Saturday, January 13, 2007

They Will Be The End Of Britain

Yet another couple of undercover reports on the extent to which Muslim Imams will go to obliterate British society and culture:


Mr Latif has called Tony Blair a 'murderer'; he says that every British soldier in Iraq should be killed and he proclaims that the London bombings in July 2005 (an atrocity in which 57 innocents died) was orchestrated by the Government.

'We don't have Muslim terrorists... they do not exist. But anything that they (the Government) claim is Muslim terror, they do it themselves,' Mr Latif informed his devoted followers one week.

A week later, he said: 'The British soldiers are the soldiers of Satan, the soldiers of evil, of evilness. And I pray to Allah openly and in English that they will not return back except when they are dead - all of them.'

Non-Muslims in Britain, declared Mr Latif, are dirty, unclean people who never wash their hands and become ill because of their own sexual promiscuity. He went on to denounce British democracy as 'demon-ocracy' and praised the shariah laws of Islam under which thieves have their hands cut off and adulterous women are stoned to death in public.

As one worshipper told us: 'Please don't think that Mr Latif is alone in what he says. In many mosques, whether they are in the suburbs or the towns or the cities, there are imams (Islamic clerics) just like him giving powerful speeches which are turning Muslim worshippers against this country.

'The preachers say that Christians, the Jews and other religions will always be the enemy. A whole generation of young Muslims is being brainwashed into believing such inflammatory things,' the middle-aged professional man who is a devout follower of Islam told us.

Similar stories emerging from Britain's mosques have long been dismissed as untrue by the Muslim community and their leaders. The Muslim Council of Britain says most imams are moderate men.

So the Mail asked Mr Latif why he had voiced such explosive views at his Friday meetings, particularly to an audience that included impressionable young Muslims under 25.

Speaking to us by telephone, he did not deny a word, saying: 'I was, though, speaking at private prayers. I would not say the same things in public, out on the street, because it wouldn't bring harmony.' He refused to comment further.

Yet on Monday, another investigation into Britain's mosques, by Channel 4's respected Dispatches programme, will reveal worrying evidence of just how rife Islamic extremism is among Muslim preachers.

The undercover TV inquiry, conducted over ten months, reveals some religious clerics urging their congregations to start preparing for jihad (holy war) against infidels or non-Muslims. Another is caught on camera telling families to hit their daughters for not covering their heads with the veil or hijab.

One imam from a Derby mosque, called Dr Ijaz Mian, was filmed calling for the creation of an Islamic 'state within a state' in Britain before the country is taken over by Muslims.

Addressing a group of youths, he said: 'King. Queen. House of Commons ... if you accept it, you are part of it. If you don't accept it, you have to dismantle it. So you being a Muslim, you have to fix a target. There will be no House of Commons ... Muslims just grow in strength ... then take over.'

The programme paints an alarming picture of how preachers, even at what are regarded as the most moderate mosques, urge their followers to reject Britain's legal system in favour of shariah law and its radical rulebook.

The investigators spent four months filming undercover at one mosque, Green Lane in Birmingham, which caters for thousands of worshippers.

The main preacher is Abu Usamah, an American convert to Islam, who studied at Medinah University in Saudi Arabia, before coming to Britain. He is seen telling worshippers not to believe that Islamic terrorists are operating in Britain, as all non-Muslims are liars.

In another sequence, he is heard saying that Christians and Jews are 'kuffaars' (non-believers) and the enemies of Islam. 'No one loves the kuffaar, not a single person loves the kuffaar,' he rants. 'We hate the kuffaar!' Then he adds, triumphantly: 'Allah has not given those people who are kuffaar a way over the believer. They shouldn't be in authority over us. Muslims shouldn't be satisfied with anything other than a total Islamic state.

He goes on to say that gays deserve to die. 'If I were to call homosexuals perverted, dirty, filthy dogs who should be murdered ... that's my freedom of speech, isn't it?'

The mosque has always been hailed by the Muslim Council of Britain and the Government as a symbol of reason and mainstream Islamic life in this country.

Just five months ago, a national survey of 1,000 British Muslims, including the young and the old, male and female, revealed that 30 per cent wanted to live under shariah law and less than half referred to the United Kingdom as their country.

Twenty-eight per cent said they believed Britain should be an Islamic state.

In another worrying sign, one in three young Muslims said that the London bombings were justified because Britain had joined America in the 'war on terror'.


Gandalf at Up Pompeii comments:


We all know this is happening all over Europe yet our governments do nothing.

Would the situation change if the BNP got into power? No, it would not because if the BNP gained power the other parties would block all legislation and even if the law got through Parliament it would never get through the House of Lords which is packed with Labour peers.

The only answer is, sadly, revolution.


Sadly, I think Gandalf is right. But, the problem is, the population of British youth is declining at a rapid clip thanks to low birth rates among native Britons.

If there is to be a revolution, it will have to happen soon, or the Brits will simply be outgunned in their own streets.

One wonders why the government is seemingly so unconcerned about the war brewing in their midst. What are they concerned about?

Well, they are concerned about absolute bullshit like this:


Two brothers who so overfed their 10-year-old chocolate Labrador, Rusty, above, that he weighed more than 150 pounds, more than double the weight he should have been, were found guilty by magistrates in Ely, Cambridgeshire, of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. The brothers, David and Derek Benton, were given a three-year conditional discharge.


That, the British government has a solution for.

I would say the British government is bordering on being completely inconsequential force within its own borders.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

I wish there was something I could do.. But western Canada is a long ways from the front lines of Europe. I think if the situation becomes worse over the next few years (which is very likely) I may possibly go on a overseas work program to England, Netherlands, Sweden, wherever. While working, I will get involved in "fixing" the problem. There has to be some kind-of "resistance" groups, right?

I've been hearing so many stories of gang rapes by muslims, elderly victims, intimadation, and overall fear (dhimmitude) that the native populations are experiencing. Especially in and around muslim communities.

I want to help my civilization and a few of my hard-hitting, country born and bred buddies agree with me.

Though, what the west really needs first and foremost (other than the balls) is someone with a clear and concise voice.. a leader, somebody to rally the troops, moral and spirit. (then the tough guys to do the dirty work)

Anonymous said...

...and yet more idiocy from the British government: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007020177,00.html

Pastorius said...

Thanks for the links, ROP.

Cubed © said...

I saw Gandalf's post at Uppompeii, and given the seriousness of the situation in Britain, especially the infiltration of Islamic influence into the government, I too have to agree with him that:

"The only answer is, sadly, revolution."

Pastorius, I understand your sentiments here:

"...the problem is, the population of British youth is declining at a rapid clip thanks to low birth rates among native Britons.

"If there is to be a revolution, it will have to happen soon, or the Brits will simply be outgunned in their own streets."

But I believe that there is a better way. The "increase reproduction as a means of fighting Islam" idea pushes my button as very few other things do. Here's why:

I have seen the statistics on the demographics of Europe, where the European birthrate has dropped, in some instances, below its replacement rate, while the reproductive rate of the Islamic aggressors resembles that of cockroaches. It is horrifying to think that Europeans will soon be outnumbered by vermin in their own homelands.

But the idea of reproducing just to provide soldiers is horrifying; our children are often referred to as our "our most precious resource," which is an obscene concept. Our children are not "resources," they are human beings with an absolute right to exist; they do not exist in order to be "used" at the discretion of the state, or anything else.

Of course, this begs the question of what we should do to counter the very real threat of the invasion of our lands and the forcible overthrow of our cultures by the Islamic aggressors.

Most of us have heard the expression, "Don't work hard, work smart." Well, the same principle applies to the war against the Islamic aggressors: "Don't fight hard, fight smart." I know, I nag about this, but it's really important, otherwise we are no different from the Carthaginians who, like their brothers in Phoenicia, sacrificed their children in furnaces, thinking that by doing so they would save themselves from the wrath of societies they had attacked (Rome ultimately suceeded in defeating them).

To "fight smart," we must first understand exactly what it is that we are fighting for, which for us, means: "Fighting for life appropriate to the nature of a human being." Personally, I think "life appropriate to the nature of human beings" was beautifully described in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, both of which were born of the minds of our Founders, who were children of the Enlightenment.

Second, we must be free of the kinds of self-destructive restrictions that prevent us from defending ourselves against the Islamic aggressors, whose openly declared goal, demonstrated with multiple attacks on our people and infrastructure, is to destroy us, and who consider it their religious/moral obligation to do so. We have policies in place (in particular, the "Just War" theory that became popular when the U.N. was established) that are, quite simply, the application of Political Correctness to the conduct of war. They prevent us from adequately applying our superior technology and our brilliant strategic and tactical skills in the fight against the Islamic aggressors.

A war is "moral," or "justified" if it is fought to defend oneself. It becomes "immoral" when it becomes an alter upon which we sacrifice the lives of our children in a wishy-washy war that unnecessarily maximizes loss of life among our own people. "Moral equivalency" is just as untrue in war as it is in civil society; we must value our own lives above those of the enemy that intends to destroy us by whatever means necessary, up to and including murder and mayhem.

We must not be "conned" into thinking that by outbreeding the Islamic aggressors, and then using our children as cannon-fodder to overwhelm them numerically will help us survive. Instead, we must use our superiority - philosophic (which includes ethical/moral) - and technical - to win, and win decisively.

We have never had a more determined enemy, or an enemy with less regard for rights; we must not allow our hands to be tied behind our backs in this fight. In no way does this mean that we should act like subhuman savages, and it is unfortunate that ever since our victory in WWII, the postmodernists have equated "winning" with "immoral actions." We must, however, adapt to the changing nature of the enemy if we are to survive.

Simply by re-instituting the rules of engagement we used to win in WWII would be a good place to start, and would probably be sufficient.

Pastorius said...

Cubed,
I agree with you, In the long run we need to use our superiority. However, what I'm saying here is that our final chances of winning a "revolution" are coming soon, because Europe is running out of people. A revolution is, by my definition, an uprising of the people against their dhimmified governments.

Cubed © said...

Pastorius,

I agree that time is of the essence here. I am reasonably confident that our European cousins will do what's necessary when they reach "threshold." "Revolutions" don't always have to be violent and quick. In fact, I think that increasing awareness of being outnumbered by the invaders has already started a revolution of sorts in Europe.

As the ratio of Europeans to Muslims changes, more and more Europeans are feeling the effects of the new demographic "on their skins" - the invaders are becoming more daring and visible in more neighborhoods, more laws catering to them are being passed, more restrictions on criticizing them are being seen, larger ghettos are being formed and amount to "states within a state," more "youths" are raping, kidnapping, injuring, and damaging property, Europeans' personal financial situations are beginning to suffer even more than they do now because of increased demands on their welfare systems, and even tourism has decreased out of fear. It's quite possible that there might even be a "brain drain" as Europeans seek to leave, compounding the demographic problem.

While I believe, as many of us do, that the "next 9/11" is inevitable, thanks to the rich fantasy lives of our Leaders, it may not even take that kind of event to start the "revolution ball" rolling; we're beginning to see among the Europeans evidence of discontent about the Muslims in their midst even without the British Museum or the Louvre blowing up. Certainly, though, when the next catastrophe happens, it will speed up the process.

We in the U.S. are currently the only ones involved on a large scale in armed conflicts, and it is primarily we who must deal with Iran and North Korea (to say nothing of Central and South America, Russia, and China); it's for that reason that I think it's terribly important for all of us to realize that "winning" is no longer an overriding official government policy when we are at war.

Only when people are aware of this travesty will they be able to put enough pressure on government to change.

Anonymous said...

First commentator wrote: "I wish there was something I could do.. But western Canada is a long ways from the front lines of Europe."

You are wrong. The "problem" is everywhere and there is no frontline. You may remember that Sheik Younus Kathrada, of the Dar al-Madinah Islamic Society mosque in east Vancouver, created a controversy back in 2004 for calling Jews "the brothers of monkeys and swine." That little stupid name-calling got all the press. The crucial thing that all the media missed is that the comment was made while he was PROMOTING OFFENSIVE JIHAD (WAR) AS A TOOL TO SPREAD ISLAM! And this happened right in Lotus Land, Western Canada! You can read about it here: http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/003635.php.

I suggest you start keeping an eye on local affairs, e.g., find out where the local mosques are, the identities of their officials and members, their funders, their activities, etc. It's time to use your own initiative to build up an alert and prepared citizenry. It would be foolish to rely on the RCMP and/or CSIS for protection. Both are hamstrung by political correctness and bureaucratic inefficiencies. Remember the Air India bombings perpetrated by Sikh religious extremists and the subsequent trial that went nowhere and benefited all but the victims' families? Nearly all the perpetrators still walk the streets of Vancouver freely today because the RCMP botched their investigations.

Anonymous said...

Here is another form of Jihad happening in Western Canada: cases of refusal by muslims to take in guide dogs for the blind in Edmonton and Vancouver. Read
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/538 (you'll see a pattern when you read this)
http://www.nsnews.com/issues06/w111206/113206/news/113206nn1.html

Pastorius said...

Anonymous,
Thanks for the info and for your intelligent comment.

I think the way we are going to start winning is to prove that the Mosques are funded either by Wahabbi extremists, or Iranian extremists. The Mosques are never funded by the local Muslims.

These undercover investigations in Mosques prove that there is dangerous extremism going on in Mosques which are believed to be the height of moderation. So, now we have to set to the task of shutting them down.

Anonymous said...

Here's why Canadians should not place much trust in the CSIS:
http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=514&MMN_position=92:90
http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/index.php?module=pagemaster&PAGE_user_op=view_page&PAGE_id=396&MMN_position=92:90
CSIS simply does not have enough (and, realistically, will never be given enough) money, manpower and authority to safeguard the country. Just look at the mess in the United States, where there are so many government agencies with conflicting and overlapping mandates that are supposed to work in cooperation to ensure national security but, in reality, squabble pettily among themselves. Debbie Schlussel at http://www.debbieschlussel.com/ gives you a very good idea of the incompetence of these agencies.