Jewish rant in the Telegraph

Another rant in the Telegraph again, from Janet Daley who says that we are in a war to the death with Islam

At the heart of her rant is this: That we Muslims are out to get the West, and that if the majority of 'moderates' don't go out of their way to show that we're not out to conquer it, then we're complicit in supporting the terrorists.

This piece of xenophobia is nothing new for the Telegraph, but the writer outdoes herself in her double standards. She is asking British Muslims to pass a test that she would not be able to. Not that she is going to let a little hypocrisy like that get in her way. Daley is another Jew (an American immigrant in fact) in the media who is clearly motivated by an animus against Muslims, because she has more loyalty towards Israel than she does to her adopted country, the UK.

I am not saying that all Jews are Muslim-hating pro-zionists. However, if we are to take her argument at face value - that all Muslims are indistinguishable from terrorists unless they speak out against them - then it must be true that all Jews are Muslim-hating rabid zionists if we take her arguments at face value, because apart from a small number of outstanding individuals and organisations, I do not see many Jews who are speaking out against Israel's daily atrocities, but instead are silent in their complicity with it. In fact, many so-called 'British' Jews have more loyalty towards Israel than the UK and are complicit in terrorism against the Palestinians.

If a Muslim wrote an article about Jews that the Daley has written about Muslims then (a) it wouldn't be allowed to be printed and (b) if it was, then that Muslim would be automatically painted as anti-semitic.

We should have a debate about why a number of Jewish newspaper and media commentaors are prepared to support an apartheid state exclusively for the use of Jewish immigrants, based on the premise that Jews can't get along with anyone else in the world (which is why they stole Palestine to set up their racist little state in the first place).

This would explain why the 'Israel-first' media lobby is always keen to protect the zionist state. For example, Daley states:

Never mind that the hereditary grievance of almost all British-born Muslim terrorists is the Kashmir question, to which the almost entirely irrelevant Palestine issue has been tacked on by political manipulators with larger ambitions.... It is not adjustments to our stance on Israel-Palestine that the international Islamist terror movement wants.......That demand was just a bin Laden afterthought that went down a treat with the old reliable anti-Semitic interest in Europe

Which planet does she come from? Mars? The US? Is there any difference between the two? The first, last and primary political issue which unites every single Muslim in the world today is Palestine, Jerusalem and specifically the Al Aqsa masjid - something that certain media, with the help of people like Daley, have deliberately kept people in the dark about. And in fact, Palestine has always been at the forefront of Bin Laden's open messages (you can read more from the books listed on the right hand side panel).

So sorry Daley - you might want to keep Palestine out of it, but that's not going to happen. People like Golda Meir kept on insisting that Palestinians didn't exist. Through their bombs and their intifada, the Palestinains reminded the world that they do exist, not least in the minds of 1.5 billion Muslims worldwide.

Daley's comments are not out of the ordinary with their stereotypical conjecture and hateful incitement. However, Muslims should recognise the clear motivation behind them, which is nothing to do with keeping England free from the Muslim hordes, but everything to do with protecting the zionist state at any cost. She is not writing for a British audience, but in order to protect an Israeli one.

Palestinian women - a force to be reckoned with

It shows the extent of the tragedy in Palestine when a grandmother feels that she has no other choice than to use her body as a weapon against the zionist occupiers.

May Allah bless Fatma Omar An Najar, who blew herself up near a group of zionist soldiers in Gaza, injuring two. Other media outlets mention this fact, without mentioning the crucial bit - that the Israelis destroyed her house and killed her grandson. Her daughter is quoted as wanting to martyr herself in the same way.

This show of courage is nothing new - earlier this month, one woman was killed and 10 injured by Israeli terrorists as they surrounded a masjid in Gaza to protect the inhabitants inside.

That a grandmother has committed this act of martyrdom must show the extent of Arab hatred towards the vicious occupation they have endured for nearly 70 years. When your land is occupied, your home destroyed and your family killed, how many of us would stand by and do nothing? Former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak once said that if he was a Palestinian then he too would be a terrorist. But then 'terrorism' is a war of the oppressed against the powerful, whilst 'war' is the terrorism of the powerful against the oppressed.

Caving in to Arab extremists

We are constantly reminded by the establishment that giving in to Middle Eastern religious fanatics is the wrong thing to do. Except that when the Arab extremist happens to be a Christian, it's acceptable.

Apparently, BA are going to have a uniform review following the media fuss and hype over the case of Nadia Eweida, who refused to go to work because BA would not allow her to wear a cross at the check-in counter.

The case raised some hackles from the media, religious and political establishment. The very same people - like Dr John Semantu and Jack Straw - who criticise Muslim women for dressing according to their religion, had no shame suddenly supporting women who want to make a show of their religion - as long as they are Christian. Over 100 MPs signed an Early Day Motion criticising BA's decision. It would have been too much to expect them to do anything similar on behalf of Muslim women. Instead, we were treated to a series of 'debates' about how Muslims don't fit in because they want to dress in a certain way, or want to force their religion on everyone else and so on. To call this hyprocrisy of the highest order is to understate their words and actions.

There are several good reasons why Eweida should not be allowed back at work:

(a) She knew what she was doing when she signed her contract of employment, binding her to BA's terms and conditions. She agreed to those terms and she is bound by them.

(b) BA allowed her to wear the cross at the check in desk, as long as it was not visible. She refused. BA allowed her to wear the cross and it was allowed to be visible as long as Eweida did other duties. Eweida still refused. BA went out of their way to accommodate her wishes and she was very unreasonable in not agreeing to the alternatives.

(c) It is not a requirement of her faith to wear a cross so that it is visible for everyone to see. This is different to a nun's habit, hijab or Sikh turban where the whole intention is to hide a part of the body for reasons of modesty. Eweida is not interested in modesty. She simply wants to make a point about her Christianity for the sake of it. As such, it is perfectly fair for BA to treat her icon for what it is - a piece of jewellery.

I have no problems with people expressing their religious identity. I personally don't mind someone wearing a cross at a checkout desk. I do have a problem when people turn these sort of issues into a competition between religions, and especially when the same people who whinge about Muslim dress suddenly cry foul when one of 'theirs' falls foul of a dress rule.

British Jews - fifth colum?

Hizbollah fodder

I wonder what the reaction would be if a newspaper did a romantic report on young British Muslims joining the Mujahideen in Palestine or Iraq, in order to kill Jews and Christians in the defence of Muslim lands. No doubt we would be faced with another barrage of opinion pieces on the violent tendencies of Muslims and the threat to British society from Islam.

Yet, apparently it's OK for British Jews to engage in terrorist activities. The Guardian wrote an article today on young British Jews signing up for service in Gaza and the West Bank. That is to say, they are killing Arabs in illegally occupied Muslim territories. They still carry a British passport, which means that not only do they subscribe to the racist ideology of zionism and an apartheid Jewish state that gives Jews dominion over everyone else simply because they are Jews, but they also want to use Britian as a resource to support their illegal activities.

I have no problems with Jews who want to join the IDF, as long as it's also OK for British Muslims to join Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbollah. With any luck, these Jews will get their just desserts at the receiving end of a suicide bomber or a Hizbollah rocket.

What I do object to however, is the fact that a fifth column of so-called 'British' Jews should be able to do what they do and still be allowed to remain citizens of this country, because clearly their loyalties lie elsewhere. They have forfeited their right to be citizens of this country and if fighting for Israel is so important to them, they can jolly well do it full time.

This issue may be symptomatic of a wider problem within the Jewish community. For example, Melanie Philips refused to answer a question by fellow Jew Will Self on a BBC Newnight programme, as to who she would support if there was a war between Israel and the UK. If this is typical of the mentality amongst British Jews here (one has yet to hear the voices of moderates speaking out against this type of thinking), then one can only imagine the dangers to UK national security if those same people also have had military training and access to weapons.

VIGIL exposed

Talking about a fifth column, this site exposes VIGIL, the shadowy organisation which BBC Newsnight used to produce a piss-poor documentary slandering Hizb Ut Tahrir. If there was any doubt that right-wing pro-Israeli organisations are cynically manipulating the BBC to further their own agendas, then this should set you right.

'Intelligence' = Lies

White terrorists = OK

Another Islamic scare story and another ‘alleged airline bomb plot’ against the El Al airline dominated the headlines this morning, this time from Germany. Haaretz exposed the farcical nature of the ‘intelligence’ behind this story since:

(a) At the time of writing, 5 of the 6 suspects involved had been released without questioning, leaving a lone suspect in a conspiracy of one;
(b) Haaretz reported: ‘El Al sources said Monday evening they were surprised to learn of the report. According to the source, the airline, a national flag carrier, had not been notified by German authorities of the incident and but learned about it from media reports’

El Al would learn about this alleged ‘plot’ from the media because that’s probably all it was – another media scare story. El Al has the most comprehensive security of any airline and so it would be a most incompetent terrorist who would favour targeting it above another airline – say Lufthansa. I reckon this story will disappear quickly like other similar stories. Talking of which, whatever happened to the ‘alleged bomb plot’ suspects here in Britain that we were all getting so panicked up about a couple of months back?

Whilst the press were chasing German Islamic phantoms, a militant white terrorist stormed a school in Germany, seriously wounding several teachers and students. The would-be suicide bomber was foung dead – having killed himself – with explosives strapped to his body. The 18 year old was a loner and took a keen interest in the military and weaponry. A teacher said ‘Last month on a website he said the school would be the scene of an attack.’ Why didn’t the so-called German intelligence investigate him? Is it because he was white?


Bomb Israel

Haaretz also reported Bush supporting an Israeli attack on Iran. Apparently, Bush told President Chirac of France that he did not rule out Israel bombing nuclear sites in Iran. Bush is reported as saying that if it happened, he would understand why.

However, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh has leaked a CIA document which says there is no conclusive proof that Iran is developing any weapons. What Seymour says in a BBC interview is even more interesting, because he confirms that this is a repeat of the dodgy dossier allegations about Iraq’s allegations, when now, as then, Israeli intelligence is talking up the threat from Iran, as they did with Iraq.

This is a typical case of the tail wagging the dog. American foreign policy has been hijacked by a foreign Jewish power. Israel plays up the threat, and then uses this as an excuse to either get America to do it’s dirty work and invade another country, or threatens to do it itself. Bush says that he would ‘understand’ Israel but under the circumstances, I would certainly understand Iran if it attacked Israel, or went after the Great Satan himself. Bush and Israel are sabre rattling and Iran would be wise to step up efforts to defend herself. A bank of Iranian nukes pointed at Tel Aviv and Washington, and a ready army of suicide bombers should deter the war mongers.

Banning HT - maintaining Imperial interests

Blair’s latest attempts to ban Hizb Ut Tahrir have run into opposition from the police and the Home Office, the very people who would have normally backed him. The Home Office is concerned that any legal successful challenge by HT would be damaging.

What Blair is saying to British Muslims is this: We can do whatever we want in Muslim countries and you Muslims are not allowed to even speak out against it. If you do then you will be banned.

Blair is encouraging young Muslims to go out and blow themselves up on London’s tube trains and buses instead. His fascist proposal completely undermines the official government line that young British Muslim should be encouraged to engage in legitimate means of expression instead of turning to violence. If you ban a legitimate form of expression, then people will turn to violence to make a point. They will strap bombs on themselves and we will end up with a civil war in this country. If Blair really is interested in open and honest debate and the national security of this country, then he should be talking to HT instead of seeking to ban it.

However, this is an aside. Blair cares nothing about national security anyway. He is using the cloak of terror as an excuse. HT are dangerous to him because they highlight the obvious hypocrisy and Imperial ambitions of the man. It’s fine for the West to invade and have regime change in Muslim countries under the name of freedom and democracy, but it’s not OK for Muslims to hold their own despotic leadership to account in their own countries. Again, as long as those regimes support the West’s strategic interests in the Muslim world (namely the flow of energy from East to West and the existence of the Jewish State), then Blair cares nothing about freedom and democracy.

HT have consistently questioned the corrupt, despotic regimes of Saudi-Occupied Arabia and Jordan, amongst others. These regimes have consistently squandered the resources of the Ummah in order to line their own pockets and ingratiate themselves with the Americans. They pay lip service to the sufferings of their own people whilst they secretly support the Zionist occupiers of Al Aqsa. In particular, the Al Sauds squandered billions of pounds buying American and British military hardware, nearly bankrupting the country, receiving kickbacks from military providers to support their lavish lifestyles, as exposed during an investigation into a £40 billion British defence contract.

In HT’s case, we have to look beyond the domestic government posturing. This is not about national security or inciting violence – far from it. This is all about maintaining the Western status quo. Blair is scared that Muslims all over the world are beginning to wake up to what has to be done in order to control their own future. He calls it ‘turning to extremism’. Muslims should encourage it.

Newsnight: Desperate measures to slander the Ummah

After the botched attempt to slander Hizb Ut Tahrir on Newsnight a few days back, the programme came back for a second go with a special 20 minute film yesterday, just in time for the Queen’s speech today, in which security and terrorism featured heavily. Newsnight denies the film was politically motivated, so the timing must be a coincidence then. Plus, it must be a complete coincidence that they used the services of heavily pro-Israeli Glen Jenvey (hat tip: Islamophobia Watch)

There is so much wrong with it that it’s difficult to know where to start. Suffice it to say that it confirms the extreme bollocks that self-professed so-called ‘experts’ like Richard Watson come up with. So much so, that it was a no-brainer for HT leader Dr Abdul Waheed to contemptuously dismiss the film on the programme, a job which he did remarkably well despite the harassment from Jeremy Paxman. All in all, HT came out of this looking better than ever.

Watson promised us with ‘alarming new evidence’ about the methods used for radicalisation. And the best he could come up with was – shock horror! – a chatroom where people in Lebanon put forward their views on what should be done with raping and murdering American and British occupiers. That is to say, the same sort of views you’ll hear on thousands of other places, including many right-wing websites that don’t hide their anti-Muslim prejudices, and are forever advocating the expulsion of Muslims and the bombardment of their countries. In other words, it’s no great shakes unless you’re someone who has never heard of the Web. But why stop at the Web? If it’s OK for people like Nick Griffin & Co. to get away with saying that they want to shoot Muslims coming out of their mosques, then I’m fine with Bakri to say the same thing about westerners, especially if they’re the scum that go around invading other countries.

After that flop there wasn’t much for the film to go on. So Watson filmed some random allegations (through other people of course, just to make it Halal), and by editing the film to move between different topics (watching videos, gang initiation and violence, alleged threats to Imams), made it appear that all these allegations were related to HT, which they weren’t. In a final act of desperation, Watson provoked a confrontation with an individual outside a mosque where some leaflets were being handed out, with the result that his microphone got pushed. I mean – wow – if that’s all the evidence he can record as evidence of Muslim ‘extremism’ then to call this film a pile of shite is giving it more credibility than it deserves.

Talking of shite, we also had a reminder that there are still Muslims around who are keen to maintain the relationship between the slave master and his wog. So these wogs will do whatever it takes to malign the Ummah as long as it gets them their 10 seconds on TV and it pleases the master. Either this or else they are extremely naive. People like Musa Admani of the London Met Uni, and Shuaib Yusaf (with the put on 'posh' accent) of the Croydon Masjid. I saw them on the film, decked out in their best suits and their poppies. I mean for crying out loud - which self-respecting Muslim wants to wear a poppy in the Masjid of all places? I reckon Watson put them up to it. I couldn’t believe the attitude of Yusaf, who accused HT of wanting to get on the Masjid committee. When did participating in the affairs of the Masjid ever become a crime? The hypocrisy of his statement was breathtaking. Complaining about non-participation is what these committee members do all the time. With stupid, ignorant attitudes like this, is it any wonder that Muslim leadership is so ineffective and why the Masjids are so irrelevant to many of our youth today?

Blair: a sense of self importance

I was at work and had to stifle a giggle when viewing poor Tony’s performance at the Guildhall today, setting conditions for Syria and Iran to be ‘partners for peace’ over the future of Iraq and the Middle East. Especially when said that

"They help the Middle East peace process, not hinder it; they stop supporting terrorism in Lebanon or Iraq and they abide by, not flout, their international obligations.

"In that case, a new partnership is possible. Or, alternatively, they face the consequence of not doing so: isolation."

Either poor old Tony is deluded or he thinks we are. Not about the fact that this is a complete U-turn on Iran and Syria – everyone knows that of course. But does this man really think that he is in a position to set any conditions? The reality – and everyone knows this – is that both Bush and Blair are in trouble over Iraq. This is why Blair is turning to Syria and Iran in desperation, but he still has to sound tough so he doesn’t look a complete and utter fool.

Let’s look at the facts. The biggest winner in all of this is Iran. The Yanks and the Brits got rid of Saddam, Iran’s biggest enemy, and installed a compliant Shia regime. And they financed it, their men died for it, and they’re still dying for it. And all the Americans and British have received in return is criticism, bombs in London, international isolation and loss of any remaining respect or confidence amongst Muslims all over the world. Al Qaeda couldn’t have hoped for better.

Iran and Syria don’t have to do anything. They can comfortably sit back and watch more American and British occupiers die, courtesy of Al Jazeera TV. The reality is that Iran and Syria have the upper hand here, and they’re in the position of making demands to Blair, not the other way round.

Question is, what do Iran and Syria get in return for cleaning up this mess? Here are a few conditions I would set for Blair:

(a) No interference in Syria or Iran’s affairs
(b) Iran and/or Syria reserve the right to pursue nuclear technology, civilian or military
(c) Lifting of all sanctions against the two countries.
(d) Recognition of Hamas and Hizbollah. Lifting of the embargo against the democratically elected Hamas government of Palestine
(e) Israel to be reigned in. Syria to be given back the Golan Heights, and Lebanon the Shebaa farms.
(f) Dismantling of Israel’s Apartheid wall, dismantling of it’s settlements, and the end of it’s occupation of Jerusalem
(g) Israel’s border to be drawn back to the internationally recognised 1967 border. UN resolutions to be enforced against it, including the right of return of all Palestinians expelled since 1948.
(h) Iran and Syria should be funded and supported military in Iraq.

Blair said that the Israel/Palestine conflict was key. If he is serious about that, then he shouldn’t have any problems with the above extremely reasonable key conditions.