rasputnik

"'Islam is not like Christianity, where they turn the other cheek. If they
raid our homes, it could lead to the covenant of security being broken.
Islam allows us to retaliate. That would include" - he tugs his 'Jihad' coat
tight against the night air - 'by violent means.'"


Terror on the dole

By David Cohen, Evening Standard

20 April 2004

Four young British Muslims in their twenties - a social worker, an IT
specialist, a security guard and a financial adviser - occupy a table
at a fast-food chicken restaurant in Luton. Perched on their plastic
chairs, wolfing down their dinner, they seem just ordinary young men.
Yet out of their mouths pour heated words of revolution.

"As far as I'm concerned, when they bomb London, the bigger the
better," says Abdul Haq, the social worker. "I know it's going to
happen because Sheikh bin Laden said so. Like Bali, like Turkey, like
Madrid - I pray for it, I look forward to the day."

"Pass the brown sauce, brother," says Abu Malaahim, the IT specialist,
devouring his chicken and chips.

"I agree with you, brother," says Abu Yusuf, the earnest-looking
financial adviser sitting opposite. "I would like to see the
Mujahideen coming into London and killing thousands, whether with
nuclear weapons or germ warfare. And if they need a safehouse, they
can stay in mine - and if they need some fertiliser [for a bomb],
I'll tell them where to get it."
His friend, Abu Musa, the security guard, smiles radiantly. "It will
be a day of joy for me," he adds, speaking with a slight lisp.

As they talk, a man with a bushy beard, dressed in a jacket emblazoned
with the word "Jihad", stands and watches over them, handing around
cups of steaming hot coffee. His real name is Ishtiaq Alamgir, but he
goes by his adopted name, Sayful Islam, meaning "Sword of Islam". He
is the 24-year-old leader of the Luton branch of al-Muhajiroun, an
extremist Muslim group with about 800 members countrywide, who regard
Osama bin Laden as their hero.

Until recently, nobody took the fanatical beliefs of al-Muhajiroun too
seriously, believing that a British-based group so brazenly "out
there" could not be involved in something as "underground" as
terrorism. The group is led by the exiled Saudi, Sheikh Omar Bakri
Mohammad, from his base in north London. Yesterday, in a magazine
article, Bakri warned that several radical groups are poised to
strike in London.

For all its inflammatory rhetoric, al-Muhajiroun has never been linked
to actual violence. Yet, with the discovery last month of
half-a-tonne of ammonium nitrate fertiliser - the same explosive
ingredient used in the Bali and Turkey terror attacks - and with the
arrest of eight young British Muslims in London and the South-East,
including six in Luton, extremist groups such as al-Muhajiroun are
under the spotlight like never before.

Detectives fear that the "enemy within", the homegrown extremists
leading apparently normal lives in suburbia, now pose the greatest
threat to security in Britain. Sayful and his friends fit this
"homegrown" profile: three were born here, two came as young children
from Pakistan; all were educated in local Luton schools; and they
grew up in families of full employment - one of their fathers is a
retired local businessman, two are engineers, and two worked in the
local Vauxhall car plant.

The question is: how worried should we be? Is al-Muhajiroun nothing
more than a repository for disaffected Muslim youths who have adopted
an extreme interpretation of Islam - perhaps to cock a snook at the
white establishment - but who are essentially posturing? Or does the
group also perform a more sinister function, sucking in alienated
young men and brainwashing the more impressionable into becoming
future suicide bombers?

Although none of the arrested Muslims - aged 17 to 32 - appear to be
current al-Muhajiroun members, rumours have circulated of informal
links to the group. Moreover, parents of the arrested men have spoken
anxiously of the "radicalising influence" of al-Muhajiroun militants
who " corrupt" their children at mosques.

Nowhere has this public confrontation between radicals and moderates
been more apparent than in Luton, which has the highest density of
Muslims in the South-East - 28,000 out of a total population of
140,000 - and has long been regarded as a hotbed of extremism.

Sayful Islam, for one, is particularly proud of his contribution to
Luton's hardline reputation. His exploits include covering the town
with " Magnificent 19" posters glorifying the 11 September suicide
bombers. "When I joined al-Muhajiroun four years ago, there were five
local members," he says. "Now there are more than 50 and hundreds
more support us."

The strange thing is that four years ago, Sayful Islam was a
jeans-clad student completing his degree in business economics at
Middlesex University in Hendon, north London.

The son of a British Rail engineer who came to this country from
Pakistan, Sayful grew up in a moderate, middle-class Muslim family in
Luton. At the local Denbigh High School, he is remembered as one of
the smartest kids, and was selected to attend a science masterclass
at Cambridge University. He would go on to marry, have two children
and find work as an accountant for the Inland Revenue in Luton. He
was thoroughly uninterested in politics.

THEN he met Sheikh Omar Bakri Mohammad at a local event. Within two
years, he had swapped his decently paid job as an accountant for an
unpaid one as a political agitator. What turned him into an
extremist? And how far is he prepared to go to achieve his aims?

Prior to seeing the group at the fastfood restaurant, Sayful meets me
at his semi-detached rented home in Bury Park, Luton's Muslim
neighbourhood. He no longer works, even though he is able-bodied, he
admits, preferring instead to claim housing benefit and jobseeker's
allowance. He smiles sheepishly and says the irony is not lost on him
that the British state is supporting him financially, even as he
plots to "overthrow it".

"I made a decision that I wanted to follow what Islam really said,"
Sayful begins, sitting on his sofa in his thowb (a traditional robe)
and bare feet. "I went to listen to all the local imams, but I found
their portrayal of Islam was too secularised. When I heard Sheikh
Omar [the leader] of al-Muhajiroun speak, it was pure Islam, with no
compromise. I found that appealing.

"At the same time," continues Sayful, "wars were happening in Bosnia,
Kosovo, Chechnya, Afghanistan. People were being oppressed simply
because they were Muslim. Although I had never experienced racism in
the UK, it opened the eyes of a lot of Muslims, including mine."

But it was the events of 11 September that crystallised Sayful's
worldview. "When I watched those planes go into the Twin Towers, I
felt elated," he says. "That magnificent action split the world into
two camps: you were either with Islam and al Qaeda, or with the
enemy. I decided to quit my job and commit myself full-time to
al-Muhajiroun." Now he does not consider himself British. "I am a
Muslim living in Britain, and I give my allegiance only to Allah."

According to Sayful, the aim of al-Muhajiroun ("the immigrants") is
nothing less than Khilafah - "the worldwide domination of Islam". The
way to achieve this, he says, is by Jihad, led by Bin Laden. "I
support him 100 per cent."

Does that support extend to violent acts of terrorism in the UK?

"Yes," he replies, unequivocally. "When a bomb attack happens here, I
won't be against it, even if it kills my own children. Islam is
clear: Muslims living in lands that are occupied have the right to
attack their invaders.

"Britain became a legitimate target when it sent troops to Iraq. But
it is against Islam for me to engage personally in acts of terrorism
in the UK because I live here. According to Islam, I have a covenant
of security with the UK, as long as they allow us Muslims to live
here in peace."

HE USES the phrase "covenant of security" constantly. He attempts to
explain. "If we want to engage in terrorism, we would have to leave
the country," he says. "It is against Islam to do otherwise." Such a
course of action, he says, he is not prepared to undertake. This is
why, Sayful claims, it is consistent, and not cowardly, for him to
espouse the rhetoric of terrorism, the "martyrdom-operations", while
simultaneouslylimiting himself to nonviolentactions such as
leafletting outside Luton town hall.

He denies any link between al-Muhajiroun and the Muslims arrested in
the recent police raids. But, as I later discover at the fastfood
restaurant, not everyone attaching themselves, however loosely, to
al-Muhajiroun draws the same line. Two members of the group - Abu
Yusuf, the financial adviser, and Abu Musa, the security guard -
scorn al-Muhajiroun as "too moderate".

"I am freelance," says Abu Yusuf, fixing me with his piercing brown
eyes. What does that mean? I ask.

"The difference between us and those two," interjects Abu Malaahim,
pointing to Musa and Yusuf, "is that us lot do a verbal thing, [but]
those brothers actually want to do a physical thing."

Referring to the latest truce offered by Bin Laden, and Britain's
scathing rejection of it, Abu Malaahim adds: "He tried to make a
peace deal. When terrorism happens, you will only have yourselves to
blame."

How far are you prepared to go? I ask.

"You want to know how far I will go," says Abu Musa, his high-pitched
lisp rising an octave. "When Allah said in the Koran 'kill and be
killed', that's what I want. I want a martyr operation, where I kill
my enemy."

Are you saying, I probe, that you are looking to kill people yourself
? "Yes," Abu Musa says, "to kill and to be killed." He emphasises
each word.

What's stopped you doing it? "As you know from watching the news,"
intones Abu Yusuf, "there are brothers who do leave the country and
do it." He is referring to the four Muslims from Luton who died
fighting for the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the two British Muslims,
said to have had ties to al-Muhajiroun, who last April left to become
suicide bombers in Israel. "In-shallah [ Godwilling], there will be a
time to go."

It is hard to know whether Musa and Yusuf are deadly serious or just
pumped full of misguided, youthful bravado. Though I see coldness -
even ruthlessness - in their eyes, I sense no malice. Both young men
agree, perhaps foolishly, to be quoted using their real names, though
they decline photographs - thus illustrating their uncertainty of
which way to jump.

Muhammad Sulaiman, president of the Islamic Cultural Society, the
largest of the 14 mosques in Luton, dismisses al-Muhajiroun as
"verbal diarrhoea".

"They are an extreme Right-wing group - the Muslim version of the
BNP," he says disdainfully. "They think Muslims should dominate, just
like the BNP thinks whites should dominate. They use Islam as a
vehicle to promote their distorted beliefs, particularly to
unemployed young bloods who are vulnerable."

ALTHOUGH unemployment in Luton is just six per cent, the rate among
Muslim youths is estimated at 25 per cent. "They are no more
representative of our Muslim community than the BNP are of the white
community."

Sulaiman insists that Sayful Islam and his crew are not welcome at the
mosque. He cannot prevent them praying there, but he will never give
them a platform. "I've told Sayful to bugger off and ejected him many
times," he says brusquely. "Even Sayful's father, who I know well,
thinks his son has been brainwashed."

But Sayful and his friends laugh at the idea that they are local
pariahs. "The mosques say one thing to the public, and something else
to us. Let's just say that the face you see and the face we see are
two different faces," says Abdul Haq. "Believe me," adds Musa,
"behind closed doors, there are no moderate Muslims."

They also mock the idea that they are attracted to al-Muhajiroun
because they have suffered alienation from white society. "Do we look
like scum?" they ask. "Do we look illiterate?"

As they call for the bill, Abu Malaahim flicks open his 3G mobile
phone and, with a satisfied grin, displays the image, downloaded from
the internet, of an American Humvee burning in Iraq.

Abu Yusuf says: "That's nothing. I downloaded the picture of the four
burnt Americans hanging from the bridge." It's oneupmanship,
al-Muhajiroun style.

Sayful, the only married one in the group, prepares to go home to his
wife and children. Before he departs, he says he has a message to
deliver.

"I want to warn that the police raids - if repeated - could create a
bad situation.

"Islam is not like Christianity, where they turn the other cheek. If
they raid our homes, it could lead to the covenant of security being
broken.

"Islam allows us to retaliate. That would include" - he tugs his
"Jihad" coat tight against the night air - "by violent means."


http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/l...9634?version=1

midwinter

Jihad means a struggle with God for righteousness. It can also be used
to mean a war for Islam. Well shock horror. Odd, though, that behind
every 'war for Islam', there is usually an individual or a group who
directly gain from the conflict. And Christianity has no such concept,
presumably? Being the perfect peaceful religion? Does the word
'crusade' not ring any bells, here? "Turn the other cheek", you say?
Since when? Since the Catholic Church lost its iron-fist dominion over
Europe?

No religion should be allowed to rule.


And are they any different from the heated words of hatred and habit-
driven anger that pour onto this group? The problem as I see it is that
we have two sides here who are unwilling to put down their metaphorical
swords. Most people are caught up in between two groups who do not want
peace, because it is more comfortable to hate; two groups, each of whom
use the other side's supposed warlike tendencies to justify their own.
Like the situation between Israel and Palestine, the situation has no
resolution and will continue tit-for-tat until one side or the other has
the guts not to retaliate.


This man is nothing more than a spoilt child. But if the state allows
him to continue to abuse it then it deserves to be abused. He does not
seem to be making any secret of it. And besides, Al Capone was, I seem
to recall, finally brought to book on tax matters. If this fellow
fancies himself something of a Mr Big, perhaps he should be covering his
back in this regard.

Ah? So in fact what he decided was that he wanted to find a version of
his supposed religion that said what HE thought it ought to say. Typical
of the religious fanatic.

If all the local imams were NOT teaching suicide bombing and terrorism,
but this man thought they should be, what does that tell us about his
idea of what Islam "really said"? Perhaps that it is self-obsessed
arrogant bullshit?

--
Midwinter

adrian

TERROR suspect was freed by a top judge yesterday after it was claimed
being in jail had made his mental health worse.


The Special Immigration Appeal Commission panel headed by Mr Justice
Collins released him on bail.

The ruling comes just seven months after the SIAC ruled that there was
"reasonable suspicion" that the Algerian — known only as G — was an
international terrorist.

The decision infuriated Home Secretary David Blunkett. His official
spokesman said: "The court agrees this individual can be believed to
be a terrorist — yet only months later authorises that he should be
released on bail."

A Whitehall source added: "It's bonkers. There is every evidence that
this man is a risk to Britain."

Last October the SIAC rejected his appeal for release, saying: "We
have no doubt that he has been involved in the production of false
documentation, has facilitated young Muslims to travel to Afghanistan
to train for jihad and has actively assisted terrorists who have links
to al-Qaeda."

But yesterday they freed him after hearing his behaviour had become
psychotic at Belmarsh high security prison in South East London.

But Mr Blunkett had expert advice that G — detained in December 2001
under emergency anti-terror laws — was NOT ill enough to be
transferred to Broadmoor and Government lawyers said he was still a
threat to national security.

But Mr Justice Collins ruled that G could be granted bail under strict
house-arrest conditions and he would be jailed if he breached them.


Mafia is winning
By DAVID WOODING
Whitehall Editor

DAVID Blunkett admitted yesterday he is powerless to halt criminal
gangs smuggling thousands of illegal immigrants into the UK.

The Home Secretary complained that the migrant mafia was finding
loopholes to beat his crackdowns.

He confessed his reforms were plagued by "difficulties" and said:
"Every time I take a step, the organised criminals behind the
exploitation of normal, legitimate routes find a way around it."

Mr Blunkett voiced his anger as he launched a blitz on bogus marriages
and language schools used as a cover by illegal immigrants.

He will make it tougher to get student visas which annually provide a
way into Britain for 300,000.

Mr Blunkett said: "We're going to tighten up dramatically on students
coming in."

Mr Blunkett admitted his estimate of 3,000 bogus marriages last year
was short of the mark — but denied they had topped 15,000.

But Shadow Home Secretary David Davis stormed: "His reaction is too
little too late."

the enlightenment

It is all rather tastless to see this Jewish "Cohen" shit posted here.
Having promoted multiculturalism, political correctnes, cultural
relativism and mass immigration in to the west with unbelievable
ferociousness, and via the villification of Whites and treason to the
westrn peoples that have welcomed them, Jews are begining to realise
that they have shat in the same place that they eat. Not even a pig
does that if it can help it.

Unbelievably we have been saying this for decades but at that time the
truth didn't fit in with the general agenda of Issy politics.

Still, it's a good read.

from

four


his

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/l...9634?version=1

the enlightenment

The crusades were a valid and necessary European response to centuries
of unprovoked Jihad on Europe. It was a necessary response of
Europeans because Islam and various Nth Africans were invading Europe
well before the crusades.

You would do well for the sake of truth and justice to critically
study History rather than the political correctness we are so sadly
fed or listen to public broadcasting e.g. PBS or BBC.

************************************************** **
"There were several big campaigns of forcible conversion: during the
rule of Almohads in Andalus(Spain)(XII century), during the rule of
Fatimids in Egypt, Syria and Palestine(XI c.) and during the rule of
Aurangzeb in India(the end of XVII century). By the way all these big
campaigns brought big detriment to Umma - the first campaign
precipitated the downfall of Islamic Spain, the Fatimide persecutions
were pretext for Crusades and Aurangzeb policies led to the
dismemberment of Indian Mogol State. "

"But Moorish Spain was not a tolerant and enlightened society even in
its most cultivated epoch." There was beauty but little tolerance.
Witness the Jews of Granada who were butchered in 1066, or the
Christians who were deported by the Almoravids to Morocco in 1126."
Learning was restricted to a small elite who had the means to study:
also fundamentalists persecuted the scientists from time to time. For
centuries, anarchy rather than good order and civilized behavior, had
been the general rule.
- from "Moorish Spain", R.Fletcher, (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1992)

Charles Martell defeated an Muslim army in Poitiers France in 732.
Well before ANY crusade and thus saved Europe form the same
treatment the Balkans got.

http://www.resistingdefamation.org/sub/intro9.htm
African-based Arab, Moor & Berber Invasions

One centuries-long series of brutal militaristic invasions was the
African-based Arab, Moor, and Berber crusades and slave-takings for
700 years in southern Europe that ended only 511 years ago with
European liberation in 1492. Millions of Spanish, Portuguese, French,
Italian, and Sicilian Europeans were slaughtered, enslaved, and sold
at slave markets in Africa and Asia. There were no fewer than four
major bloody crusades into Europe by Africans during this period, each
followed by new slave-taking and massacres of indigenous European
peoples. These invasions were far greater "crusades" in terms of
duration, bloodshed, and oppression than all the papal-inspired
crusades into southwest Asia. In fact, none of the later European
excesses in Africa can rival the terror and cruelty of these invasions
into Europe. This 700 year period of oppression and slavery is an
excellent area for historical research from the point of view of the
indigenous European peoples.

Asian-based Turkish Invasions

A third centuries-long series of marauding and vicious militaristic
crusades into Europe was the Asian Turkish jihads and slave-takings in
central Europe for 500 years that ended only about 85 years ago with
the collapse of imperial Turkey into its present boundaries. These
crusades took the Turkish empire all the way to the coast of Italy and
the walls of Vienna. Millions of Europeans were enslaved and sold at
slave auctions in north Africa and southwest Asia. This is an area
that needs historical research and documentation from the point of
view of the European victims. One depraved feature of the Turkish
empire was an annual slave roundup throughout the Slavic nations and
as far north as the city walls of Moscow and Warsaw. These were no
simple, mercantile affairs like the Asian Arab slave-taking
expeditions into the east coast of Africa. These were well-financed
and state-run roundups of young Europeans (and the murder of their
parents in many cases), and they lasted for 400 years. There is
nothing in European conduct toward any other peoples or nations to
compare with this systematic and centuries-long depredation of central
Europeans. The Turkish crusades put any excesses of the papal crusades
in southwest Asia in the shade.


The myth of the "Golden Age" of tolerant Islam has three sources:
1 Muslims trying to emphasize "kinder gentler" aspect of their
religion while ignoring the intolerance, suppression and dhimitude
(i.e taxes) that both Christians and Jews were subjected to in Moorish
Spain and other subjugated lands. (Spain was afterall invaded and
subject to civil war for
centuries, something that didn't end until liberation in 1492)

Consider it dissimulation. (Religiously approved 'lying' to benefit
Islam e.g. emphasizing soft parts of the Koran)

2 According to Ibn Warraq (Author of Why I am not a Muslims) Jews who
understandably lauded the supposed magnanimity of the Muslims versus
the
Christians in order to embarrass Europeans into evermore tolerance and
immigration of their corelgionists. A tendency that seems to continue
today.

3 Plain old modern political correctness which tends to bias against
Europeans in favor of non European ethnic groups.


After centuries of warfare, subjugation, forced conversion, slavery
and other deprecations that was imposed by Moorish and Berber invaders
the Spanish finally managed to liberate themselves from the Middle
Eastern Invaders Spaniards were offered the conversion, the sword
or dhimitide by the Moors often enough. It is not surpass that they
did not repay in kind after their centuries of suffering.

To an extent the Jews were caught up in the ethnocentrism that the
Spanish had to develop to cast of their oppression.

Nevertheless they were fair. You were given a choice of converting or
you were forced to leave. Those that faked their conversion were
given one more chance but a second infringement meant execution.

Isabella and Ferdinand actually tried to run a sort of multicultural
Spain but the people who had put up with the suffering it brought
would not put up with it. The reason the Inquisition lasted so long?
No one cared to be the person to eliminate it though it was pretty
inactive.


To see this story with its related links on the Guardian Unlimited
site, go to
http://www.guardian.co.uk

New book reopens old arguments about slave raids on Europe
US scholar claims more than 1m people were captured by African pirates
Rory Carroll, Africa correspondent
Wednesday March 10 2004
The Guardian


North African pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million
Europeans between 1530 and 1780 in a series of raids which depopulated
coastal towns from Sicily to Cornwall, according to new research.

Thousands of white Christians were seized every year to work as galley
slaves, laborers and concubines for Muslim overlords in what is today
Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Libya, it is claimed.

Scholars have long known of the slave raids on Europe. But American
historian Robert Davis has calculated that the total number captured -
although small compared with the 12 million Africans shipped to the
Americas in
later years - was far higher than previously recognized.

His new book, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the
Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, concluded that
1 million to 1.25 million ended up in bondage.

informer

I live in Luton, it used to be a nice town. Now if you go out at night you
risk being mugged by gangs of niggers and if you go out during the day you
risk being blown up by 1 of the 28,000 Muslims who live here. Add the
thousands of the East European asylum seekers who have arrived and the
thousands of uneducated Irish that have lived here for years and you will
see that Luton has major problems.

midwinter

You see, it is perfectly understandable for any given culture, nation,
tribe or point of view to declare itself right, and its opponents, or
those who differ from it, as wrong. Sad and pointless, but
understandable. If one did not believe oneself truly righteous then one
would not fight. During the Crusades, the Christians KNEW they were
right, and they KNEW that God was on their side. At the same time,
obviously, the Muslims KNEW that they were right and they KNEW that God
was on their side.

God, presumably, just shook His head and watched them rip each other to
shreds.

If you must fight, then fight. If you must kill then kill. But at least
have the decency not to claim that some great universal justice says you
are right to do so. We humans fight and kill because we enjoy it, and
for no other reason - that goes for fanatical Muslims, fanatical
Christians, and fanatical nationalists in equal measure. It is easy to
hate, and history is one long parade of examples of taking the easy
route.

There is no great truth to be fought for - only an excuse to keep
fighting.

--
Midwinter

richard dell

A simplistic analysis, I think. Did Britain or America enter the First World
because they enjoyed war? I think not. The British Foreign Secretary in 1914,
Sir Edward Gray, was congratulated by one of his colleagues after the decision
was taken to go to France's aid. Gray just banged his fist on the table saying
"I hate war". Britain had treaty obligations and went to assist France after
they were invaded in WW1 and to assist Poland in WW2. The USA was attacked by
the Japanese in WW2, after which Germany declared war on them, for no particular
reason. Note that both were then as now, democracies. There has not been, as far
as I am aware any war between democracies, and democracies have only fought
defensive wars (some possibly misguided if well meaning). The wars of which you
speak were waged by authoritarian regimes.

fatha -jack

Fuckin ell!! Reading your posts Midwinter is like watchin a fuckin plank
warp! Ya fuckin psuedo intellectual!!

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ!

FJ - OFM#20 - BNP!

fought

which you