Does Britain have a jihadi problem?

[Mosha]

Most of the Muslims I know and worked with are good, kind and relatively forgiving people. They don't seem to mind that I am destined to go to hell. Some are very open to discussing religion, while with others I would be a little more reticent. I love talking politics in general and find them to be quite engaging and knowledgeable.

They really aren't all that different from a lot of other people from different religions and cultures.

You ain't an Indigenous Tyke are you? I think the pc brigade need to visit the out lying areas of towns in West and South Yorkshire. The Midlands and Tower Hamlets and Luton. The Pennine mill towns in Lancashire. Talk to the people whose family have lived there for generations. 7by7 Bradford is your future.

[arjunadawn]

How can being anti Islam be either right wing or racist? Islam is not a race, it's a religion and to be opposed to it seems entirely rational given it's history and what is happening in the world today in it's name. As you don't know I can tell you, the UK does have a serious Jihadist problem.

Your first part of the post makes some sense though anti-semitisms is normally being called racist too.... and of course UG is clearly right wing. The second part is a bit silly, especially if we look at history it is clear that christians have done more harm to the world than any other religion, I think we can take that as a fact. What is happening now, it looks more equal, though to me it seems the US and Israel have the main vilains of today.

Anti antisemitism does meet the threshold of racist as Semite is a race (I thought).

You show me a man who is not afraid of that which is done in the name of Islam and I will show you a) a muslim, 2) a liar, 3) a person who actually cannot articulate facts with enough comprehension to grasp the issue at hand, or 4) a person sustaining their opinion by "the seat of their pants;" lacking any real comprehensive framework they conduct their intellectual battles from the defensive, putting out each fire as it begins to burn.

I am not a christian, muslim, or jew. I totally rejected and renounced the catholic yoke when I realized (at 16) the considerable harm that was done in the christian name over the long train of time. However, it was not until later that I learned the "other" history that is simply not taught in the west because it is frankly, not "westerncentric," or not "christiancentric." But the other history, the history of the islamic expansion from the first migration north of their prophet, is a tale of mind-numbing bloodshed and horror. In just the Islamic expansion of the Indian Subcontinent it is estimated between 80-110 MILLION people were put to the sword! This is a staggering number and this is only in one location over a limited bloc of time.

When one considers whether islam or Christianity killed more or less, it is of course an exercise in guessing. While Christianity has had far more time to kill, the first 600 years or so were spent dying, not killing. The next 400 years were spent in the dark. Indeed, when time is actually looked at Islam has far more experience killing.

But you believe as a fact that christians have killed far more. My position is not fact, just a really good guess that islam is far more accountable for crimes against humanity; indeed, its entire manual of war reinforces this throughout its admonishments.

[boomerangutang]

You're the self proclaimed expert, but personally I reject your opinion that people like Choudhry represent the thoughts and aspirations of the majority of the Muslim world.

It's not so much a factor of 'the thoughts and aspirations of the majority of the Muslim world.' I have Muslim friends here in Chiang Rai who are among the nicest and friendliest I've had the pleasure to know. It only takes a hot-headed minority to heavily influence the majority - particularly when that minority browbeats others (of their sect) in to either joining their intifada or keeping their mouths shut and being passive.

Armed troubles with Muslims are not sanctioned by any majorities. Middle Easterners don't give a gnat's ass for democracy. The troubles stem from a minority of hot-headed testosterone-driven punks, perhaps with a few bearded Immans in the background saying things like "go ahead, put on the bomb belt. Allah will smile on you. You'll be killing infidels and your reward will be in martyrs' heaven."

Edited September 1, 2014 by boomerangutang

[arjunadawn]

You're the self proclaimed expert, but personally I reject your opinion that people like Choudhry represent the thoughts and aspirations of the majority of the Muslim world.

It's not so much a factor of 'the thoughts and aspirations of the majority of the Muslim world.' I have Muslim friends here in Chiang Rai who are among the nicest and friendliest I've had the pleasure to know. It only takes a hot-headed minority to heavily influence the majority - particularly when that minority browbeats others (of their sect) in to either joining their intifada or keeping their mouths shut and being passive.

Armed troubles with Muslims are not sanctioned by any majorities. Middle Easterners don't give a gnat's ass for democracy. The troubles stem from a minority of hot-headed testosterone-driven punks, perhaps with a few bearded Immans in the background saying things like "go ahead, put on the bomb belt. Allah will smile on you. You'll be killing infidels and your reward will be in martyrs' heaven."

I agree. I have been mulling over this point for a little while now. The issue of whether Choudhry represents the majority or not really doesn't matter, in the end. I will continue thinking on this but am now near convinced that it is not necessary for islam to reach a critical threshold of simple majority for really bad things to happen in accordance with the aims of the radicals. I believe that a significant, squeaky, minority is all that is necessary to get the oil.

It may also, in whole or part, be true that numerous moderates have no idea what to do; are paralyzed. I dont know for sure but its possible. Its also possible that their paralysis stems from there being no mechanism by which to repudiate the radical islam. Perhaps if there were a central... hrmmm, an imam... or Caliph! And so the circle. The Caliph as a viable alternative to set straight the wandering ways of radical jihadists has already been claimed in the name of jihad (too late), therefore there is no recourse by this road. In the end, there is no recourse for the moderates at all. Remember, the when you see the black flag from Khorasan "go and give him your allegiance, even if you have to crawl over ice, because he is the Khalifah of Allah, the Mahdi." islam anticipates this era and caliph. Islam as a core foundation expects the caliph to return- Mahdi/Caliph. So, moderate muslims have no recourse to assemble and craft a central identity; times up.

In the end, it makes no difference to me why moderate muslims are silent (who are very much like Elvis Presley and Jesus- Every one talks about them but no one ever actually sees them); they're condoning jihad is passive or active, but they are condoning.

[MJP]

Remember the last time the British people were helpless in the face of Tony Blair tyranny . . .

Many of my friends went on that march, some of them wealthy business leaders. I would have gone but was in LOS.

It's time for Muslims to do do the same regarding ISIS, Jihad and radicalization.

[anon676545345]

Remember the last time the British people were helpless in the face of Tony Blair tyranny . . .

Many of my friends went on that march, some of them wealthy business leaders. I would have gone but was in LOS.

It's time for Muslims to do do the same regarding ISIS, Jihad and radicalization.

That war was about oil but not Iraqi oil as most think the US was only accounting for 19% of Iraqi oil exports in 2012 and that figure is falling as the US proceeds towards energy independence, besides who in the US would get rich from importing Iraqi oil? Not as many as would clean up from the development of US shale oil resources. The recovery costs of shale oil during the production phase were estimated at $70-$95 per barrel which falls to $30 - $40 per barrel during recovery phase. Before the invasion of Iraq oil was roughly $35 per barrel making these resources un-economical to recover, since the invasion oil has averaged over $100 per barrel and the US has been on full steam developing shale oil.

Unfortunately the probably deliberate mismanaging of the conflict in Iraq has resulted in ISIS and the situation with radical Islam is now a lot more serious than it was in 2002, a few guys in the US probably made a hell of a lot of money but they've let a rather fanatical genie out of the bottle.

[MJP]

^^ I take your point but IMO at the time it was about the currency oil was traded in, but that's getting off topic.

[icare999]

<snip>

Britain has joined with the EU and no longer controls is sovereign borders nor does it make immigration policy. The wackos can waltz in, get benefits, fail to assimilate, and it's actually perfectly legal for them to do it.

<snip>

The EU does not control the UK's immigration policy; but as a member of the EEA the UK is signed up to the EEA freedom of movement directives.

These directives only apply to immigration from within the EEA; from outside the EEA the UK's own immigration rules apply.

This includes being prohibited from claiming any public funds and having to pass two English test of increasing difficulty as well as a Life in the UK test.

Most immigrants do attempt to integrate; although ghettoes do arise; mainly due to the indigenous population moving out when immigrants move in. That has always been the way, unfortunately, and certainly does nothing to help integration.

When among themselves most immigrants probably talk in their native language; just as my wife and her Thai friends do.

How many posters here who live in Thailand have made any attempt to learn Thai, let alone integrate into Thai life?

but unlike muslims the other immigrants dont go around saying death to non muslims same as we dont go around here causing any problems or most of us and we dont definitely say death to non cristians. All other or most immigrants do integrate they dont demand their own schools their own form of justice and the rest as most muslims do

Time to kick them all out I say or at least any that are not prepared to accept UK is white non muslim mostly and leave majority alone

their will be blood since everyone i know is totally fed up and now anti muslim as i am. I was very Pc before but enough is enough and now i loathe them all like nearly all do in UK

[MJP]

This is all so much about creed/ideology and has little to do with race and colour.

In fact if you get past skin colour, language, geographic heritage and just think of this as a violent sect, it makes a lot more sense what the core problem is. A book.

[Jingthing]

This is all so much about creed/ideology and has little to do with race and colour.

In fact if you get past skin colour, language, geographic heritage and just think of this as a violent sect, it makes a lot more sense what the core problem is. A book.

Yes, Islam aggressively seeks to convert the masses and thus enjoys great racial and ethnic diversity around the globe (Asia, Africa, Middle East, etc.). Radical terrorist Islamists (a subset of Muslims of course) are particularly interested in converting westerners who don't look "stereotypically" Muslim for obvious reasons. Apparently it is VERY EASY to convert to Islam but once you do ... it may not be easy to "undo" that depending on where you live ...

Edited September 1, 2014 by Jingthing

[Johpa]

Alas the only way the Western liberal memes can survive I the long run is to recognize the nature of the threat and counter it in it's entirety.

I found Sam Harris's argument in his book The End of Faith somewhat persuasive that the only intellectually coherant response to Islam is atheism.

[hawker9000]

Alas the only way the Western liberal memes can survive I the long run is to recognize the nature of the threat and counter it in it's entirety.

I found Sam Harris's argument in his book The End of Faith somewhat persuasive that the only intellectually coherant response to Islam is atheism.

What's the difference between a society that demands actual religious adherence, and one that bans religion entirely? Both are authoritarian. 'Seems to me the closest a society can come to real freedom is to be one that simply makes religion a personal choice, and does not allow one's practice (or choice not to practice) to infringe (truly infringe; not some make believe "emotional injury") upon someone else's free choice. Atheists have persuaded the weak-minded that any suggestion of religious practice anywhere in the public commons is a personal afront and works some sort of mental anguish on them which must be rooted out & crushed at all costs. And so, atheism itself acquires many of the characteristics of a "religion", or at least a certain "zealotry", and unfortunately one that everybody must bow down to.

[Steely Dan]

Alas the only way the Western liberal memes can survive I the long run is to recognize the nature of the threat and counter it in it's entirety.

I found Sam Harris's argument in his book The End of Faith somewhat persuasive that the only intellectually coherant response to Islam is atheism.

What's the difference between a society that demands actual religious adherence, and one that bans religion entirely? Both are authoritarian. 'Seems to me the closest a society can come to real freedom is to be one that simply makes religion a personal choice, and does not allow one's practice (or choice not to practice) to infringe (truly infringe; not some make believe "emotional injury") upon someone else's free choice. Atheists have persuaded the weak-minded that any suggestion of religious practice anywhere in the public commons is a personal afront and works some sort of mental anguish on them which must be rooted out & crushed at all costs. And so, atheism itself acquires many of the characteristics of a "religion", or at least a certain "zealotry", and unfortunately one that everybody must bow down to.

There should be no compulsion in atheism.

I'm a fan of much that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins write, but think they go too far sometimes which can be counter productive. They still both hit the bullseye in highlighting the most problematic of all religions.

[siampolee]

Interesting to note how the whole thread is focusing on religious beliefs.

There is the problem ''Religion'' .

Religion is a collection of evil distorted fairy tales from many sources made up by others who wish to lead a life of ease whilst their follower paid for that life after intense brain washing propaganda input.

Everyone is tired of living and scared of dying, sell them a story about life after death and you have then created the biggest money spinner going along with the ultimate overall control agenda.

Indeed religious creeds cults beliefs are an insidious cancer that have over the years corrupted and poisoned the human race and they are still spreading their poisonous pus among the human race.

Religion should be classified a dangerous drug on a par with opium, cocaine, crack, alcohol and a host of other noxious substances and ideals.

Edited September 1, 2014 by siampolee

[Steely Dan]

You're the self proclaimed expert, but personally I reject your opinion that people like Choudhry represent the thoughts and aspirations of the majority of the Muslim world.

It's not so much a factor of 'the thoughts and aspirations of the majority of the Muslim world.' I have Muslim friends here in Chiang Rai who are among the nicest and friendliest I've had the pleasure to know. It only takes a hot-headed minority to heavily influence the majority - particularly when that minority browbeats others (of their sect) in to either joining their intifada or keeping their mouths shut and being passive.

Armed troubles with Muslims are not sanctioned by any majorities. Middle Easterners don't give a gnat's ass for democracy. The troubles stem from a minority of hot-headed testosterone-driven punks, perhaps with a few bearded Immans in the background saying things like "go ahead, put on the bomb belt. Allah will smile on you. You'll be killing infidels and your reward will be in martyrs' heaven."

I agree. I have been mulling over this point for a little while now. The issue of whether Choudhry represents the majority or not really doesn't matter, in the end. I will continue thinking on this but am now near convinced that it is not necessary for islam to reach a critical threshold of simple majority for really bad things to happen in accordance with the aims of the radicals. I believe that a significant, squeaky, minority is all that is necessary to get the oil.

It may also, in whole or part, be true that numerous moderates have no idea what to do; are paralyzed. I dont know for sure but its possible. Its also possible that their paralysis stems from there being no mechanism by which to repudiate the radical islam. Perhaps if there were a central... hrmmm, an imam... or Caliph! And so the circle. The Caliph as a viable alternative to set straight the wandering ways of radical jihadists has already been claimed in the name of jihad (too late), therefore there is no recourse by this road. In the end, there is no recourse for the moderates at all. Remember, the when you see the black flag from Khorasan "go and give him your allegiance, even if you have to crawl over ice, because he is the Khalifah of Allah, the Mahdi." islam anticipates this era and caliph. Islam as a core foundation expects the caliph to return- Mahdi/Caliph. So, moderate muslims have no recourse to assemble and craft a central identity; times up.

In the end, it makes no difference to me why moderate muslims are silent (who are very much like Elvis Presley and Jesus- Every one talks about them but no one ever actually sees them); they're condoning jihad is passive or active, but they are condoning.

Indeed the liberal left are in effect empowering the violent elements of Islam because they shield all Muslims from debate, and it's usually the violent elements who complain assuming authority to do so from the rest. I have always thought that a Western school of jurisprudence that abrogates all the violent and supremacist elements of Islam would be a step forward, but such a group would have to be protected by expelling all who opposed it. Some of the first Muslims to arrive in the UK were the Ahmadi Muslims, who were no doubt escaping persecution, had they been the only sect to live in the UK there would be no problem today.

[hawker9000]

Alas the only way the Western liberal memes can survive I the long run is to recognize the nature of the threat and counter it in it's entirety.

I found Sam Harris's argument in his book The End of Faith somewhat persuasive that the only intellectually coherant response to Islam is atheism.

What's the difference between a society that demands actual religious adherence, and one that bans religion entirely? Both are authoritarian. 'Seems to me the closest a society can come to real freedom is to be one that simply makes religion a personal choice, and does not allow one's practice (or choice not to practice) to infringe (truly infringe; not some make believe "emotional injury") upon someone else's free choice. Atheists have persuaded the weak-minded that any suggestion of religious practice anywhere in the public commons is a personal afront and works some sort of mental anguish on them which must be rooted out & crushed at all costs. And so, atheism itself acquires many of the characteristics of a "religion", or at least a certain "zealotry", and unfortunately one that everybody must bow down to.

There should be no compulsion in atheism.

I'm a fan of much that Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins write, but think they go too far sometimes which can be counter productive. They still both hit the bullseye in highlighting the most problematic of all religions.

A compulsion "not to", is still a compulsion. Ask the North Koreans.

[MJP]

Sad this lady feels she has to explain herself . . .

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28967146

[boomerangutang]

There should be no compulsion in atheism.

A compulsion "not to", is still a compulsion. Ask the North Koreans.

Many people think Atheism is somehow a lack of belief or passion. Not true at all. I was a Buddhist for decades, now am leaning more to nature and science, which I find infinitely fascinating. Buddhism is fine, but (particularly Hinayana/SE Asia style) is so clouded by icons, superstition and orthodoxy.

In fact if you get past skin colour, language, geographic heritage and just think of this as a violent sect, it makes a lot more sense what the core problem is. A book.

Not just a strange little book, but one which is open to a plethora of interpretations. In similar fashion, the song, 'row row row your boat' could be an ode to injecting heroin. The song, 'You light up my life' could be a hymn to electrocution or a plea for nuclear holocaust.

[jacky54]

Not just a strange little book, but one which is open to a plethora of interpretations.

Yet most of it seems pretty clear, just 2 out of 108 suras on violence:

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Edited September 2, 2014 by jacky54

[Seastallion]

Alas the only way the Western liberal memes can survive I the long run is to recognize the nature of the threat and counter it in it's entirety.

I found Sam Harris's argument in his book The End of Faith somewhat persuasive that the only intellectually coherant response to Islam is atheism.

Agreed. Same goes for Christianity, Judaism etc.

[H1w4yR1da]

Yet most of it seems pretty clear, just 2 out of 108 suras on violence:

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Cue our resident apologists to give their interpretation of the quotes.

Even the laid-back ultra-left Swedes are starting to get pissed off!

http://news.yahoo.com/asylum-seekers-welfare-swedish-election-breaks-immigration-taboo-123749287.html

Edited September 2, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[Ulysses G.]

Yet most of it seems pretty clear, just 2 out of 108 suras on violence:

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Cue our resident apologists to give their interpretation of the quotes.

Even the laid-back ultra-left Swedes are starting to get pissed off!

http://news.yahoo.com/asylum-seekers-welfare-swedish-election-breaks-immigration-taboo-123749287.html

็

How could anyone possibly mistake those suras as condoning violence?

[jacky54]

Yet most of it seems pretty clear, just 2 out of 108 suras on violence:

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Cue our resident apologists to give their interpretation of the quotes.

The usual response is well what about the old testament, that's got some nasty bits in it. it may well have but nobody is acting on them so it's not encouraging terrorists to fly planes into buildings, wage war around the world or single out people of other faiths and apostates to be killed. The other is, well what about all the people killed in the name of Christ, what about the inquisition. That was all a long time ago and Christianity evolved and got reformed, Islam is still in the 7th century with all those barbarous attitudes from that time. Islam must get reformed and it's followers must speak out a LOT more about jihadists and hard liners if we are ever going to be able to co exist with them. Unfortunately there is more sign in the UK of jihadists speaking for Islam than there is for the so called 'moderates' doing so.

Edited September 2, 2014 by jacky54

[JockPieandBeans]

Islam must get reformed and it's followers must speak out a LOT more about jihadists and hard liners if we are ever going to be able to co exist with them.

Co-exist ??

Does any rational person believe that these barstewards want to co-exist with anyone.

[transam]

http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2oKs.oYPgVUl20BHjE4hJp4;_ylu=X3oDMTQzNG91ZjFkBGJwb3MDMQRjY29kZQNwX2VuX2diX3BvMV9vcjEEY3BvcwM2BGN0AzEEZwNjMmJjMDI0ZS1jNTNmLTNhNWQtYjFmNC04NDNlNDJlNGM0M2YEaW50bAN1awRwa2d0AzQEcG9zAzEEc2VjA3RkLXN0cm0Ec2xrA3RpdGxlBHRlc3QDOTAz/RV=1/RE=1410839320/RH=aHNyZC55YWhvby5jb20-/RO=2/RU=aHR0cDovL3d3dy5zdGFuZGFyZC5jby51ay9uZXdzL3VrL3NhbGx5LWpvbmVzLWppaGFkLWZpZ2h0ZXItbnVuLXdpdGgtYS1ndW4tc3lyaWEtaXNsYW1pYy1zdGF0ZS1leHRyZW1pc20tOTcwMzU3Ny5odG1s/RS=%5EADASWx.wlJ8cOZamHRk7IL5lsERB6I-

[jacky54]

who is to blame for this sort of youngster and the hundreds like her who have gone from the UK to fight with ISIS in the middle east. Is it the parents, doubt that very much, the internet, or the local Mosque?

The private school jihadist: As PM unveils new terror crackdown, a Scots girl incites bloody massacre on British streets

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2740268/The-private-school-jihadist-As-PM-unveils-new-terror-crackdown-Scots-girl-incites-bloody-massacre-British-streets.html

Edited September 2, 2014 by jacky54

[arjunadawn]

Alas the only way the Western liberal memes can survive I the long run is to recognize the nature of the threat and counter it in it's entirety.

I found Sam Harris's argument in his book The End of Faith somewhat persuasive that the only intellectually coherant response to Islam is atheism.

What's the difference between a society that demands actual religious adherence, and one that bans religion entirely? Both are authoritarian. 'Seems to me the closest a society can come to real freedom is to be one that simply makes religion a personal choice, and does not allow one's practice (or choice not to practice) to infringe (truly infringe; not some make believe "emotional injury") upon someone else's free choice. Atheists have persuaded the weak-minded that any suggestion of religious practice anywhere in the public commons is a personal afront and works some sort of mental anguish on them which must be rooted out & crushed at all costs. And so, atheism itself acquires many of the characteristics of a "religion", or at least a certain "zealotry", and unfortunately one that everybody must bow down to.

Atheism is of course a religion, or pretty darn close to it. It has at its core a "belief!" Atheists are slowly developing their own procession of saints in the likes of... pick a name, B. Russel, Dawkins, etc. Atheism is slowly developing moral injunctions, over time, predicated upon... obstructing and objecting to other religions- but this is still developing into a pretty standard orthodoxy. Atheists are increasingly proselytizing. I see this on big city ads, small city advertisements, and foundations for collective lawfare against familiar JudeoChristian traditions: lawsuits, injunctions, and the aggressive seeking of small, out of the way, no where towns in America, where they lawsuit basketball teams, public squares, city halls, christmas trees on main street, etc., ad nauseum. (I am curious where the recent deepening of atheist pockets came from as Islam is never a target of atheists, that i can see, in the west. Atheists behave no different than Islam in the west IMO).

Atheism is not the answer to Islamic expansion (atheism is willingly or unwittingly facilitating Islamic gonad). The answer to Islamic expansion is only one of four options:

1) Convert

2) Pay the jiyza tax and live in dhimmhitude

3) Die

4) Recognize an ideology fundamentally at odds with every single thing the west has built over thousands of years. Recognize that even this too, the thousands of years as a memory, recollection, are also not safe. Recognize that not only does the west risk oblivion but every trace of all it had ever done- every song, every medicine, every part of prose, architecture, the procession of their gods- all! - will be reclaimed, destroyed, and rebuilt in Islam's (ironically forbidden) image.

4a) Nothing less than an immediate and total halt to immigration, reversing immigration, and zero tolerance for hate speech will suffice to save the host. Zero tolerance= like a fast track program that empowers a knock on the door, handcuffs, a trip in the car, a boxed lunch for the ship, and an azimuth back to north Africa.

You cannot fight a thing until you can know a thing. You cannot know a thing, until you can define a thing. The west is in total denial as to their status relating to waring with Islam. It will go down in history as the greater acquiescence to enslavement ever. Islam is at war with the West. I can prove to every single piece of information that hits the news feeds around the world every single day. Those that disagree with me can only protest, "nonsense!" "It doesn't mean that;" "...that is irrational fear;" "...this does not reflect the majority."

These are all arguments of denial and exclusion. Of course when someone in Kashmir blows up a bus of Hindus and declares in a video "for Islam" and cites authority... of course that means... "ISLAM!" When the cacophony of bombings and jihad and murders and rapes and shootings and "Allah Akbbars" and recitations, and cited verses... begins to sound less like disparate rage and more like a chorus, it is Islam! This is Jihad. Islam is jihad (just look at their scholars comments over millenia). Islam is jihad! But the west keeps asserting jihad is not Islam. Nonsense.

As I am reading "Londonistan" it is appallingly obvious how very deeply ingrained UK's jihadi problem is. In no small part, UK is a modern hub of Saudi jihadi will. Basically, "UK is our go to guy in the west," (Fictitious conversation with Senior Saudi cleric and the royal house).

[jacky54]

As I am reading "Londonistan" it is appallingly obvious how very deeply ingrained UK's jihadi problem is. In no small part, UK is a modern hub of Saudi jihadi will. Basically, "UK is our go to guy in the west," (Fictitious conversation with Senior Saudi cleric and the royal house).

That's a book everyone should read, well written and researched and sadly things have only gotten worse since it was published in 2006. Been undated since.

[JockPieandBeans]

who is to blame for this sort of youngster and the hundreds like her who have gone from the UK to fight with ISIS in the middle east. Is it the parents, doubt that very much, the internet, or the local Mosque?

The private school jihadist: As PM unveils new terror crackdown, a Scots girl incites bloody massacre on British streets

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2740268/The-private-school-jihadist-As-PM-unveils-new-terror-crackdown-Scots-girl-incites-bloody-massacre-British-streets.html

What do you expect from the epicenter of Scotlands largest muslim population.

[boomerangutang]

If you start 'reforming' it, Islam will fall apart.

Its people will abandon it in droves.

I don't see Islam as falling apart. Similar to astrology (though it's benign) believers get even more stalwart when their beliefs are challenged. Trouble is, with Islamists, when their beliefs get challenged, they can get, in turn: defensive, angry, vindictive, threatening, destructive. It sounds like bratty kids.

From a psychological perspective, getting so profoundly defensive and lashing out, is indicative of insecurity. Perhaps we should pity Islamists because they're so insecure about their belief system - like you might steady a dog you take on a river raft ride in white water.

Edited September 2, 2014 by boomerangutang