No one yet knows if the unexpected
emerging attacks on British civilians
by hate-filled Islamist
is: (a) the start of decades or even centuries
of sporadic bloodshed,
or: (b) merely a short utopian fad that will soon end
as Islamism is crushed in the West.
The rants and lies of the enemy butcher Mohammad Sidique Khan.
Killer of innocents for a being called "Allah", which he believes exists. "We are at war and I am a soldier",
says this vile coward who targets civilians.
A hostile enemy of France somehow learns the French language so he can threaten the country.
Video released February 14, 2015.
Every true Frenchman feels the same way about this enemy of their country.
Unlike Spain, Britain will not break.
This killing will achieve nothing.
points out, this,
the jihad's first attack on an Anglosphere city
in four years since 9/11,
was in many ways pathetic.
Awful and sickening as these attacks are, we expected worse.
For four years we have been expecting much worse than this at any time,
and this is all they came up with.
The jihad is having extreme difficulty following up 9/11.
Not just is security much tighter,
but thousands of their men have been killed,
and a new front has opened in Iraq which is taking their attention away from attacks against the
The new front threatens their home countries with democracy and
and they must fight to stop this.
Instead of just defending our own countries, we have gone after theirs.
And that is keeping us safer.
"the practice of engaging an enemy on one front to weaken him on another
has been tested from antiquity".
Awful and sickening as these attacks are, they demonstrate Islamism's
weakness, not its strength.
As Fernandez concludes:
"The enemy is even now dying at our feet, where we should kick him and kick him again."
He believes, as I do, that the Islamic fascists have no chance
when pitted against the men and women of the free world.
He sees the people of London
"United, tending to their dead and wounded, but looking out at the world beyond
with a derisive snarl and a clenched fist, like one of those
from the Second World War,
belittling the designs of the enemy: Is this the best they can do?"
How to end the jihad:
The solution, though, is not just to grimly carry on with life.
The solution is to win, to destroy the jihadis' world.
To demoralise them, humiliate them, and make them lose all hope.
This is the only thing that will end the violence.
We have taken Afghanistan away from them.
It is time to take Iran and Saudi Arabia away from them as well.
Extreme, you say?
No one has the stomach for another war, you say.
I'm sure you are right.
But if so, the jihad will carry on.
The jihad will never end until the regimes of
Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt end.
That's the horrible truth.
You can do it by hot war or by cold war.
But these regimes must end
and be replaced by free societies.
You can do everything else to ensure "peace" and stability, to avoid war.
Address Islamic "grievances".
Withdraw from Iraq.
Withdraw from the entire Middle East.
"Solve" the Israel-Palestine issue.
End Israel's very existence.
Increase security at home.
Do what you like.
But the jihad will go on.
The culture that gives rise to the jihad must be changed.
Or the jihad will never end.
These evil young men
lived in a free, prosperous and tolerant society,
yet rejected it
and slaughtered utterly innocent civilians
in the cause of holy religious fascism.
Mohammad Sidique Khan
The transcript of his video
shows that he killed dozens of innocent people
because he worships a being called "Allah",
which he believes exists.
shows the Islamist demons celebrating the London bombings.
Shehzad Tanweer and his fellow religious maniacs
openly say that after destroying Israel,
they want to conquer Spain, and so on, in a war without end
until the Islamist jackboot is stamping on every human face on earth.
by Dan Riehl,
takes the piss out of
The fact that the bombers were British has of course
led the Guardian, the Independent,
and the rest of the deluded British left
to unleash a tidal wave of commentary about the supposed
"root causes" of the bombing
- racism, alienation, poverty, etc.
does a roundup of these fantasy "root causes".
note, we should remember a few things:
Racism and poverty were a hundred times worse
for Muslim immigrants to Britain in the past (such as in the 1950s),
yet they did not turn to Islamism and violence.
Why is it only their more prosperous children who do?
Racism and alienation have been felt by
almost all other immigrants,
from Jews to Hindus to Sikhs.
Yet they did not turn to violence. Why is it only Muslims who do?
When young western jihadis are found in Iraq and Afghanistan,
they are almost all European, very few American.
Why is this?
Terror attacks in the West seem to be
carried out by foreigners in America,
but by locals in Europe.
Interesting how the 9/11 bombers had to be brought in from abroad,
whereas the Madrid bombers were local Moroccan immigrants
and the London bombers were local Pakistani immigrants.
failed 21 July bombers
were refugee immigrants, and
failed 2006 bombers
were Pakistani immigrants.
And consider how the intifada by western Muslims
has begun in Europe (specifically in France), not in America.
White Briton converts to Islam, becomes leading Islamic terrorist.
Ordinary white Briton
was born in 1983.
She converted to Islam and married jihadist
Germaine Lindsay in 2004.
He carried out the 7/7 bombing in London in 2005,
possibly with her help.
Now she is a senior Al Shabaab terrorist in Africa.
Photo of her before she went insane.
The pro-Islamist, pro-Iran, anti-American, anti-Israeli
Ken Livingstone spews the propaganda of the 7/7 bombers, Nov 2015.
Livingstone says the 7/7 bombings are Britain's fault:
"they did those killings because of our invasion of Iraq.
They gave their lives, they said what they believed.
They took Londoners' lives in protest against the invasion of Iraq.
If we hadn't invaded Iraq, those four men would not have gone out and killed 52 Londoners."
In protest against a war?
Hundreds of thousands of Brits protested the Iraq War.
But not by slaughtering innocent Brits!
What kind of psycho protests a war by bombing the tube?
What a revolting man Ken Livingstone is.
It's crap history, anyway.
The 7/7 leader
Mohammad Sidique Khan was not "radicalised" by the Iraq War.
He was already an Islamic terrorist before 9/11.
He was at a
terrorist training camp in Afghanistan in 2001,
long before the Iraq War.
tries to murder a mother and child on video.
21 July 2005.
An awesomely brave passenger,
confronts the Islamist,
and stays to help the mother and child escape.
Incredibly, all four failed bombers were refugees who the UK had kindly given asylum to!
They left the hellhole countries of Somalia
and Ethiopia - made hellholes because of radical Islam
- and were lucky enough to be allowed into the wonderful, free, rich country of Great Britain
- free and rich precisely because its values are more or less the opposite of radical Islam.
Instead of being grateful to Britain forever,
and admiring it,
they adopted the moron ideas of radical Islam themselves,
and repaid its kindness by trying to attack Britain and kill random British people.
A typical whinging reaction
to this plot
from the Muslim Council of Britain
and similar useless groups
was that British foreign policy is to blame for radicalising Muslims.
We must change British foreign policy, say many apparently
A few notes:
In what way is this any different from:
"Do as we say, and no one gets hurt".
It is no different from simply surrendering,
apologising to the jihadis and doing what they want.
Forget democracy and one-man-one-vote.
Whoever has the biggest bombs gets to decide government policy,
and the rest of us just have to agree.
this argument only works if you already think there is something wrong
with British foreign policy.
If you think British foreign policy is noble, idealistic,
and is liberating Muslims throughout the world,
then you will be unimpressed by the idea that violent jihadi nutjobs (*) don't like it.
To make it clear, imagine if the "moderate" Muslims were saying:
"These British ideas of freedom of speech, freedom of sexuality and
freedom of religion are inflaming Muslim hatred and are the root cause of terror.
They must be changed."
You are unimpressed because you don't see anything wrong with such ideas.
The people who they "inflame" should get over it.
Now do you understand that, like Pascal's Wager, the argument that
British foreign policy should change to avoid inflaming such people
only works if you already believe British foreign policy is wrong.
Anyway, "inflaming" is one thing. Violence is another.
I am opposed to many things the government does.
It doesn't mean that immediately heading for random slaughtering of men, women and children
is the next step.
Why don't they argue their case, using British freedom of speech and the democratic process?
I can't remember where
(tell me here),
but someone wrote, annoyed about the London bombers, something like:
"So what if they were angry about the Iraq War.
So was Sir Max Hastings."
have no actual arguments as to why British foreign policy is flawed,
so they use violence to get it changed.
It may sound obvious, but you need to come up with
arguments why British foreign policy
is inherently bad in itself.
You can't just say: "Look, a load of violent, anti-semitic, homophobic
religious maniacs (*) don't like it."
You need to come up with an argument as to why they are right,
and why British foreign policy
really is bad.
If you do, there's no need for violence. You can win in the court of opinion.
Those who fail to win arguments in the court of opinion
turn to marches,
and in the worst case
In reality, of course, they should look
Maybe no one agrees with them or votes for them
because their arguments are crap?
And again, sorry for stating the obvious,
but if most of Britain's anti-semites, Holocaust deniers, homophobes
and violent religious maniacs (*)
don't like British foreign policy,
then surely that indicates that British foreign policy is at least roughly on the right track?
This idea that the current conflict is a "War on Muslims",
indeed the very idea that the Iraq War was bad for Muslims,
is only a theory.
It's not a fact that British foreign policy is bad for Muslims.
It's just a speculative political theory that one can argue for,
but there is plenty of evidence against.
Again, as with
the "moderate" Muslims assume we already agree
that British foreign policy is in some way "bad" for Muslims
(as opposed, for example, to Muslims that believe this being deluded).
Most Muslims in Iraq and
don't believe this theory, for example.
John Reid, Home Secretary
"I think it is a dreadful misjudgement if we believe the foreign policy
of this country should be shaped in part, or in whole,
under the threat of terrorist activity if we do not have a foreign policy
with which the terrorists happen to agree."
(*) Again, because people love to misinterpret these things,
I am not saying that most British Muslims are anti-semites, homophobes, etc.
I am saying that the minority of British Muslims who threaten us with terror attacks are.
Those who support terror are anti-semitic, misogynistic homophobes,
simple fascists who oppose democracy, human rights, free speech
and freedom of religion.
If British foreign policy upsets them, then there must be something right with it.
A far more sensible reaction is that
British Muslims should be terrified of the jihadists:
a man who, like me, tries not to believe
in the worst nightmares,
peers into the darkness that could lie ahead:
"At some point the fabric of British society will tear apart if plans like this start to come
to fruition. Just how much death and destruction will the British people tolerate
before they call for draconian measures specifically aimed at British Muslims?
It's illogical to presume that this will never happen. All those anti-discrimination laws
and multi-cultural aspirations will be jettisoned and be no protection to Muslims.
The only hope for avoiding this future is for British Muslims to come to the fore
in calling for these people to be rooted out and voluntarily call for some tighter surveillance
in their neighborhoods. It may be unfair, but this is not the time for British Muslims to just
'get on with their lives'. It is time for them to step up and confront, condemn and exclude
from their neighborhoods those who would kill thousands of their fellow citizens."
He further comments:
"The difference in WW2 is that the enemy was 'outside', not living among them.
They were all in it together. September 11 was carried out by people from 'outside'.
This is different.
There's no way there won't be a witch hunt if thousands of British citizens
are killed by their own Muslim population. It will be ugly beyond anything W. Europe
or the US can imagine right now."
He further comments:
"It's all a matter of scale. The plot foiled the other day would very likely have exceeded the death toll from the entire 30+ years of the Troubles. What if there are two or three such attacks over the next 18 months? What if there's an attack in which 10,000 people are killed and which causes massive economic disruption? If you don't think that there would be reprisals against British Muslims then you're not living in the real world. The government will be FORCED to take a very hard line.
If the government does not take a hardline
then people like the BNP will surge politically and, possibly, develop their own paramilitary wing."
Some anonymous person says:
"I think events will show that the British people, with minor, vocal and pretty unpleasant exceptions,
will never descend to your doomsday scenario. We'll have to wait and see".
"we're down to the nub:
We will have to wait and see. I hope you're right, but I see no reason to presume that the people of London or Birmingham are any different deep down than the people of Beirut or Baghdad or Sarajevo or wherever. If thousands of people are killed - and that's what the intention is with these people, not the small scale terrorism that has been Europe's experience - and there's massive economic disruption and this happens more than once, I do think that the British public will demand SOMETHING be done. And, that something will not be pretty and it will not be 'surgical'. What that might be, I can't say.
If I were a Muslim in the UK, the possibility that these people who carry out such attacks do so in my name would have me very nervous for exactly this reason."
Killing for a being called "Allah" who does not exist
found guilty of conspiracy to murder
2006 transatlantic aircraft plot. He claims
to believe in a being called "Allah", whose "law" we must all live under:
"There are many more like us and many more like me ready to strike until the law of Allah is established on this earth."
Tellingly, he provides no evidence that this "Allah" exists.
Absurdly, he claims "Allah" is responsible for our life:
"To the general public I urge you to accept Islam as it is the truth from your Lord. You have rejected the Koran and you have rejected Allah who is the one who has given you life, given you food and given you everything that you have got."
This would be amazing news if it were true.
But instead of trying to provide evidence that it is true,
he wants to kill people who doubt it.
More than that, he just wants to kill
random crowds of civilians in the West, including those who believe in "Allah"!
Finally, Umar Islam himself did not believe in this "Allah" entity when he was a younger man!
"Allah .. loves us to die, and kill, in his path."
He actually declares his willingness to kill
for a being who may not exist.
The martyrdom video in
Despite living in one of the freest, richest and least racist
countries on earth,
the gang plotted to kill innocent British men, women and children,
because of their absurd beliefs about the supernatural.
They were jailed for life in 2007.
The grandfather of the gang leader,
served in the British Army.
Yet, shamefully, his grandson became a fighter for fascism.
Funny how the jihadis target
innocent, hedonistic young people
who have no interest in politics or the war.
Why don't they target their lethal enemies, the western militaries?
The answer, of course, is they might get hurt.
How much more convenient
it is to have a religious philosophy that justifies targeting
children on buses, aid workers,
and kids in nightclubs.
on the sexually retarded bombers,
who think nightclub goers are a legitimate target for killing
just because young women dress in a way they disapprove of.
"Presumably this attempt to bomb ladies' night was part of the same Islamist crusade against British "decadence" that had a previous conspiracy of dunces jailed for plotting to blow up "those slags dancing around" at a London nightspot. And how was the bomb at Tiger Tiger discovered? By an ambulance crew .. called to the club to tend to - a drunken punter. Thus did decadence save the day and the dancing slags triumph over the twisted prigs."
Well, That Didn't Work Out So Great
- Iowahawk puts words in the mouth of the would-be jihadi killer
"As Allah is my witness, I really can't explain what happened next; maybe it was stress, or confusion, or frustration. Whatever the reason, I decided it was a reasonable idea at that point to pour a can of petrol over my head and hit the Bic.
Here's a handy health tip from
if you ever get a wild urge to start yourself on fire, sit down and relax until it goes away. Because (A) it's not a particularly useful method for killing infidels, and (B) it. hurts. like. a. motherfucker."
The failed jihadi attacker,
died of his burns.
He gave his life for nothing.
He wasted his life for nothing, for a moron ideology that will soon be forgotten.
Ex-Islamist Hassan Butt
or via here)
denounces those who would blame British foreign policy, rather than Islamism,
for the terror attacks:
"When I was still a member of what is probably best termed the British Jihadi Network, a series of semi-autonomous British Muslim terrorist groups linked by a single ideology, I remember how we used to laugh in celebration whenever people on TV proclaimed that the sole cause for Islamic acts of terror like 9/11, the Madrid bombings and 7/7 was Western foreign policy.
By blaming the government for our actions, those who pushed the 'Blair's bombs' line did our propaganda work for us. More important, they also helped to draw away any critical examination from the real engine of our violence: Islamic theology."
tries to talk some sense to the Islamists:
"The idea that as a Muslim in this country that you don't have the freedom to express your religion or your views, I mean you've got far more freedom in this country than you do in most Muslim countries. ...
It's not just your methods that are wrong, your ideas are absurd. Nobody is oppressing you. Your sense of grievance isn't justified."
- The hero bystander who waded in to stop the jihadis
at Glasgow Airport.
His sheer irreverance towards the pious holy warriors is fantastic,
and reminds one of the ordinary Brit's attitude towards Hitler during the war:
"Glasgow doesn't accept this. That's just Glasgow; we'll set about ye".
- "John Smeaton - Hero For Our Time - One Brave Weegie Takes on al-Qaeda".
They call for
"renaming the airport to Smeaton International Airport".
"I hope my actions and the actions of everyone else that day show that Britain will not stand for it.
And if any more extremists are still wanting to rise up and start trouble, know this: we'll rise right back up against you.
New York, Madrid, London, Paisley ... we're all in this together and make no mistake, none of us will hold back from putting the boot in."
tribute song to Smeaton.
"I will fight.
I will stand.
I won't pretend tae understand."
Smeaton as Braveheart:
People are writing loads of "Smeatonisms".
"John Smeaton doesn't sleep. He just waits."
And if you think it's only "natives" who hate the terrorists,
and you're getting tired of the weasel words
from the likes of the Muslim Council of Britain,
see this wonderful story of a
Pakistani shopkeeper in Edinburgh
who, inspired by Smeaton, stands up to a (white) thief.
"I have so much respect for John Smeaton and the other guys who stood up to the terrorists in Glasgow.
They showed so much courage"
In 2009 he mounts a mass murder attempt on a flight
from Amsterdam to Detroit, Michigan.
He is stopped by hero passengers.
Flight 253 and Counterterror's Epic Fail by Robert Spencer, Dec 28, 2009:
"Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was ebullient, maintaining that "the system worked" and "everything happened that should have."
Unless the "system" was consisted of relying on passengers to tackle jihadists ... and trusting that jihadis' detonators will malfunction ... Napolitano's statement couldn't possibly be farther from the truth. In reality, nothing worked. Nothing at all, both in terms of security procedures for individual air passengers, and in terms of the larger strategy for dealing with jihad terrorism.
All the stupid and humiliating airport security procedures, all the little baggies for toothpaste and shampoo, all the padding through the security scanner in stocking feet, didn't work. Abdulmutallab was able to board the plane with the makings of a bomb that would have destroyed the aircraft and killed everyone in it."
Jihad at British universities
The underpants bomber was
UCL Islamic Society
at University College London in 2006-07.
Oddly enough, they don't mention this on their site!
Two Islamic terrorists partially behead a British soldier on the streets of London in broad daylight, 22 May 2013.
They killed the young soldier
and attempted to behead and disembowel him
on the street.
Lee Stranahan, 22 May 2013, makes a very interesting point about understanding the mind of the enemy:
"Reality: The sort of violence in England or the Boston Marathon
is part of the appeal of Islam to some people. It's a feature, not a bug."
Michael Graham, 23 May 2013, states the obvious,
yet too rarely stated.
On the endless series of religious terror attacks:
"Only one group of people do all these things ...
We all know the problem is inside Islam. We all know Islam has a problem no other major religion has.
We all know that
if you could magically convert all of these terrorists to Mormons or Methodists, the violence would end."
The soldier killed was
Lee Rigby, of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers,
who was on a visit to
At his trial
Michael Adebolajo complained about a white friend killed in Iraq, shedding crocodile tears:
"He said that, growing up in Romford, the 'vast majority' of his friends were white British,
and one, Kirk Redpath, joined the Army and was later killed in Iraq by an IED.
Adebolajo said: 'I hold Tony Blair responsible for his death.'"
So to show how angry he was at a British soldier being killed, he ... killed a British soldier!
And to show how angry he was at his friend being killed by radical Islam, he ...
joined up to support radical Islam!
British soldiers killed by jihad makes me angry.
Therefore I will join the jihad and kill British soldiers.
How can you deal with such sleazy hypocrisy
except by replying with a drone strike?
The left is expert at blaming western politicians for jihadi violence.
But as Adebolajo shows, even the jihad does it, if there is some mileage in it.
When jihad kills someone, the jihadis blame ... Tony Blair!
The disgusting hypocrisy of the jihadist:
When Michael Adebolajo
was arrested on terror charges in Kenya in
2010, he asked for the British Ambassador, despite being at war with Britain.
Who I block:
I will debate almost anyone.
I love ideas.
I will not debate (and will block) people who do the following:
(a) Make threats.
(b) Accuse me of crimes.
(c) Comment on my appearance.
(d) Drag in stuff about me not related to the topic. (My professional career, my personal life.)
(e) Complain to my employer.
Yes, people do all these things.