Tag Archives: Islamic jihad

Islamic Jihad’s Summer of Radicalization

Posted on by
Reply

by IPT News:

Summer camp conjures up bucolic images of swimming and other outdoor fun. But thousands of Palestinian children will experience something quite different, as exhibited in a report issued Thursday by the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI).

In addition to learning scouting, first-aid and other traditional skills, kids at a Palestinian Islamic Jihad camp receive hands-on training in gruesome terror tactics, and play a variation on “capture the (Israeli) flag” that involves a young boy being dragged by his arms as the children learn the art of kidnapping Israeli soldiers.

 

Up to 10,000 children ages 6-16 attend each session of the “Generation of Faith” camps.

Dressed in T-shirts emblazoned with the Islamic Jihad’s logo, children work with real AK-47s and face explosions and fiery burning tires in an all too memorable “war zone,” Britain’s Daily Mail reports.

This is just the latest example of Palestinians targeting youngsters with messages of war and glorifying death. These campers may have seen a back-to-school program aired by Hamas-controlled television called “The Gifted” that showed a 2-year-old boy in military garb and aiming an assault weapon “at the occupying terrorists.”

“We’ll wear the battle-vest of self sacrifice and follow the path of the Shahids,” a child narrator says as the younger boy, his face hooded, stoops down with his weapon. Hamas also runs a program for high school students called “Futuwwa” that trained thousands of teenaged boys on handling a Kalashnikov rifle and throwing grenades.

The Islamic Jihad’s camp director said the goal is “to raise an outstanding generation of believing [Muslims] that are well aware of their goals in the conflict with the Zionist enemy and who adhere to the honorable Koran and to the Prophet’s sunna, as [Islamic Jihad founder] Dr. Fathi Al-Shqaqi ordered us to do,” the MEMRI report said.

One camper notes that he will be “an outstanding [fighter] like the honorable martyrs Muhammad Al-Sheikh Khalil, Mahmoud Al-Zatma, and Yasser Abu Al-’Aish.” Those are three senior Islamic Jihad commanders involved in numerous attacks against Israel.

The camp’s emphasis on training is no coincidence. Israeli Defense Forces recentlyreported a sharp rise in attempted kidnappings, documenting 27 cases this year alone. The children of Gaza have a rich selection of role models from which to choose.

National Defense vs. the Ideology of Jihad

Posted on by
2

MBUSASealsby Clare M. Lopez:

It is impossible to avoid the conclusion that the deliberate blinding of our homeland security defense capabilities, perpetrated by the Muslim Brotherhood in close cooperation with the witting, willing assistance of our own national security agency leadership , is propelling the U.S. towards catastrophe.

Counterterrorism expert Patrick Poole has compiled a meticulously-documented record of disastrous U.S. policy behavior that is as chilling as it is comprehensive. In “Blind Terror: The U.S. Government’s Muslim Outreach Efforts and the Impact on U.S. Middle East Policy,” published 4 June 2013 in the MERIA Journal, Poole describes the aggressive efforts of successive U.S. administrations dating back at least to the Clinton years to forge conciliatory relationships with American Muslim individuals and groups that are legally, openly on record as known supporters of jihadi terrorism and Islamic shariah law.

While Poole’s superb analysis focuses on the catastrophic results of such policies for U.S. national security and that of our regional friends and allies – policies still unfolding across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region — an equally catastrophic potential attends to these policies domestically, in the homeland. The methodical blinding of the intelligence community, its seventeen aggregated agencies, and security and law enforcement units across the country is the unavoidable result of this kind of “outreach” to jihadists, who are determined to outlaw consideration of Islamic ideology as a motivating factor for terror attacks. At some point, if allowed to continue, such blinding must necessarily result in the effective neutralization of these front line defenses such that they are incapable of responding in a timely manner to prevent high-casualty terrorist attacks.

U.S. capitulation to the forces of Islamic jihad and shariah was set, perhaps irrevocably, by President George W. Bush in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. Speaking at the Islamic Center of Washington, D.C. on September 12, 2001, where he was flanked by some of the top Muslim Brotherhood representatives in the country, Bush declared: “The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what Islam is all about. Islam is peace”.

But as Poole’s careful research chronicles, during the Obama administration, the Muslim Brotherhood’s decades-long infiltration campaign of targeting senior policy-making levels of the U.S. government not only accelerated, but arguably reached critical mass. In a stunning sequence of events beginning in late 2011, and at the urging of identifiable affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, all U.S. government training curriculum that explained the irrefragable connection between Islamic doctrine, law, and scripture and Islamic terrorism was literally purged of such content. Additionally, subject matter experts identified as “enemies” by the administration’s Muslim advisors henceforth were summarily banned from providing truthful training about Islam to U.S. government employees or for U.S. government-funded classes. At the same time, a critical Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) policy based on the so-called “Touchstone” document went into effect that says mere membership in a violent (that is, terrorist) organization that also demonstrates “legitimate (advocacy)…objectives” should not result in a conclusion that members endorse the “illicit objective(s)” of that organization. The Touchstone policy clearly was meant to place the administration’s Muslim Brotherhood advisors beyond the reach of criticism, even when such criticism is based on public court records such as the Holy Land Foundation HAMAS terror funding trial documents and unindicted co-conspirators list. Touchstone effectively immunizes these advisors, these agents of influence for a power openly hostile to this country, Constitution, and society, from the legal and security scrutiny and suspicion to which they otherwise rightly would be subject.

The inescapable effect of this policy is to permit a growing vulnerability to terrorist attack in the American homeland. And not just permit: the Touchstone policy literally ensures circumstances that make such attacks inevitable. National, regional, and local security forces that are not permitted to know the enemy, or understand what motivates that enemy to move from hostile belief to terrorist action, have a diminished chance to pre-empt Islamic terror attacks and are relegated to reliance on hit-or-miss sting and surveillance operations — or post-attack law enforcement investigations in the aftermath of another Boston Marathon bombing. To the extent that the insinuation of the Touchstone policy into U.S. national security strategy was the calculated effort of this country’s jihadist enemies — undetected by those responsible for U.S. counterintelligence — the safety and security of American citizens slip inescapably under the threat of more attacks.

Read more at Gatestone Institute

If you see something, say nothing

Posted on by
6
Runners at the start of the 117th Boston Marathon. Stew Milne / AP

Runners at the start of the 117th Boston Marathon. Stew Milne / AP

Changes to the AP stylebook show that we’re blinding ourselves to the connections between Islamic extremism and terrorism.

by Andrew C. McCarthy:

It was a report of the now numbingly familiar sort. Witnesses at the synagogue in Paris recounted that an Iranian immigrant had been screaming “Allahu Akbar!” while he chased the rabbi and his son. When he finally caught up, he slashed away at them with a box-cutter, causing severe lacerations. Nevertheless, the Associated Press assured readers that “[a]n official investigation was underway to determine a possible motive.”

Quite a mystery, that.

It is necessary to search for some “possible” motive because to notice the actual and perfectly obvious motive is verboten in the judgment of both the legacy media and Western governments. The motive, of course, is adherence to Islamic supremacist ideology, a mainstream interpretation of Muslim doctrine commonly referred to by the shorthand “Islamist.”

Indeed, just this April, the AP revised its stylebook to posit new guidelines for use of the term “Islamist.” In so doing, the news service deferred to admonitions from the Council on American-Islamic Relations. CAIR, the Muslim Brotherhood’s influential public-relations-cum-lawfare arm in the United States, is a longtime supporter 0f Hamas, the terrorist organization that doubles as the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch.

Before these revisions, the definition off which the AP had been working was reasonably accurate. An Islamist, according to the old guidelines, was “a supporter of government in accord with the laws of Islam.” Such supporters make up a sizeable percentage of the 1.4 billion-strong global Islamic ummah (the community), and thus reflect a wide range of Muslim notions about how best to impose these “laws of Islam”—the societal framework and politico-legal system known as sharia (the path). But all Islamists agree that they must be imposed. That is what makes an Islamist an Islamist. The dramatic ascendancy of Islamists—the implementation of their substantially anti-democratic system through democratic procedures—is the story of the so-called Arab Spring.

There is plenty of disagreement within the ummah about what constitutes sharia, which is derived from the Koran and other sources of Islamic scripture, in particular the hadith—authoritative collections of the words and deeds of Mohammed, Islam’s warrior prophet. Some claim it is merely a set of aspirational guidelines intended as a private behavioral compass designed to achieve a Muslim’s personal experience of the divine. This construction, though held by various reformers and modernizing “secular Muslims,” flies in the face of some stubborn realities.

Sharia, for example, is the law of Sunni Saudi Arabia and Shiite Iran, bastions of fundamentalist Islam that admit of no other legal systems, that employ “religious police” to promote strict sharia compliance, and that routinely apply Islam’s harsh corporal punishments, such as scourging and even stoning. Furthermore, even in Islamic countries that attempt to meld sharia with other legal systems (e.g., Napoleonic law), sharia is given pride of place and enforced both officially, in civil and criminal court cases, and culturally, by public mores.

The claims that sharia is aspirational and a matter of personal conscience are further contradicted, by its emphasis on governance: Only a small percentage of Islamic ideology prescribes what we in the West would recognize as religious principles (e.g., the oneness of Allah); the lion’s share is a thoroughgoing regulation of political and social life, from economic and military affairs through interpersonal relations and matters of hygiene. In addition, sharia has long been codified: The treatise “Umdat al-Salik,” reflecting the broad consensus on sharia’s prescriptions across the four ancient Sunni jurisprudential schools, was assembled by the renowned scholar Ahmad ibn an-Naqib al-Misri in the fourteenth century. It is translated into English as Reliance of the Traveller: A Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law, and is readily available through most large book retailers—complete with endorsements, in the manual’s foreword, from such influential institutions as Cairo’s al-Azhar University, the seat of Sunni learning since the tenth century, and the International Institute of Islamic Thought, an Islamist think-tank headquartered in Virginia by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The Islamic supremacist interpretation of sharia found in Reliance of the Traveller and systematically taught by the Muslim Brotherhood, the world’s most significant Islamic mass-movement, is the dynamic Islam of the Muslim Middle East. It is also gradually making inroads in the West, courtesy of a Brotherhood stratagem best described as “voluntary apartheid.” The idea is for Muslims to immigrate and integrate, but not assimilate. They are encouraged, instead, to move into Islamic enclaves, organizing their lives around the local mosque and Islamic community center, which the Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna stressed as the “axis” of the movement. The goal is to pressure the host government to abide an ever-increasing degree of sharia autonomy.

This form of sharia, to which Islamists widely adhere and aspire, is fundamentally antithetical to Western liberalism. It rejects individual liberty and privacy, equality before the law for women and non-Muslims, freedom of conscience and speech, economic liberty, and even the bedrock principle that a body politic has the power to make law for itself, irrespective of any religious or ideological code. Sharia also expressly endorses jihad. These are the “laws of Islam” to which the AP refers without describing them. The installation of these laws is the top priority of emerging Islamist “democracies,” which establish Islam as the state religion and enshrine sharia in their new constitutions—such new governments as those in Iraq and Afghanistan, whose sharia constitutions were drafted with the helping hand of the U.S. State Department.

Read more at The New Criterion

Islam’s Reign of Terror

Posted on by
Reply

20130522_ISLAM_SKYLINE_LARGEby EDWARD CLINE:

On April 15, 2013, during the Boston Marathon, two bombs exploded among spectators near the finish line on Boylston Avenue. Three people, including an eight-year-old boy, were killed, and over two hundred injured, many losing their legs and suffering wounds caused by nails, ball bearings and other shrapnel. The murderers were brothers, Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev, 19, and Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 – two young Muslims whose parents brought them to America.

The Boston Marathon bombing is the latest episode of violent Islamic jihad - a campaign to wage war on non-believers of Islam to convert them to Islam, or to subjugate them, or to kill them. Globally, incidents of Islamic terrorism since 9/11 alone have passed the 20,000 mark. Islam has been at war with the West, and in particular with the U.S. and Israel, for decades, if one does not count the centuries Muslims have raided European coasts for slaves, estimated to be around two million, and captured American merchant vessels in the 18thand early 19th centuries, and enslaved their crews or held them for ransom. The U.S. has been the subject of dozens of attacks here and abroad.

Violence is in Islam’s DNA. Mohammad died in 632. His successors continued his jihad until all of the Arabian Peninsula and Armenia were under Islamic rule. In 634 the Muslims invaded Palestine. In 639 they invaded Egypt and took Alexandria. In 711 the Muslims invaded and conquered Spain, but were turned back by the Franks at the battle of Tours in 732 from conquering the rest of Europe.

Obeying the will of Allah and wishing to fulfill the purported prophecy of Mohammad, Constantinople, capital of the Eastern Roman or Byzantine Empire, was unsuccessfully besieged twice by Muslim caliphs, between 674 and 678, and between 717 and 718. When the Empire collapsed into anarchy, Islam rushed in to fill the vacuum in the Middle East, just as rampaging barbarian Huns and Visigoths filled the vacuum left in Europe by the collapse of the Roman Empire. Constantinople finally fell to the Islamic Ottoman Turks in 1453.

While Europe was embarking on the Renaissance (with its respect for reason and life here on earth), which in turn spawned the Enlightenment (with its love of science and technology), Islam held fast to the Dark Ages. Islam’s demand for blind acceptance of authority was never defanged by the Renaissance. Its prescription for hell on earth was never uplifted by the Enlightenment. As opposed to other religions of the time, it was never dragged, kicking and screaming, to accept the separation of religion and state. When Ethan Allen, who, like many of the Founders, was a Deist, penned his pamphlet, Reason: The Only Oracle of Man, that idea never reached the Islamic world.

Brutality and violence are endemic to Islam’s history because it rejects on principle the only civilized means of settling disputes peacefully: persuasion, debate, discussion, i.e., man’s faculty of reason. Islam regards man as a helpless plaything in a chaotic universe ruled by a spiteful, omnipotent, supernatural deity (Allah). The common man must submit to Allah (and his representatives here on Earth) because he is by nature incapable of thinking for himself. Every totalitarian ideology starts by attacking man’s faculty of reason. Much is made of the “peaceful” verses in the Koran. But those passages are as irrelevant to Islam’s essence as is the fact that Mafia hit men might be ”peaceful” at a child’s birthday party.

Islam uses Sharia law to enslave citizens under a totalitarian state. In practice, Sharia law is a brutal, primitive system which, among its other barbarities, sanctions the murder of Jews, homosexuals, apostates, and adulterous women (Muslim men are usually exempt from punishment for the latter offense); the genital mutilation of girls and women; the enslavement of infidels, otherwise known askaffirsor dhimmis; the collection of a poll tax, or jizya (a kind of Mafia-style “protection” money) from non-believers; and the use of force to compel obedience and submission to Islam. Sharia sanctions the lashing of innocent women for some undefined “sexual” offense, of a Saudi woman being harassed by Saudi religious police in a Riyadh shopping mall for wearing nail polish, of a Muslim woman being stoned to death in the Pakistan-Afghanistan frontier, of four homosexuals being hanged in Iran, and the beheading of an apostate in Tunisia for having converted to Christianity. Sharia condones the tribal practice of “honor killing,” when a female Muslim “dishonors” the family by becoming “too Western,” i.e., when she makes independent choices, for example, about who to marry and what she will wear in public.

The Muslim Brotherhood’s founder proclaimed: ”It is in the nature of Islam to dominate, not to be dominated, to impose its law on all nations and to extend its power to the entire planet.”

And this barbarous, totalitarian ideology is being imported to the West. On July 4, 1998, Omar Ahmad, founder in 1994 of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR, allegedly a “civil rights” organization, with over thirty chapters in the U.S.) said: “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other religions, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth.”

Read more: Family Security Matters

 

Islam’s rule of numbers and the beheading in London

Posted on by
4

london_terror2-620x395By :

In London last week, two Muslim men shouting jihad’s ancient war-cry, “Allahu Akbar” beheaded a British soldier with a cleaver—in a busy intersection and in broad daylight.  They boasted of their crime in front of passersby and asked to be videotaped.

As surreal as this event may seem, Islamic beheadings are not uncommon in the West, including the U.S.

In 2011, a Pakistani-American who helped develop “Bridges TV”—a station “designed to counter negative stereotypes of Muslims”—beheaded his wife.

In Germany in 2012, another Muslim man beheaded his wife in front of their six children—again while hollering “Allahu Akbar.”

Beheading non-Muslim “infidels” in the Islamic world is especially commonplace:

In Yemen a “sorceress” was beheaded by the “Supporters of Sharia”;

In Indonesia, three Christian girls on their way to school were beheaded; in Syria last Christmas, U.S.-supported rebels beheaded a Christian man and fed his body to the dogs;

In Africa—Somalia, Tanzania, Mali—Christians are regularly decapitated.  (For a comprehensive picture of Christian suffering under Islam, see my new book, “Crucified Again: Exposing Islam’s New War on Christians.”)

Most recently, a disturbing video surfaced from “liberated” Libya of a machete-wielding masked man hacking at the head of a captive—again, to cries of “Allahu Akbar!”

But the greater lesson of the London beheading concerns its audacity—done in broad daylight with the attackers boasting in front of cameras, as often happens in the Islamic world.

It reflects what I call “Islam’s Rule of Numbers,” a rule that expresses itself with remarkable consistency:  The more Muslims grow in numbers, the more Islamic phenomena intrinsic to the Muslim world—in this case, brazen violence against “infidels”—appear.

In the U.S., where Muslims are less than 1% of the population, London-style attacks are uncommon.  Islamic assertiveness is limited to political activism dedicated to portraying Islam as a “religion of peace,” and sporadic, but clandestine, acts of terror.

In Europe, where Muslims make for much larger minorities, open violence is common. But because they are still a vulnerable minority, Islamic violence is always placed in the context of “grievances,” a word that pacifies Westerners.

With an approximate 10% Muslim population, London’s butchers acted brazenly, yes, but they still invoked grievances. Standing with bloodied hands, the murderer declared: “We swear by almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone…. The only reason we have done this is because Muslims are dying by British soldiers every day.”

Grievances disappear when Muslims become at least 35-40% of a nation and feel capable of waging an all-out jihad, as in Nigeria, where the Muslim-majority north has been terrorizing Christians—bombing hundreds of churches and beheading hundreds of infidels.

Read more at Fox News

 

Pat Condell: Muslims must reject jihad

Posted on by
3
images (26)

 

“If the British police were as quick to arrest Islamic bigots as they are ordinary citizens who post offensive messages on Twitter, this disgusting murder would never have happened.”

Islam’s War of Annihilation Against Hindus

Posted on by
3

mumbai_india_01071By :

A thought-provoking essay written by Narain Kataria, president of the Indian American Intellectuals Forum, sounds a familiar alarm. “Hinduism Faces Eclipse” reveals that “the anti-Hindu forces within and without India are working in tandem on an insidious mission to destroy our civilization and culture, and obliterate Hinduism from the Indian soil.” Kataria further contends that Indians are not facing terrorism, but worldwide jihad, which he calls a “fully globalized franchise…working overtime to destroy all non-Muslim nations.”

Muslims currently comprise 20 percent of India’s 1.2 billion population, the rest of which is overwhelmingly Hindu. But as Narain points out, Indian Muslims have engaged in a series of attacks on Hindu citizens, temples, religious festivals and unarmed pilgrims. He reminds us that a month after the 9/11 attacks in the United States, a proclamation was issued on Al Jazeera television promising that “Hindu India” would also be targeted for jihad. Two months after that, a suicide squad assaulted India’s Parliament House in New Delhi on December 13, 2001, killing 9 and wounding 18.

Since then thousands of terror attacks have besieged India. The city of Mumbai alone has been terrorized on four separate occasions. On March 12, 1993, 13 separate explosions in various parts of the city killed 257 and wounded more than 700. Most of the terrorists involved received arms and training in Pakistan, and Indian authorities contend the Pakistani intelligence agency, Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), was actively involved as well. On July 11, 2006, a series of pressure-cooker bombs exploded on commuter trains, killing 209 and wounding over 700. Once again, the ISI was involved, along with the Pakistani Islamist militant group Lashkar-e-Toiba, and the Students’ Islamic Movement of India, according to Mumbai police. On November 26, 2008, another wave of terror attacks perpetrated by Muslims targeted two luxury hotels, a Jewish center, a tourist restaurant and a crowded train station. Another 166 people were killed and more than 300 were wounded. And on July 13, 2011 three separate bomb blasts killed 26 and injured 130.

As recently as July 2012, riots in the state of Assam initiated by Muslim infiltrators from Bangladesh resulted in at least 74 deaths. Several Hindu women were raped and then chopped into pieces during the attacks.

Kataria blames these and other atrocities on “India’s decadent culture of political correctness and pock-marked ‘taqaiyah’ of ‘paid news,’ when no national leader dare muster the courage to speak truth.” The New York Times echoed that assertion when they covered India’s 2008 election campaign, noting that the nation’s fight against terror is “complicated by a political landscape in which parties vie for Hindu and Muslim voters’ loyalty.” Kataria told FrontPage that the Indian government “doesn’t understand Sharia,” and that the “politicians are afraid of Muslims” because they have organized highly effective political blocs, capable of removing anyone who would even suggest India is under Islamic siege.

The blocs’ ultimate purpose? “Muslims want to finish India as soon as possible,” contends Kataria.

Read more at Front Page

 

To the Slaughter

Posted on by
1

pic_giant_052413_London-AttackBy Mark Steyn:

On Wednesday, Drummer Lee Rigby of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, a man who had served Queen and country honorably in the hell of Helmand Province in Afghanistan, emerged from his barracks on Wellington Street, named after the Duke thereof, in southeast London. Minutes later, he was hacked to death in broad daylight and in full view of onlookers by two men with machetes who crowed “Allahu akbar!” as they dumped his carcass in the middle of the street like so much road kill.

As grotesque as this act of savagery was, the aftermath was even more unsettling. The perpetrators did not, as the Tsarnaev brothers did in Boston, attempt to escape. Instead, they held court in the street gloating over their trophy, and flagged down a London bus to demand the passengers record their triumph on film. As the crowd of bystanders swelled, the remarkably urbane savages posed for photographs with the remains of their victim while discoursing on the iniquities of Britain toward the Muslim world. Having killed Drummer Rigby, they were killing time: It took 20 minutes for the somnolent British constabulary to show up. And so television viewers were treated to the spectacle of a young man, speaking in the vowels of south London, chatting calmly with his “fellow Britons” about his geopolitical grievances and apologizing to the ladies present for any discomfort his beheading of Drummer Rigby might have caused them, all while drenched in blood and still wielding his cleaver.

If you’re thinking of getting steamed over all that, don’t. Simon Jenkins, the former editor of the Times of London, cautioned against “mass hysteria” over “mundane acts of violence.”

That’s easy for him to say. Woolwich is an unfashionable part of town, and Sir Simon is unlikely to find himself there of an afternoon stroll. Drummer Rigby had less choice in the matter. Being jumped by barbarians with machetes is certainly “mundane” in Somalia and Sudan, but it’s the sort of thing that would once have been considered somewhat unusual on a sunny afternoon in south London — at least as unusual as, say, blowing up eight-year-old boys at the Boston Marathon. It was “mundane” only in the sense that, as at weddings and kindergarten concerts, the reflexive reaction of everybody present was to get out their cell phones and start filming.

Once, long ago, I was in an altercation where someone pulled a switchblade, and ever since have been mindful of Jimmy Hoffa’s observation that he’d rather jump a gun than a knife. Nevertheless, there is a disturbing passivity to this scene: a street full of able-bodied citizens being lectured to by blood-soaked murderers who have no fear that anyone will be minded to interrupt their diatribes. In fairness to the people of Boston, they were ordered to “shelter in place” by the governor of Massachusetts. In Woolwich, a large crowd of Londoners apparently volunteered to “shelter in place,” instinctively. Consider how that will play when these guys’ jihadist snuff video is being hawked around the bazaars of the Muslim world. Behold the infidels, content to be bystanders in their own fate.

This passivity set the tone for what followed. In London as in Boston, the politico-media class immediately lapsed into the pneumatic multiculti Tourette’s that seems to be a chronic side effect of excess diversity-celebrating: No Islam to see here, nothing to do with Islam, all these body parts in the street are a deplorable misinterpretation of Islam. The BBC’s Nick Robinson accidentally described the men as being “of Muslim appearance,” but quickly walked it back lest impressionable types get the idea that there’s anything “of Muslim appearance” about a guy waving a machete and saying “Allahu akbar.” A man is on TV dripping blood in front of a dead British soldier and swearing “by Almighty Allah we will never stop fighting you,” yet it’s the BBC reporter who’s apologizing for “causing offence.” To David Cameron, Drummer Rigby’s horrific end was “not just an attack on Britain and on the British way of life, it was also a betrayal of Islam. . . . There is nothing in Islam that justifies this truly dreadful act.”

Read more at National Review

EDL’s Tommy Robinson speaks about the Woolwich terrorist attack

Posted on by
1

manc-2013-9

CoelusMedia:

Tommy Robinson, EDL speaks to Coelus Media about the Woolwich terrorist attack, the English Defence League’s response and what can be done to stop attacks like this happening in the future.