless liberals who are suffering from a mental illness otherwise known as moral relativism.

Sunday, 15 March 2009

Third time lucky?

Do the Germans honestly believe that after two failed attempts they can win a third world war? Yes, they probably do (Daily Mail 14/03/09 - The far right is on the march again: The rise of Fascism in Austria)

Of course I know that geographically Austria is not Germany but they might as well be and let's not forget that Hitler was Austrian.

What has this to do with Islam? This.

Haj Amin al-Husseini was jealous of Hitler's anti-Jewish 'programmes' and wanted the final solution to be extended to the Arab world and in particular wanted the two countries to release a statement regarding the 'illegality of the Jewish home in Palestine' - sound familiar?

Of course, there is no anti-semitism in the Quaran because everything it says about the Jews such as damning them to eternity, urging Muslims to kill them wherever they find them, being equivalent to apes and pigs, evil, mischief makers, has been taken out of context and means something different in the original Arabic scripture that Westerners, even those fluent in Arabic, just don't understand.

I think the precursors to WW3 are shaping up and instead of a Churchill in the wings we have a Government and a populus full of Chamberlains. God help us all.

Too little, too late Ahmed

Do you hear that? It's the worlds smallest violin: Lord Ahmed is out of prison and is sorry (Daily Mail, 15/03/09)

In case you didn't know, Lord Ahmed, the first Muslim Peer - thanks for that one Tony Blair - was texting on his mobile whilst driving and then murder...I mean, collided with Slovakian Martyn Gombar whilst he was beside his broken down car on the M1 who died from his injuries.

But it's OK, the British Legal system threw the book at him for dangerous driving which ultimately led to a death of an innocent man...hang on, I was dreaming, he served 16 days of his 12 week sentence. 16 days.

One part of the article I find particularly sickening:

"I didn't know at the time, but Mr Gombar was over the legal alcohol limit, which may have been why his car had spun out of control and why he was standing there like he was."

What a strange thing to say, so it was Mr Gombars fault that Lord Ahmed was texting instead of concentrating on the road ahead. Priceless. Of course, taking Lord Ahmed's religion into account we know that alcohol is forbidden in Islam (until you get to Jannah of course where rivers flow with wine) which automatically makes Mr Gombar guilty in Lord Ahmed's book thus I wouldn't be surprised if he considers causing his death as bringing glory to Allah.

Lord Ahmed's defense was that the last text he had sent was two minutes before the accident and if I was a lawyer I would have argued to point regarding the operative word - sent. Just because he had last sent a text 2 minutes before the accident which was the fifth text he had sent in total doesn't mean he wasn't typing his sixth when it happened.

Still, the deed is done and it's not going to bring back Mr Gombar. Of course, there's no excuse for drink driving at all and if it were up to me I would set the limit at zero but he shouldn't have had to pay for it with his life and wouldn't have if Lord Ahmed had been concentrating on the road instead of his mobile.

The fact that he only got a 12 week sentence is a disgrace, and that he only served 16 days is a crime and I'm saying this not just because he's a Muslim, it would apply across the board. But as a member of the House of Lords, he needs to be setting an example, and this is a disgraceful one.

To be honest, Ahmed should have lost his peerage when he threatened to summon 10,000 Muslims on the House of Lords to stop Geert Wilders showing his film Fitna, this is pure Muslim intimidation at its worst. Naturally Ahmed has denied ever saying this which is most circumstances would be believeable were it not for a particularly memorable event in Islamic history, the storming of Mecca when Mohammed miraculously summoned...wait for it...10,000 Muslims.

I'm afraid I don't believe that this will haunt Lord Ahmed for the rest of his life as he says, I suspect he has rationalised it with his faith, after all, the Quaran mandates the killing of those guilty of disobeying Allah and I bet he sleeps like a baby knowing that he has done Allah's work.

Wednesday, 11 March 2009

Luton routes cross dressers

Of course, by cross dressers I actually mean Muslims.

These scenes follow a Muslim protest in Luton following the Royal Anglian Regiment returning from a tour in Afghanistan. They were brandishing plackards that displayed messages that were full of the joys of community harmony such as 'Butchers of Basra', 'Murderers', you know, the usual messages we've come to expect from the Religion of Peace (RoP).

Of course, in good old mutliculturalist Britain what do the police do? Arrest 2 members...of the crowd who didn't appreciate such hateful, slanderous messages. One was charged with racially aggravated harassment (!) and the other for climbing on top of a building and throwing a packed of bacon at them. Why waste a perfectly good packet of bacon on them I ask?

Where is Jacqui Smith? Why isn't she urging the police to arrest the plackard wavers for upsetting community harmony? Because she's a Dhimmi that's why and she's quite happy for the native British to be sacrificed by Allah's demons again and again rather than appear to be 'insensitive' or 'inclusive'. Well Jacqui, the people have spoken and if you don't sort out these scum, the people are going to do it for you and you're sensitivity trained police officers will be powerless to stop it.

Anyway, I've said too much, enjoy the vid.

Thursday, 19 February 2009


Here's a great take on how meaningless the slur of Islamophobia is (watch the whole thing but the explanation begins at 3:50):

Definition of a phobia: "an anxiety disorder characterized by extreme and irrational fear of simple things or social situations"

As Pat says, "...there is nothing irrational about a fear of Islam when you look at the evidence in countries where Islam has control there's repression, torture, precious few human rights and there's no free speech and if the Muslim Council of Britain had it's way, Britain would be one of those countries and I would be arrested and tortured for making this video."

Saturday, 14 February 2009

Britain, one step closer to Sharia

OK Britain, our Government turned away Geert Wilders to prevent enraging the local Muslim population thus they have now confirmed our second rate status of Dhimmi to our Muslim masters. This is where we are now and if being Islam's bitch isn't enough self imposed humiliation to our Government, the next stop on this road to oblivion is Sharia law. So let's ask ourselves a question - who benefits from Sharia law?

Not Women

Under Sharia law, a woman is only worth half that of a man. She is an object for the man to use as he pleases. She must cover up most of her body whilst out in public lest she entice other Muslim males to rape her for causing temptation or kill her for not being Muslim enough. Still, if she is lucky enough to be raped instead of killed, she can always take the perps to court as long as she can provide four male witnesses who can testify to the rape and who actually saw the act of penetration. If she can't, well, too bad, she'll then be stoned to death for bringing shame to her family.

Of course, I'm jumping the gun a bit here talking of marriage, she's had 18 years of freedom before this right? Wrong. Turns out a woman can be married off by her parents from quite an early age. What, 14? 15? Actually there isn't a minimum age. Muhammed, Islam's esteemed Prophet, took Aisha as his bride when she was 6 years old. In case you didn't catch that, Muhammed, the person all Muslims hold as the purist symbol of existence, married a six year old girl. Still, he waited until she was nine before he consumated the marriage, what a guy! If at this point you're thinking 'Yeah, well that was 1400 years ago, it's not like it's happening today' you'd be wrong and wrong again.

Still, you can refuse to be married off can't you? Yes, as long as you're good at running away and keeping a low profile from the rest of your family who might try and kill you for dishonouring the family.

If running away doesn't appeal to you and you go through with the marriage then that's OK because you'll be treated with respect wont you? Yes, as long as you do everything your Husband tells you, dress modestly (especially when outdoors), bear Sons instead of Daughters, attend the Mosque (you'll even have your own dedicated area for women, you lucky thing!) and don't answer back. It's OK though, because if you forget any of these things your Husband will know exaclty how to beat you as mandated in the Quar'an (4:34).

Beware though, if you feel like having your own identity instead as being treated as an object and wearing a tent your husband might divorce you. Thankfully though, Sharia a really efficient divorce procedure - for men that is. If he says 'I divorce thee' three times then you'll be out on your heel Mrs. If you want to divorce him however, you'll need to take him to court. Again, lucky for you Britain already has Sharia courts up and running so you needn't worry about receiving a favourable outcome but more a totally unfair outcome as you will be used to being a woman under Islam.

Not Homosexuals

Homosexuality is a sin under Islam. If you're caught, well, actually if you are suspected of being homosexual then I'm afraid your outlook is pretty grim. If you ever over hear a Muslim talk about a homosexual being well hung, they aren't referring to the size of his manhood, this is what they mean and the best you've got to look forward to.

Not Black People

Did you know the Arabs were the original slave masters? If you didn't then it's a fair gamble that you probably don't know who their favourite people to enslave were black people from Africa. That's all in the past right, they wouldn't consider blacks like that nowadays would they?
Still, they don't say the N word do they? No, but they do call all non-believers Kafir, a variation of this word (kaffer) was adopted in Africa as a racial slur against Black people. Yes, they invented that one but it's OK though, because all non-believers are considered inferior to Muslims, not just black people.

Not Non-Believers

When you are given your three choices (convert, agree to dhimmi status and pay tax to your Muslim masters, or die), if you decide that Islam isn't for you but don't want to die then Dhimmi status is the only way to go. Unfortunately for you, you have to pay a tax (the size of which is determined by your Muslim masters) and are forbidden for practising the faith of your choice openly. You can do so in private of course, as long as you keep it down and don't let your neighbours hear you lest they think you are trying to convert them in which case you will probably end up dead.

Not Female Children

Especially if you get married off to a nonce, sorry, a well respected Muslim gentleman as described in the second paragraph of 'Not Women' section above.

That's some list isn't it? So basically, Muslim Men only benefit from Sharia, especially if you like to beat your wife, mutilate your daughters, take chidren as brides, like your women to wear shapeless, humiliating garbs, and hang around mostly other unclean Muslim men.

If you know your history you'll know that not all of the above groups that wont benefit under Islam have always had favourable rights in this country and we've come a long way as a society and shed a lot of blood to get where we are today. We are the custodians of the liberties our forefathers fought for and handed to us, they are not ours to squander for sake of defending the sensibilities of a religion that originated and is best suited to the lonely desert of Arabia.

One thing is for sure, as soon as Sharia Law becomes mainstream in this country, we'll be right back at square one.

Perhaps the most insulting part of this whole charade of having to 'embrace' sharia is that of just how blatantly contradictory it is to liberal values and it's the most liberal liberals who are championing it! Well, no more, and not in my name. Like Churchill said about the defense of our Island against the onslaught of Nazi tyranny, we shall never surrender and if needs be, die fighting.

Thursday, 12 February 2009

Low key, big impact Jihad

There's nothing new about forest fires, especially in Austrailia during the dry, hot summer. Or is there?

Last September, the Age reports on an Islamic Group called Al-Ikhlas Network that argued in arabic that lighting fires is an effective form of terrorism justified in Islamic law under the eye for an eye doctrine. You're damn right it's effective.

The forest fires we've witnessed with horror this week in Victoria, Australia, have left 181 people dead, 500 homes destroyed and devastated over 1000 square miles of of land.

And today, the Times reports that the Australian police have released a photo fit of the person they are looking for in connection with the fires. Let's have a look shall we?

Hmm, I'm no racial profiler but I would say the photo depicts someone who is quite Asian in appearance, no? Of course, you can't ignore Austrailia's indigenous Aborigines who are distinctive in appearance with dark hair, eyes, and skin however one redeeming feature that is missing from this photofit is the wide nose that is common Aboriginal facial feature.

Of course, neither can you discount the fact that not all Asians are Muslims. It's just as likely that a fundamentalist Christian group is....no wait...scrap that, it's not likely at all is it, let's just get down to business. In all likelihood, what has transpired in Austrailia is a new flavour of terrorism. A low key, low effort, low sophistication type of terrorism that even the stupidest of Jihadi's can figure out how to carry out. Stupid or not, the death toll and destruction cannot be ignored and doesn't bode well for Western countries that could potentially be exposed to this threat as detering another attack would be nigh on impossible.

One saving grace is that this happened in Austrailia, the one country that is most likely to take drastic action against Islam/Muslims if they are caught and indeed turn out to be so. Let's hope they catch them whilst the world remains interested.

19/02/09 - Update
Austrailian police arrested Brendan Sokaluk as the suspected arsonist. I have only seen a scrambled picture from his MySpace page but he looks caucasian to me and not as depicted in the above photofit. Interestingly he has also been charged with possessing child pornography and it's well known for Jihadi's to use such sites for communicating because of their high security to protect their identities. It could be coincidence of course.

Sunday, 8 February 2009

Britain - please, for the love of God, wake up!

"Foster parent who has looked after 80 children struck off - because a Muslim girl in her care became a Christian" - Daily Mail (07/02/09)

After a hectic day I was all set for a peaceful Saturday night watching TV and some light reading when I stumbled upon the above headline. Needless to say I am now fuming with anger.

In short, a foster carer who was charged with the care of a Muslim girl who came to her to discuss the possibility of becoming a Christian has been sacked because of Council...

"accused her of failing to 'respect and preserve' the child's faith"

You have to read the full article to believe it.

This is nothing short of a socialist frontal assault on a religion deemed to be 'unequal' in the multiculturalist handbok. The 'minority' has to be protected by any means necessary from any sort of influence from the 'majority' whether it wants to protected or not!

It's a clear cut case of socialist liberal thought whose manifestation is so deluded with it's own self-righteousness, no consideration is made for the intentions of the subject.

In this case, a young girl who is well aware of the implications of how apostasy from Islam is dealt with in Muslim countries (beheading, stoning, hanging, having each lim attached to four vehicles/hores and then ripped apart) WANTS to convert to Christianity and WANTS her carer to introduce her to the church.

At this point, all sensible people stop and say, "OK, it's your choice."

But common sense is not in the multiculturalist handbook, you have to check this in at the introduction and forget about it. In it's place is a political and social doctrine that denies free will if it contradicts what is deemed 'acceptable'.

They clearly haven't been able to stop the girl converting to Christianity so instead they do the next best thing, punish the person who facilitated the 'transgression' in order to send a message to everyone else about the consequences should it be repeated. This is nothing short of totalitarianism.

Would the same have happened if a Muslim carer had converted a Christian child in her care to Islam? Of course not! Islam is an accepted 'minority' religion in the multiculturalist handbook, a religion and it's followers who must be left along and whose needs must be met at all times whatever the cost, even if the cost is offending the 'majority' who are expected to just keep quiet and accept it. Not keeping quiet is considered Islamophobic.

The same goes for homosexuality. This is acceptable and any deviation from the path will result in the carers receiving the same fate. In this case, the Christian couple refused to sign up to Labour's sexual orientation regulations as part of the Equality Act 2006 that would require them to discuss same sex relationships with children as young as 11 and promote that they were as valid as hetrosexual marriages. As this goes against their Christian beliefs they refused and have now been removed from the carers register.

Then there is the case of the nurse who is facing disciplinary action for simply to offer to pray for a sick patient.

The patient politely refused but it was the nurse's colleague who raised the alarm! The patient wasn't offended and doesn't want any action taken against the nurse but it doesn't matter, the PC police have their prey and will not be letting fo.

What does this have to do with Jihad? Everything.

The rabid pursuit of multiculturalist, PC policy in this country is leaving a huge religious vacuum in this country, a vacuum being rapdily filled by Islam. Muslims are a protected species and their numbers are growing.

It's easier (albeit longer) to take over a country from within by outbreeding the natives than it is to wage conventional war against them. What we are witnessing in this country is cultural subversion but amazingly they are being witlessly aided an abetted by our own people! It's right in line with The Project, a long term plan by the Muslim Brotherhood to bring down the West from within. The reason why Westerners have a hard time understanding the plan is because we have no patience, everything has to be done now thus the idea of a plan that is designed to take time does not compute.

Why do you think Israel constantly rejects the 'Right of Return' clause in each and every attempt at a peace deal? It's because the Palestinian Authority insists on the application of right of return not just to those who fled the conflict in 1948 but also their descendants too. By agreeing to this demand Israel would be signing it's own death warrant because they would immediately be the minorty in their own country which would immediately be a security risk but also allow a majority party of Palestinian Arabs to be formed in the Knesset who could effectvely remove the state from existence.

And this is exactly what is happening to Britain. Our culture is being quietly replaced by an import form the Middle East. Sharia courts are up and running. The slightest criticism, nay, discussion on Islam is considered Islamophobic and immediately curtailed. The sum effect is that we can't even mention what's threatening our culture, and if we can't mention it then w have to talk around it, and when we talk around it it's easy to marginalise as an eleborate conspiracy theory.

Imagine the 9/11 conspiracy theorists having CCTV footage of government contractors systematically fitting the WTC towers and building 7 with explosive charges months before September 11th, and a memo from the State Department insisting that key employees do not show up to work on September 11th for their own safety, and to top it off a signed confession from G.W. Bush that he orchestrated the attacks in a bid to pursue an aggressive foreign policy. Imagine having all this evidence and still being marginalised as conspiracy theorists? It would be ridiculous wouldn't it?

(For the record, I don't buy into the 9/11 conspiricies one iota)

Well, the evidence of our culture being subverted is all around us and still only a handful believe it.

I do believe more and more people are starting to wake up but this in itself is a dangerous situation because there is no available outlet for frustration apart from the ballot box which will inevitably lead to gains by such parties as the BNP. Whilst the BNP are switched on to the Islamist threat, I don't trust them not to harbour racist and anti-semetic policies they have had in the past. Even though I would fit into the demographic that would be deemed 'acceptable' by the BNP I would be uncomfortable with such people in charge. What we need in this country that is a blend of Nationalist/Conservativism rather than Nationalist outright.

One thing is for sure, if the problem continues to grow unabated and unchallenged I can honestly see a state of Civil War ensuing. People think that civil wars are in the past and we're far too civilised for anything to happen again but fail to listen to warnings resounding from the past. People only need to take a look at the last British Civil War in the 17th century to see how quickly things can go from normal everyday life to fully blown Civil War.

I for one would rather die fighting that be subjected to a life in a beastly hybrid of a communist islamic state we are currently heading towards if as a nation we don't WAKE UP and smell the halal!