Does Britain have a jihadi problem?

[submaniac]

And that is because the United States has the ability to screen people America allows to enter whilst Britain signed up with the EU and relinquished its sovereignty so that anyone and everyone who wants to come to Britain and wage Jihad is allowed to enter and the authorities can do nothing about it.

What has the EU got to do with it? The only problem I can see may be that the UK is more humane than the US.

The UK's "humanity" will be its undoing. When you are dealing with allowing people to immigrate to your country, a tough hand is needed not falling for sob stories about being oppressed.

[Cambodger]

Just saw a British imam in a television interview last night, predicting that sharia WILL be universally imposed in the UK. Universally! I don't believe I heard him say just when that would be. Something to look forward to I guess... (Oh, and western news outlets have it all wrong about what's going on with non-muslims in ISIL, BTW.)

Now you have me scared!

PS. By any chance, did he also predict the winning lottery numbers? Please share with us.

'Wish I had caught the whole interview. So I don't know his name. He was dressed in the traditional garb and speaking with a British accent, and my take was that he is in fact a British resident and well known for his views. Some of the Brits here on the forum surely know who he is. I heard a question the interviewer started putting to him about the treatment of non-muslims in ISIL, and the imam began trying to give a speech about how the western news had it all wrong, but would not directly answer the question being put to him. Once the conversation devolved into that (the interviewer insisting on an answer to his question and this guy evading it in favor of speechmaking) I kind of lost interest and went back to what I'd been doing.

No, nothing about lottery numbers. Just a statement that universal sharia was coming inevitably in the UK. I do also remember him saying that all Brits would actually be happier living under it than the current system of law.

Probably Anjem Choudary - well known loon and talker of bOll0x

you got there first

[MAJIC]

Does Britain have a jihadi problem?

YES!

Even more to the point does the world have a Jihadi problem?

YES!

Edited August 29, 2014 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

And that is because the United States has the ability to screen people America allows to enter whilst Britain signed up with the EU and relinquished its sovereignty so that anyone and everyone who wants to come to Britain and wage Jihad is allowed to enter and the authorities can do nothing about it.

What has the EU got to do with it? The only problem I can see may be that the UK is more humane than the US.

The UK's "humanity" will be its undoing. When you are dealing with allowing people to immigrate to your country, a tough hand is needed not falling for sob stories about being oppressed.

I don't always agree with you,but you are bang on the button!

[MAJIC]

WHAT A STUPID QUESTION

The only people who dont know the UK has a MUSLIM PROBLEM is the liberal left retards

When was the left in power? And please do not mention Blair in this context.

The left has been in power in the UK for a long time. Socialism is leftist and that includes the NHS and all the other safety nets available to every layabout.

Joining the EU is leftist as the far right would prefer little or no government.

If you drew a straight line across a piece of paper and put a dot in the middle to indicate neutral, you could begin to list things to the left and to the right of the dot and graphically illustrate the difference between left and right.

To the far left of that line, write communism. Total government control. To the far right on the line, write anarchy - no government at all.

Somewhere along the left half of that line write socialism. Somewhere to the right will be a philosophy of self reliance, independence, and freedom from government. Those on the right half will have enough constraints on government that they will be armed and those on the left will have so much government control that they will not be armed.

At its root, it could simply be said that those on the left want more government, and those on the right want less government. To place a person or country on that line, you'd simply need to know how much control of individual freedom is allowed to go to government.

Right now only those on the right would see the need and take action to sweep a country clean of all of these government caused problems.

Before you lecture me on anarchism, please googlle Godwin, that's the one who "invented" it (and was so kind as to let me use his pic as my avatar).

Ni dieu ni maitre.

There is no logical argument for Anarchism, except the lunacy of the Asylem! think about it!

Remember if Anarchists get what they desire,they will be the first to be slaughtered,freeze,

and starve,

[MJP]

^^ My point is Jihad has been going on for hundreds of years and would be going on regardless of the actions of Bush/Blair etc. It's simply Islamic extremism.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

[Pattszero]

^^ My point is Jihad has been going on for hundreds of years and would be going on regardless of the actions of Bush/Blair etc. It's simply Islamic extremism.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

So tell me about the multiple Jihadist activities in the UK between the mid-60's and the start of the Iraq War.

[MJP]

^^ My point is Jihad has been going on for hundreds of years and would be going on regardless of the actions of Bush/Blair etc. It's simply Islamic extremism.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

So tell me about the multiple Jihadist activities in the UK between the mid-60's and the start of the Iraq War.

Like the Iranian Embassy siege?

[hawker9000]

'Wish I had caught the whole interview. So I don't know his name. He was dressed in the traditional garb and speaking with a British accent, and my take was that he is in fact a British resident and well known for his views. Some of the Brits here on the forum surely know who he is. I heard a question the interviewer started putting to him about the treatment of non-muslims in ISIL, and the imam began trying to give a speech about how the western news had it all wrong, but would not directly answer the question being put to him. Once the conversation devolved into that (the interviewer insisting on an answer to his question and this guy evading it in favor of speechmaking) I kind of lost interest and went back to what I'd been doing.

No, nothing about lottery numbers. Just a statement that universal sharia was coming inevitably in the UK. I do also remember him saying that all Brits would actually be happier living under it than the current system of law.

Probably Anjem Choudary - well known loon and talker of bOll0x

you got there first

Yeap - that looks like the guy...

[MJP]

This is well written . . .

http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101

Since the breakup of the Islamic Empire following World War I, various jihads have been fought around the globe by the independent Muslim nations and sub-state jihadist groups. The most sustained effort has been directed against Israel, which has committed the unpardonable sin of rebuilding dar al-harb on land formerly a part of dar al-Islam. Other prominent jihads include that fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Muslim Bosnians against the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, the Muslim Albanians against the Serbs in Kosovo, and the Chechens against the Russians in the Caucasus. Jihads have also been waged throughout northern Africa, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, and a host of other places throughout the world. In addition, the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks around the world have been committed by Muslims, including, of course, the spectacular attacks of 9/11/01 (USA), 3/11/04 (Spain), and 7/7/05 (UK). (For a more comprehensive list of Muslim attacks, visit www.thereligionofpeace.com.)

The fact is, the percentage of conflicts in the world today that do not include Islam is pretty small. Islam is making a comeback.

Edited August 29, 2014 by MJP

[simple1]

I really think that Britain must rethink it's policy, and do some of the things that the British would consider "dirty" but other countries do as a matter of course because they know it is necessary.

Examples? I hear alot of complaints on this forum that Thailand makes it so hard for foreigners to become citizens while if a Thai woman marries she can obtain residency and citizenship in Britain. Well that's the way it should be. Thailand does not want foreigners because it will change Thai culture, what the British should be thinking is "you know, we probably need to do the same thing".

The European Union. Why the hell did Britain do that? Now Britain has to accept what the EU laws, and they say that an EU citizen has the rights to settle where they want in the EU. GB has in effect, given up its sovereignty in favor of what a committee of europeans says. Can anyone imagine the United States giving up its sovereignty? What about Thailand??? No way would the Thais subjugate themselves to anyone's authority over them.

Britain needs to take a hard stance, and must not be worried about being politically correct, or offending people. Kind of like in Thailand, when there's rioting and misbehaving going on, a military junta takes place and martial law is imposed. Thailand really does not care about individual's rights. I watched the news a few years back about how when British soldiers who were returning from Afghanistan were met with a protest by British Muslims who called them baby killers and spat on them. Have you heard of Thais spitting on their soldiers? What about the USA? Spitting on a US soldier returning from war would probably result in the spitter having their skull cracked.

Then I see another news story on how the British set up separate Sharia courts to hear legal cases for British Muslims. Really?!?! Thailand has a significant Muslim population. The United States has a mulsim population. Neither countries set up a different court system based upon someone's religion. Equality means you are subject to the same law no matter what your religion is, not that you get to have your own separate legal system.

Sorry guys, I'm not trying to bash here, but from a perspective of someone outside of Britain, Britain's antics demonstrate a complete losing of the plot.

Actually you are incorrect, Thailand has permitted Sharia Law for civil matters since 1948. UK also permits Jewish law for civil matters.

Edited August 29, 2014 by simple1

[simple1]

This is well written . . .

http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101

Since the breakup of the Islamic Empire following World War I, various jihads have been fought around the globe by the independent Muslim nations and sub-state jihadist groups. The most sustained effort has been directed against Israel, which has committed the unpardonable sin of rebuilding dar al-harb on land formerly a part of dar al-Islam. Other prominent jihads include that fought against the Soviets in Afghanistan, the Muslim Bosnians against the Serbs in the former Yugoslavia, the Muslim Albanians against the Serbs in Kosovo, and the Chechens against the Russians in the Caucasus. Jihads have also been waged throughout northern Africa, the Philippines, Thailand, Kashmir, and a host of other places throughout the world. In addition, the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks around the world have been committed by Muslims, including, of course, the spectacular attacks of 9/11/01 (USA), 3/11/04 (Spain), and 7/7/05 (UK). (For a more comprehensive list of Muslim attacks, visit www.thereligionofpeace.com.)

The fact is, the percentage of conflicts in the world today that do not include Islam is pretty small. Islam is making a comeback.

Are you saying the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan & the resultant slaughter of thousands of civilians was unjustifiable to resist? In the former Yugoslavia it was the Serbs and Christian Croats who launched wars of aggression against the Muslims with many war crimes committed. Serb forces also carried out war crimes in Kosovo as did the Russians in Chechnya.

Numerous acts of interferance and evil acts by all sides in nearly all the conflict zones, not solely Islamic terrorists and forces.

[Steely Dan]

^^ My point is Jihad has been going on for hundreds of years and would be going on regardless of the actions of Bush/Blair etc. It's simply Islamic extremism.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

Please can you watch the video on Jihad I posted before. We all have a Jihad problem, the only differences are what stage of Jihad we are at. The UK is ahead of the US due to the percentage of Muslims and our political correctness twinned with no constitutional right to freedom of speech. Holland, Belgium and Denmark have big problems too, but they were peripheral at best to the Iraq war, that's a red herring just as Israel or for that matter the crusades were. Edited August 30, 2014 by Steely Dan

[nidieunimaitre]

Great speech by Cameron and no PC avoidance of the real problem - radical Islam - like the American president.

Sadly many years too late, lets see if his words get translated into actions, I have my doubts. This is the man who stood outside Downing st and said lee Rigby's killing had nothing to do with Islam, despite the killer shouting afterwards in the street holding the bloody knife that the Koran made him do it. Cameron also said Islam is a religion of peace, maybe he's having second thoughts.

In this thred I have been informed that the fundamentalist problem is caused by those horrible lefties.

So Cameron is a leftie, right?

Or could reality possibly maybe be just a little bit more complicated?

[Ulysses G.]

In this thred I have been informed that the fundamentalist problem is caused by those horrible lefties.

Not caused. Ignored by those horrible lefties.

[nidieunimaitre]

In this thred I have been informed that the fundamentalist problem is caused by those horrible lefties.

Not caused. Ignored by those horrible lefties.

Ignored not caused.

OK

Now answer: Is Cameron one of those horrible lefties?

[metisdead]

Off topic posts and replies have been removed.

[NeverSure]

In this thred I have been informed that the fundamentalist problem is caused by those horrible lefties.

Not caused. Ignored by those horrible lefties.

Ignored not caused.

OK

Now answer: Is Cameron one of those horrible lefties?

I don't know what he is. He campaigns as a conservative, tosses his hat in with the blind, and maybe now he's being mugged by reality.

I was surprised but more than pleased at his speech yesterday about not allowing Islamist ISIS to establish a state in Iraq. Maybe he's waking up.

[Scott]

A post violating Fair Use Policy has been deleted. You may only quote the first three sentences of an article and then a link to the remainder.

[simple1]

In this thred I have been informed that the fundamentalist problem is caused by those horrible lefties.

Not caused. Ignored by those horrible lefties.

Ignored not caused. OK

Now answer: Is Cameron one of those horrible lefties?

Most certainly not if he actioned his criticisms three years ago of some in the UK Muslim communities and 'lefties'; did he get the necessary support to implement his policies?

"David Cameron will today signal a sea-change in the government fight against home-grown terrorism, saying the state must confront, and not consort with, the non-violent Muslim groups that are ambiguous about British values such as equality between sexes, democracy and integration"

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2011/feb/05/david-cameron-muslim-extremism

[ABCer]

To answer the question in OP - YES.

To re-phrase the OP question more correctly - Does the World have a problem with Jihad? - the answer is the same - YES.

To give a more in depth answer than a mere "YES" - most people and their Gov'ts do not realize the magnitude of the problem.

Human development, ideas, concepts go up and down. Or if you prefer go left and right. Or if you prefer go on circles.

The presnt stage in the West is characterized by what is termed 'multiculturalism'. Or if you prefer 'tolerance'. Or if you prefer 'political correctness'.

One day the pendulum will swing back. Or if you prefer the circle will go onto a new turn.

The Nostradamus prophecy will come to be true.

The battle will be like no one before. There will be no women, no children, no innocent.

You may call it Jihad. Or if you prefer 'anti-Jihad'. Or if you prefer Apocalypse. Or if you prefer the 'Judgement Day'.

This is not a call for violence.

This is not an insult to any Nation, Race or Religion.

This is a logical projection of what is happening in the World today.

Welcome to Future!

[H1w4yR1da]

Looks like Tony Abbott has more of an idea than Cameron.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terrorist-beheadings-could-happen-in-australia-tony-abbott-warns-as-he-pushes-tougher-security-laws-20140821-3e2fl.html

This is needed in the UK. And more!

Edited August 30, 2014 by H1w4yR1da

[simple1]

Looks like Tony Abbott has more of an idea than Cameron.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terrorist-beheadings-could-happen-in-australia-tony-abbott-warns-as-he-pushes-tougher-security-laws-20140821-3e2fl.html

This is needed in the UK. And more!

He's also stated not at war with Islam, the religion, but with Islamic extremist groups. A few days ago authorised spending A$72 million to assist Muslim community groups to counter efforts by some with the radicalisation of Australian Muslims - do you agree with this?

[H1w4yR1da]

Looks like Tony Abbott has more of an idea than Cameron.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terrorist-beheadings-could-happen-in-australia-tony-abbott-warns-as-he-pushes-tougher-security-laws-20140821-3e2fl.html

This is needed in the UK. And more!

He's also stated not at war with Islam, the religion, but with Islamic extremist groups. A few days ago authorised spending A$72 million to assist Muslim community groups to counter efforts by some with the radicalisation of Australian Muslims - do you agree with this?

Don't he stupid, of course not! The west is, or will be, at war with Islam. It's just a matter of time. Look at the UK.

Abbott needs to remove the tampon, stop pandering to the left and seriously clamp down on these homegrown mutts using the full weight of the law, not handouts.

[simple1]

Looks like Tony Abbott has more of an idea than Cameron.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terrorist-beheadings-could-happen-in-australia-tony-abbott-warns-as-he-pushes-tougher-security-laws-20140821-3e2fl.html

This is needed in the UK. And more!

He's also stated not at war with Islam, the religion, but with Islamic extremist groups. A few days ago authorised spending A$72 million to assist Muslim community groups to counter efforts by some with the radicalisation of Australian Muslims - do you agree with this?

Don't he stupid, of course not! The west is, or will be, at war with Islam. It's just a matter of time. Look at the UK.

Abbott needs to remove the tampon, stop pandering to the left and seriously clamp down on these homegrown mutts using the full weight of the law, not handouts.

Abbott was working from advice received from the Head of ASIO and others (retiring in a few weeks so no need for PC from him and not from the left wing) Irvine flatly stated mostly Muslim community leaders - there are some Imams who are not the good guys - are going very good work in assisting with efforts to identify & resist Islamic radicalisation. However sounds like you are better informed than the Head of Australian intelligence.

How about signing up, nice country, ASIO are looking for more staff to focus on Islamic extremism, with your expertise you will be welcomed. Oh & yes the Oz government is working hard to identify and clamp down on extremists

[boomerangutang]

But what are approximate boundaries of the Jihadists " expectations " when living in another country? We never hear about exactly what they are demanding ?

They, particularly the radicals, want to establish a Muslim-like community. They are fixated on themselves being right about everything, so therefore everyone who thinks differently is wrong or worse (heretical, heathen, atheist, demonic, ....whatever). The moderates may be decent, but they're totally cowed by the shrill activists - particularly the ones brandishing weapons and continually shouting 'Allah Akbar' and preceding and ending each sentence they utter with 'God willing.'

For example surely they realise introducing Sharia law would be out of the question in the UK (or indeed any other non-Moslem country).

Pardon me for calling you naive, but it's very much NOT out of the question. Granted, it's too early now to force Sharia on GB, but concerted efforts will inevitably happen - between 15 and 40 years from now. It doesn't take a majority of the populace to ram through such legislation. When has a Muslim country ever given a hoot for democracy? In Egypt, there's some backlash against radicalization, but that's because the Egyptians are familiar with religious radicals and know they have to deal with them harshly, to have any affect. British authorities, on the other hand, are inclined to try dialog and reason. Indeed, most Bobbies still don't carry guns. They're going to get some 'wake up calls' when heavily armed baddies shouting 'Allah Akbar' start stirring up trouble.

[jacky54]

Looks like Tony Abbott has more of an idea than Cameron.

http://m.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terrorist-beheadings-could-happen-in-australia-tony-abbott-warns-as-he-pushes-tougher-security-laws-20140821-3e2fl.html

This is needed in the UK. And more!

He's also stated not at war with Islam, the religion, but with Islamic extremist groups. A few days ago authorised spending A$72 million to assist Muslim community groups to counter efforts by some with the radicalisation of Australian Muslims - do you agree with this?

Islam has been at war with all non believers since the 7th century, that's the be all and end all of it, conquer them wherever they are is Allah's command, some ignore it but some don't.

Edited August 30, 2014 by jacky54

[Pattszero]

^^ My point is Jihad has been going on for hundreds of years and would be going on regardless of the actions of Bush/Blair etc. It's simply Islamic extremism.

The ambassador answered us that [their right] was founded on the Laws of the Prophet, that it was written in their Koran, that all nations who should not have answered their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.

The above passage is not a reference to a declaration by al Qaeda or some Iranian fatwa. They are the words of Thomas Jefferson, then the U.S. ambassador to France, reporting to Secretary of State John Jay a conversation he'd had with Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja, Tripoli's envoy to London, in 1786 -- more than two and a quarter centuries ago.

That is before al Qaeda and the Taliban, before the creation of Israel or the Arab-Israeli conflict, before Khomeini, before Saudi Arabia, before drones, before most Americans even knew what jihad or Islam was, and, most importantly, well before the United States had engaged in a single military incursion overseas or even had an established foreign policy.

So tell me about the multiple Jihadist activities in the UK between the mid-60's and the start of the Iraq War.

Like the Iranian Embassy siege?

Are you serious?

Is that the best you can do?

Unbelievable.

[Pattszero]

But what are approximate boundaries of the Jihadists " expectations " when living in another country? We never hear about exactly what they are demanding ?

They, particularly the radicals, want to establish a Muslim-like community. They are fixated on themselves being right about everything, so therefore everyone who thinks differently is wrong or worse (heretical, heathen, atheist, demonic, ....whatever). The moderates may be decent, but they're totally cowed by the shrill activists - particularly the ones brandishing weapons and continually shouting 'Allah Akbar' and preceding and ending each sentence they utter with 'God willing.'

For example surely they realise introducing Sharia law would be out of the question in the UK (or indeed any other non-Moslem country).

Pardon me for calling you naive, but it's very much NOT out of the question. Granted, it's too early now to force Sharia on GB, but concerted efforts will inevitably happen - between 15 and 40 years from now. It doesn't take a majority of the populace to ram through such legislation. When has a Muslim country ever given a hoot for democracy? In Egypt, there's some backlash against radicalization, but that's because the Egyptians are familiar with religious radicals and know they have to deal with them harshly, to have any affect. British authorities, on the other hand, are inclined to try dialog and reason. Indeed, most Bobbies still don't carry guns. They're going to get some 'wake up calls' when heavily armed baddies shouting 'Allah Akbar' start stirring up trouble.

I haven't read all the replies - Sharia tribunals are already part of the legal framework in the UK.

[thaibeachlovers]

Yes.

Will they do anything about it- no. Too PC and scared of the Muslims.