Monday, 1 September 2014

Should we work with Syria's Assad to defeat the Islamic State (IS)?





The British government has said that it won't work with President Bashar al-Assad in order to destroy the Islamic State (IS) in Syria and Iraq.

This is in response to the comments of the former head of the British Army, Lord Dannatt (along with former Foreign Secretary Sir Malcolm Rifkind), who recently advised some kind of alliance with Assad. (As a military man, I suppose that Lord Dannatt may know what he's talking about.)

Nonetheless, since these suggestions seem to have arisen specifically in response to the beheading of the U.S. journalist James Foley, they may simply be knee-jerk reactions. After all, if it's worth working with Assad now, surely it was worth working with him last week or even months ago. After all, IS have been carrying out large-scale killings and wreaking havoc in Syria and Iraq for up to four months now.

Despite Lord Dannatt's words, the Foreign Secretary (during an interview on BBC Radio 4's World at One) has said that cooperating with the Syrian regime would “poison” Britain's endeavors in that part of the world. Philip Hammond said:

"We may very well find that we are fighting, on some occasions, the same people that he is but that doesn't make us his ally."

In other words, is our enemy’s enemy necessarily our friend? Well, no; not necessarily our friend. However, that doesn't stop us from working with an enemy in order to defeat a worse enemy. In any case, working with someone doesn't make that person our friend. Or, as Sir Rifkind put it, history has shown us that "sometimes you actually have to make an arrangement with some nasty people in order to get rid of some even nastier ones".

Here we also face another classic philosophical question: Do the ends justify the means? More specifically, can working with a poisonous regime be justified if the end result is the destruction of an even more poisonous entity (in this case, the Islamic State)?

Dodgy Alliances



Of course if Britain were to work with Bashar Assad to defeat the Islamic State (IS), many people will be up in arms and start using the words “hypocrisy”, “double-standards” and whatnot. (Conspiracy-theory-based Trotskyist groups -- such as the Assad-friendly Stop the War Coalition -- would have a field day.) Yet if there were an alliance, it would simply be strategic, politically and militarily speaking. And strategy, or Realpolitik, is the stuff of politics.

Think about it.

We aligned with Stalin during World War II. Before that, the Nazis signed the 1939 nonaggression pact with the same man. And, as Leftists and Muslims are always telling me, the United States funded -- and the CIA trained -- the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan in the period before the rise of the Taliban.

Even the Liberal Democrats-Conservative Party coalition of 2010 was/is a strategic alliance of sorts. And up and down the country -- as well as throughout the 20th century -- MPs and councilors have allied with people of different political parties – sometimes with radically different parties.


I mentioned Trotskyists and Trotskyist groups earlier. These people themselves have forged many and varied alliances with all manner of Islamic reactionaries, (brown) racists, misogynists, killers, and oppressors to advance the white, middle-class (mainly university-based) Trotskyist revolution.

Yet sometimes alliances with false friends have to be made in order to achieve one's objectives. And in this case that objective would be to defeat the Islamic State. Now the question may not be whether it's a good thing to ally with Bashar Assad, but whether it would work. Another question would be whether or not it would create more problems for Britain in the long run. Or, as Philip Hammond put it, it may not be “practical, sensible or helpful” to work with Assad.

Philip Hammond's point may be that even if an alliance with an enemy were to defeat a worse enemy, it may still not be a good thing to do in the long run.

What about alliances with Iran, for example, in order to defeat IS? That could well end up being a very bad move in certain hypothetical scenarios. Take the case of Iran directly intervening in Iraq with massive force and the British government enabling and cooperating with that intervention. This could end up with Iran gaining control of the whole of Iraq or at least it installing a puppet leader. (That's if this isn't already the case to some degree.) Not only would a direct Iranian control of Iraq be a bad thing for the West, the surrounding Sunni states (including Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan) wouldn't like it either. In fact the problem could become even worse than the situation with IS because nuclear weapons could then be involved and the whole region -- including Jordan and Saudi Arabia (even Turkey) -- could then be at war.

So yes, it was only almost exactly a year ago that the British government contemplated going to war with Bashar Assad's regime. But that was then. This is now. We may have to work with a bastard in order to defeat a far worse bastard. Such is politics. Again, the argument isn't that it would be advisable to ally Bashar Assad, it's that it could be.

After saying all that, the British government has said that it won't work with him. Though that was yesterday. The government may change its tune tomorrow.

                       ***************************************************

Notes:

1) Much of the Western Left (especially Trotskyist groups and individuals) isn't too keen on eradicating Bashar Assad, despite its many close relations with Sunni Muslim groups and individuals. In fact this has proved problematic for George Galloway in his Respect constituency in Bradford (nearly all Sunni Muslims).

The UK's Stop the War Coalition has similar close relations with Iran and therefore with Syria. George Galloway, John Rees, Lindsey German, Yvonne Ridley, etc. have all worked for Iran's Press TV at some point. And the former SWP man, John Rees (now of Stop the War and Counterfire) once said that he'd support Iran if Iran and the UK were at war.

2) Part of the problem in Syria has been the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the most important group within the "rebel" forces fighting against Assad (i.e., outside the jihadists of al-Qaeda and the Islamic State (IS)).

Conflicts with the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria date back to the 1960s or even before.

The Muslim Brotherhood of Syria was formed (in the early 1930s) only a few years after the Egyptian original. There was the Battle of Hama in 1982 in which between 20,000 and 40,000 died.

So the Muslim Brotherhood - as in the US and Egypt - is part of the problem.

3) I'm not sure about the often-used phrase "war criminal" as used against Assad (as well as many others). That phrase has been used against the US and UK many times. Indeed, when you think about it, all it usually means is this:

"war criminal"/"war crimes" = political and military acts which I disagree with

Israel is accused almost every day of committing war crimes when, in fact, they are all legal - legal according to Israel and often legal when it comes to the UN too!

It's funny really because the "illegal" status of these acts, whether by Assad or Israel, is care-of the United Nations. Yet many of those on both the Left and Right who use the words "war crimes" or "illegal act" don't have any time for the UN.... unless the UN is doing and saying stuff which they agree with. If it doesn't, then they criticise the UN as an 'imperialist front", etc.

I personally don't care what the UN thinks. If what Assad is doing is wrong, then it's wrong. The fact that this global organisation - with 51 (mainly Sunni) Muslim states within in and which has had Syria and China on its Security Council - classes what he Assad does as "illegal" doesn't really clinch it for me.

Thursday, 28 August 2014

Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) spin on Rotherham’s grooming-gangs



Photo via ‘Women Against Grooming’ 


The Muslim Council of Britain (MCB), a Muslim Brotherhood organisation, is basically the British version of the Council of American-Islamic Relations (CAIR); though with nowhere near as much political power (as of yet). This article, ‘Sharia: the Threat to America‘ reveals a bit about the MCB.


Just like CAIR, the MCB is all suits, ties and trimmed beards and none of that Arab-clothing-&-long-beards stuff you’ll find with Anjem Choudary and his ilk. While striking a western pose, CAIR and the MCB still genuinely want to Islamise the West. Anjem Choudary and his photo-shy mates, on the other hand, seem more concerned about getting on the front page of the Daily Mail.


For some insight into the MCB mentality, read this article regarding accusations that the Islamic Forum Europe infiltrated the local Labour party in the London borough of Tower Hamlets. It was written by MCB spokesman Inayat Bunglawala and posted on the “Muslim Brotherhood’s official English website”.


ogmgnbdd
Tony Blair, the former Prime Minister of Great Britain. In 1997, the British Labour Party helped fund and create the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB). Later, it cut ties with the organisation, only to reinstate them later.



Not Islam


As reported at the Brenner Brief, the latest enquiry into Muslim sexual-grooming gangs in Rotherham by Professor Alexis Jay confirmed that fear of being called racist empowered mostly Pakistani Muslims to sexually exploit “at least 1,400 children”.


In response to the report, the MCB is pointing the finger away from the Muslim community and toward, well, kuffar.


What would you expect?


The MCB did exactly the same thing in the recent case of the Islamisation of British schools, as well as in the case of Islamic terrorism and much else.


Here’s how the MCB points the finger towards “unbelievers”:


Firstly, it says that


"…there was a general disconnect between communities and the authorities, with some communities needing to address parenting and the generation divide."

The MCB is claiming that there is a “disconnect” between the Muslim community and the police, the council and whatnot. And the police, etc. are to blame for that disconnection.


And then there’s an explicit criticism of the young victims and their parents – not the Muslim abusers. That is, non-Muslims need to address their “parenting” skills. It’s because non-Muslim parents are bad parents that this situation arose, according to the MCB. In other words, non-Muslim parents are to blame for not bringing their children up like good Muslims.


(It has been pointed out to me that the MCB may referring to the parenting skills of fellow Muslims. I doubt that very much. Since some of Rotherham's councillors and police are even on record of blaming the victims' parents, my bet is that this is exactly what the MCB is referring to. In fact many of the parents of the Muslim groomers will be strict Muslims and won't know what their sons are doing. Either that, or they do know what they're doing and don't think that it's wrong.)




In the end, then, “the causes” and “the context” of these crimes lie outside the Muslim community, not within it!


Even though all this is dressed up in polite and diplomatic language, what the MCB is saying is utterly disgusting. Indeed with attitudes like this the situation can only get worse.


The MCB also appears to contradict itself. It says in one place that “[r]ace and religion shouldn’t not be an inhibition to investigating a crime”. Then elsewhere it says:


"The key point that we come back to is that looking at race and ethnicity and culture is a red herring."

Fair enough, that may not be a direct contradiction because the MCB may simply be saying that although the authorities shouldn’t let the “race and religion” of the criminals inhibit their investigations; they should still be careful. Nonetheless, the MCB does say that “looking at race and ethnicity and culture is a red a red herring”.


That’s an incredibly extreme statement and blatantly false. Of course religion, ethnicity and culture are important factors in the sexual grooming of young non-Muslim girls by Muslim men – as they are in almost all areas of social reality (as Leftists sociologists will tell you – though perhaps not in this context). Indeed if you take away – as the MCB suggests – the nature of Islam, the fact that all the culprits are Muslim and Pakistani culture – what’s left to investigate?


So you know that when the MCB says “culture” it means Islam. And when it says “race and ethnicity” it means Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims. In addition, when the MCB says that “[w]e must not pre-empt it by saying that we are looking at specific factors”, it means that we must not pre-empt it by saying that we are looking at the behaviour of Pakistani Muslims. In other words, the MCB is defending the tribe (the tribe of Sunni Muslims) to which it belongs. And when it’s put that way, you wouldn’t really expect anything else.


What it’s all really about


Dr Shuja Shafi, Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain, also makes various comments on the Muslim sexual-grooming case in Rotherham.


He says that it’s all about “gang culture”.


No it’s not!


Apart from the fact that the age range of the abusers goes from 16 to 60, not all the abusers belonged to a “gang culture” (by any definition of those words). Many wouldn’t have involved themselves in violence or with drug-pushing. In other words, many Muslims were involved simply for the sexual exploitation of non-Muslim girls. I would say that only a small minority of these Muslim abusers (mainly the younger ones) would have also be involved with “money laundering, drugs, guns” (as Shafi puts it).


Mr Shafi also says that “[c]riminals reject the teachings of all teachings”.


Except that religions don’t – or shouldn’t – make laws and determine who is or who isn’t a criminal (though this isn’t the case with Islam.) Religions tell us what is right and wrong: not necessarily what is criminal. In this instance, Islam doesn’t deem these acts - the sexual grooming of kuffar girls – to be wrong. British law does – or at least it should have.


In addition, Boko Haram (in Nigeria), al-Shabab (in Somalia) and the Islamic State (IS) prove that these activities do not go against “all religions”. More specifically, they don’t go against the life of Muhammad, the teachings of the Koran and Islamic history. And neither do they go against what’s happening in the Muslim world today. So it’s simply false (i.e., a lie) for the Muslim Council of Britain to claim otherwise.


The MCB’s Website



NBFFVFDDS


And now just a few final words on the Muslim Council of Britain’s “revamped” website.


The MCB’s website is specifically aimed at non-Muslims!


HGNGNGBGVFF


It’s what the MCB wants us to read about itself (this is true of the CAIR website too.)
The MCB knows that its pronouncements and articles are being monitored by non-Muslims. They know that journalists and others now have their eyes on the ball.


Thus all the controversial stuff has been erased. That’s why there’s hardly anything at all on the new website. It’s virtually empty – even after a few months. These Islamists could have easily included some of the old stuff; though much of that was controversial (to non-Muslims, not to the MCB). Thus the MCB website was scrubbed clean and all the Islamist and extremist articles and features have been erased.


Hence the pseudo-patriotic images on the header and elsewhere: it’s all for non-Muslim consumption.


All the MCB’s hard-core Islamist conversations will now be taking place elsewhere.

Muslim sex-gangs & the victims of Rotherham Council’s anti-racism policies


Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council via rotherham.gov.uk 


According to the latest enquiry into Muslim sexual-grooming gangs in Rotherham (northern England), at least 1,400 children were subjected to sexual exploitation between 1997 and 2013.


Rotherham Borough Council’s report is the third of three inquiries into these matters. The other two were in 2002 and 2006. Both previous inquiries explicitly stated that the council and the police were fully culpable and that the extent of the problem “could not have been clearer”.

As yet, no one has been sacked. Council leader Roger Stone has just resigned; although he wasn’t sacked.

Think about that. That’s at least 1,400 victims in one northern English town alone in a period of 16 years. The same kind of thing has of course happened in literally dozens of other cities and towns throughout England. And in all these cases, virtually all the perpetrators were Muslims.

The Endless Fight Against Racism


According to news reports, many staff at Rotherham Council feared to identify the fact that all the perpetrators were Pakistanis, yet many have known that for over twenty years or so – certainly since 2004. The current report by Professor Alexis Jay only a new acknowledgement of the problem by an English council, not a new acknowledgement of the problem itself.

Many of the newspapers which are now keen to point the finger at Rotherham Council – were once part of the problem. National newspapers (as well as regional ones) - on the whole - hardly ever featured these cases. And even when they did, they too would never say that virtually all the perpetrators were Pakistani - never mind that they were all Muslims.

oid9ddmd

The Daily Mail, for example, continues this tradition by failing to mention the fact that most – often all – the perpetrators were Muslim. How can this – or any – newspaper castigate Rotherham Council when it’s committing the same wrong?

In other words, the Daily Mail says that it was wrong for councillors, police and social workers to have been afraid of saying that the perpetrators were Pakistani.

So why now is this newspaper afraid of saying that they were all Muslims?

The thing is, most sexual groomers in the UK are of Pakistani heritage simply because most Muslims in the UK are of Pakistani heritage. If most Muslims in the UK were Arabic (or north African), then nearly all the offenders would be Arabic (or north African). The author is willing to acknowledge that there may be – in theory at least - slight differences of degree between different Muslim ethnic groups. However, since there is also a problem with north African, Somali and Arabic sexual grooming in Sweden, Norway, France and other European countries, the differences between Pakistani Muslims and Arabic/north Africa/ Muslims are likely negligible.

And this points to one obvious conclusion: the problem is not one of race. It’s one of religion (i.e. Islam) and the culture generated by that religion.

The other important point is that Rotherham Council’s confessions (or self-criticisms) – and even the retroactive actions of the police and newspapers – have all been the result of external pressure. Councillors, newspapers and the police came to realise that the public at large – at least in the areas affected – was well aware of what was happening and very angry that nothing was being done about it. And only when that outrage (partly as a result of EDL demos and various independent investigations) reached a certain critical mass (roughly in 2010) did councils, the police and newspapers begin questioning their various positions on the massive problem of Muslim sex grooming-gangs in England.

fmfnfbdvdcdsaa

Professor Alexis Jay herself said that there had been “blatant” institutional failings by the council’s leadership and that senior managers had “underplayed” the sexual grooming of young girls in Rotherham. In addition, South Yorkshire Police had also largely dismissed the problem.

The failings of the council, the underplaying by council managers and the dismissals of the police were nearly all to do with politics and little to do with the severity  – or the lack of severity – of the problem. More correctly, nearly all of the players were scared stiff of being classed as “racist” by other councillors, police bodies and Leftist activist groups.

As the report puts it:

"Several staff described their nervousness about identifying the ethnic origins of perpetrators for fear of being thought as racist; others remembered clear direction from their managers not to do so."

In other words, it was deemed to be far more important to fight against often possible and fictional racism than to fight against the systematic and widespread exploitation of literally hundreds of young girls. Quite literally, all these young girls were sacrificed in the battle against racism. Or, more correctly, the suffering of these girls was deemed to be a lesser evil than the racism which could have been unleashed by highlighting – or even mentioning – the ethnicity or religious affiliations of the sexual groomers. Thus anti-racism achieved the highest possible rank in the scales of justice.

The fact that all the girls – it can be argued – were selected by Muslim men precisely because of their ethnicity (or race) appears to have bypassed the self-styled anti-racists of Rotherham and beyond. Or to put that another way: racism against Muslim sex groomers was deemed a worse crime than racism towards young white females.

The Left, as usual, tied itself up in knots. And those non-Leftists who passively swallow the many Marxist/Leftist theories about racism – upheld in council offices as much as in university departments  - did the same.

Pious & Fanatical Anti-Racism


Sections of the Left will attempt to hide the truth however it’s offered.

For example, if the Pakistani heritage of the perpetrators is mentioned, the word “racism” will be used. If, on the other hand, the fact that all the offenders were Muslims is mentioned, then – yes, you guessed it – we’ll get the debate-stopper “Islamophobia” from Leftists.

imagesF3NAVKY6

Such people are far more culpable than Rotherham’s councillors (the non-Leftist ones). Many councillors simply feared the accusations of “racism”; whereas these kinds of Leftists are the ones who did – and still do – the accusing. Not only that: many councillors, police and social workers have seen the error of their ways; whereas Trotskyists/communists/”progressives” want the situation to remain exactly as it was in the period before 2010: one of complete and total inaction on Muslim sexual-grooming gangs. Why is that? Because many Leftists believe either that any action whatsoever against Muslim grooming gangs is itself racist; or that such action will simply “encourage racism” (as it’s often put).

Thus the young victims of such sexual grooming were – and still are – very low on the list of worthy Leftist causes. At the top of that list is the permanent revolution against often fictional and possible racism.

Tuesday, 26 August 2014

Galloway’s ‘freedom of speech’ to incite violence against Israelis?


israel-free
Galloway’s speech about him making Bradford “Israel-free” (given on the 2nd of August, 2014).


Predictably, UK Respect Party Member of Parliament George Galloway has treated his recent interview by West Yorkshire Police (over his desire to make Bradford “Israel-free”) as a “freedom of speech” issue. He also said that he “won’t be silenced” over Gaza and Israel.


In full, Galloway said:

"This is an absolute and despicable attempt to curb my freedom of speech by people who appear to be quite happy about the indiscriminate murder of Palestinians in Gaza.
 
"I won’t be silenced, I will keep speaking out against horrendous injustice."

These are precisely the words you’d expect from a rhetorician and demagogue – all bombast and a distinct lack of content.

Galloway was not – repeat not – interviewed because of his criticisms of the Israeli state and its actions in the West Bank and Gaza. He was investigated because of his (possible) racism and his incitement to violence. More accurately, Galloway was investigated for saying that he has banned all Israelis – from “academics” to “tourists” – from Bradford.

poiq
George Galloway, Member of Parliament for Bradford (northern England)/

The incitement to violence angle of this refers to the way in which Galloway – along with his Leftist and Muslim stormtroopers – would enforce such a ban. Since Israelis/Jews aren’t banned from Bradford according to British law, such a banning could only be upheld through the illegal use of force – through violence.

It’s also strange that a man – Galloway – who’s been a fan of Lenin, Stalin, the Soviet Union, Chairman Mao, the PLO, Hamas, Fidel Castro, Saddam Hussein, Bashar Assad, theocratic Iran (he worked for Iran’s Press TV), etc., should talk about “freedom of speech” and not being “silenced”. This man has had the hots for totalitarian regimes, terrorists and despots almost all his life (Hence his recent attachment to Islamism and Islamist groups). That’s how he’s consistently found himself a nice political niche.

I mean, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. We wouldn’t have a ounce of free speech in a regime/state run by George Galloway.

Bradford


riot
The Bradford Muslim Riots of 2001. There had also been riots just five years earlier – in 1996.


In response to Galloway’s tub-thumping Israeli-hating populism (at least amongst Bradford’s Muslims and Leftists), Daniel Taub, Israel’s ambassador to the UK, visited Bradford to talk to local councillors and Jews.


The thing is that there aren’t many Jews left in Bradford. The more the Muslim population of Bradford increased, the more the Jewish population has decreased. Take these figures from the Jewish Year Book:

1949 – 700 Jews in Bradford
1990 – 430 Jews in Bradford
2004 – 356 Jews in Bradford

Today there’s only one synagogue left in Bradford. (There are over 80 mosques). The other one was burned down in the 1990s (it was rebuilt as a mosque). On one account, the last Jewish business (a company which made boxes) packed up in the 1980s as a result of the Jew-hatred of local Muslims.

This kind of thing is replicated throughout the Muslim and even in the non-Muslim world (as in Bradford, parts of France, Holland, Norway, Sweden, etc.). There are no Jews left in Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Libya and Afghanistan. And there are hardly any Jews left in north Africa and Iran; despite the fact that I’m often told that Jews are treated well in certain north African countries and Iran.

      The Ethnic Cleansing of Jews in the Arab Muslim World

Saudi Arabia – 1948: 0 – 2001: 0
Jordan – 1948: ? – 2001: 0
Libya – 1948: 38,000 – 2001: 0
Syria – 1948: 30,000 2001: less than 100
Lebanon – 1948: 20,000 2001: less than 100
Egypt 1948: 75,000 2001: 100
Algeria 1948: 140,000 2001: 100
Iraq – 1948: 150,000 2001: 100
Yemen – 1948: 55,000 2001: less than 200
Tunisia – 1948: 105,000 2001: 1,500
Morocco – 1948: 265,000 2001: 5,700
Iran – 1948: 100,000 2001: 11,500

Pakistan and Afghanistan

Pakistan 1948: 1,300 2009: less than 200 (though no synagogues or “community”)
Afghanistan 1948: 5,000 2001: 1

In any case, ambassador Daniel Taub tweeted a picture of himself holding an Israeli passport and an Israeli flag.

Predictably, a Muslim “community leader” – as such people are often called – called Zulfi Karim (secretary of the Bradford Council of Mosques) said that Mr Taub’s actions were a “deliberate provocation”. How is that, exactly? Is it because Israelis have been banned from Bradford by George Galloway?

Why is okay for Muslims to wave Palestinian/Hamas/ISIS and Pakistani flags in Bradford (as well as in many other northern English towns and cities), though wrong to do the same with an Israeli flag? If Taub doesn’t believe that Israel’s actions in Gaza are wrong, then he has the right to wave the Israeli flag in Bradford.

Here yet again we have that omnipresent and systematic threat of violence from Muslims. Or, as is often the case, we have a possible pseudo-moderate Muslim telling us what his immoderate “brothers” will do if we don’t obey their demands. You see, that’s what Zulfi Karim meant by “deliberate provocation”. What else could he have meant? Zulfi Karim meant that the Israeli ambassador’s actions might have provoked Bradford’s Muslims to violence; just as other non-Muslims provoke Muslims to violence when they criticise Islam or Muhammad, or publish cartoons, or books… or do anything that’s not in full accordance with Islam. (Perhaps non-Muslims provoke some Muslims simply by being non-Muslims. Indeed isn’t that precisely the case in Iraq and Pakistan today?)

Almost every day British Muslims threaten – either directly or indirectly – violence if the British people or the government doesn’t do X, Y or Z.

For example:

“Stop arming Israel” – or there’ll be violence.
“Pull out of Afghanistan” – or there’ll be violence.
“Ban the the EDL” – or there’ll be violence.
“Allow more sharia law” – or there’ll be violence.
“Ban the Satanic Verses” – or there’ll be violence.
“Don’t allow Gert Wilders into the UK” – or there’ll be violence….

Thus Bradford – and other cities in the UK – ends up becoming more and more like Peshawar or Karachi than a city in a secular, democratic and Christian country.

Stirring?


Some of Bradford’s Jews (as well as Jews elsewhere) may well think that I’m stirring things up by stating the facts and making these statements about Bradford. That is, many people believe – implicitly at least – that the truth (i.e., what they take to be the truth!) can work against what’s often called “community cohesion” (as with telling the truth about Muslim grooming gangs, the attempts by Islamists to take over state schools, Islamic terrorism, etc.). Yet I believe the exact opposite is the case. Things can only get worse if the truth about these matters isn’t confronted. You see if you know what the given negative facts or realities are, then you can take steps to deal with them. If, on the other hand, you sacrifice truth to the abstract god of community cohesion, then the problems will undoubtedly increase.

For a start, if what I’ve said are the facts, then there’s no genuine community cohesion in the first place. Thus the words “community cohesion” become precisely that: mere words. Or, more mundanely, the words “community cohesion” are nothing more than a political soundbite used to disguise what is often a distinct lack of community cohesion. Indeed since there are so few Jews in Bradford, it hardly makes sense to talk of community cohesion between Jews and Muslims anyway. It’s like talking about community cohesion between Jews and Muslims in Iraq when there are, on the last count, less than ten Jews living in that Muslim country. (There were 150,000 in 1948.)

It’s ultimately as if the Great and the Pious believe that if they chant the words “community cohesion” often enough, the more there’ll actually be community cohesion in Bradford and beyond. After all, Marxists, post-structuralists and post-modernists have been telling us for decades that if only we changed the words we use, then we could also change the realities in which we live. So this endless talk of “community cohesion” (which supposedly exists in Bradford, Birmingham, etc.) isn’t actually meant to reflect reality, it’s designed to bring about a new reality.

There’s just one problem with the theory (or theology) – it isn’t working. And it isn’t working for two reasons: the words don’t reflect the reality and no one believes the words anyway. In addition to that: the “community cohesion” mantra isn’t changing reality either. It’s hiding it and ultimately making it worse.

Thursday, 21 August 2014

Unapologetic Galloway has been interviewed by the police




bssss
George Galloway in Bradford, with a fellow activist for Respect/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian


George Galloway has been interviewed by West Yorkshire Police about the “Israel-free” comments he made at a meeting in Leeds on the 2nd of August. The meeting was held for Respect activists. The video of the speech was then posted on YouTube. (Click here and here  for more information.)


According to Chief Superintendent Paul Money, George Galloway cooperated with the police and was interviewed at Elland Road station under caution.


West Yorkshire Police has said that the case will be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when its enquiries are completed.


libert gb
George Galloway/PHOTO CREDIT: Liberty GB


To recap on the speech, this is what George Galloway said on the 2nd of August:


"We have declared Bradford an Israel-free zone.
 
"We don’t want any Israeli goods; we don’t want any Israeli services; we don’t want any Israeli academics coming to the university or the college.
 
"We don’t even want any Israeli tourists to come to Bradford even if any of them had thought of doing so.
 
"We reject this illegal, barbarous, savage state that calls itself Israel – and you have to do the same."


Mr Galloway has been a Bradford West MP since 2012.


Galloway in Court







hkhjhh
Galloway during the US Senate hearings of 2005/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian


George Galloway will milk his questioning and possible court appearance for all it’s worth. He is, after all, a consummate performer.


Even the people who despise George Galloway – as many people do (especially his former “comrades”) – freely confess that he has excellent literary skills and that he’s a performer of the first order. Despite that, when you read – rather than hear and see – his words on paper or on the Internet, Galloway-power lessens somewhat. Indeed you quickly find that there’s hardly any analysis, argumentation or even factual data in what he says. And beyond the literary exhibitionism, there’s no much politics either. This man “thinks with the blood” and primarily appeals to people who think that way. He tends to appeal to those who are politically simple-minded, Manichean and full of dreams of vengeance and power – hence Galloway’s Hitleresque style and (lack of) content.


As I said, Galloway will make the most of his court appearance. It may end up like Hitler’s court performance (in 1924) after being convicted for the Munich Putsch of 1923. Indeed Galloway may replicate the RADA skills he used during the Galloway v the US Senate (“oil-for-food”) hearings in 2005 (see image above). And since judges, lawyers and prosecutors can’t also rely exclusively on literary style, rhetoric and polemics, it’s no wonder that Galloway sometimes comes across so well at such appearances.


DAVID WARD
David Ward MP (Bradford East), who’s also pushing for a sectarian/communalist Britain/PHOTO CREDIT: The Guardian


Because Galloway is a pathological exhibitionist, it wouldn’t surprise the British public if he said something even more extreme and racist about Israelis and Jews either before or during the trial. In addition, since he’s competing with David Ward MP to see who’s the most immoderate and perverse Bradfordian Islamophile of them all, this may well happen.


One very-often-used strategy Galloway employs is to accuse virtually all his critics of lying. He’s done this very many times over the years. (Such things can be seen on various YouTube videos.) In fact apart from using his flamboyant literary skills, this seems to be Galloway’s first resort: especially when he’s being questioned. This is bizarre really since George Galloway – along with Jeffrey Archer – is one of most well-documented liars in British politics. This must simply be a case, then, of what psychologists call “psychological projection”. That is, a trait that Galloway recognises in himself (compulsive lying) is projected onto virtually all of his opponents. (See ‘The Lies of George Galloway’.)


George Galloway will be truly saddened by the fact that cameras aren’t allowed in British courts.


*) Latest Update



West Yorkshire Police, Leeds District, has written and delivered letters to the 250 people (in Leeds alone) who reported George Galloway’s remarks. The letter reads:
Dear…
 
Thank you for your complaint in relation to the speech made by George Galloway MP on Saturday 2nd of August 2014 in Leeds.
 
West Yorkshire Police have received a number of complaints in relation to the content of the speech and are conducting an investigation.
 
It is likely that the investigation will take a number of weeks. The Crown Prosecution Service will then review all the facts and make a decision. We will contact you regarding any further developments.
 
"If you would like to discuss this matter please do not hesitate to contact [... ] on contact [...]. Another agency that may be of assistance are Victim Support on [....].
 
Yours faithfully,
 
Pat Twiggs
Detective Superintendent
Head of Crime – Leeds District

Wednesday, 20 August 2014

BBC deceit about British baby names and 'Muhammed'





Anthony Reuben, in a BBC News item entitled 'Most popular baby names Amelia and Oliver' (15th August), wrote that



“some people have added up the spellings of Muhammad to put it in first place on the list”.



He then went on to say:



“There are eight different spellings, and if you add them up you get to 8,380, which would put the name in first place, ahead of Oliver on 6,949.”


[The BBC's Anthony Reuben.]



However, Anthony Reuben responds to these points in the following manner:


 
"But you're on a slippery slope once you start combining entries on the list.




“If you add the number of babies called Harry to the number called Henry, for example, you get to 9,136. Combining Jack and Jacob gives you a whopping 13,649.”



Firstly, even though 'Harry' and 'Henry' may have the same common root, they are still different names: not simply different spellings of the same name. The same goes for 'Jack' and 'Jacob' – different names with (possibly) the same root.


In addition, if there were even more different spellings of 'Muhammed', then – in theory at least - that Muslim name wouldn't even come in the top fifty or hundred of British names if we were follow Reuben's faulty logic. Thus, in the BBC's Orwellian world, hardly any babies at all in England and Wales will have been named 'Muhammed' in 2013. I wonder what the English nurses and midwives think of Reuben's ideologically-correct reasonings.


However, none of that matters. Every Muslim baby named 'Muhammad' is named after the Prophet Muhammad.


So are all the people named 'Harry' and 'Henry' named after the same person? Indeed is everyone named just 'Harry' named after the same person? Of course not! And the same is true of the names ''Jack' and 'Jacob'.


Is Anthony Reuben “lying for justice” here? (Is he lying about the number of Muslims being born in the UK in order, presumably, to fight against racism and insure Community Cohesion?)


The BBC doesn't seem to want its readers and viewers to know how many Muslims are being born in the UK. Now why is that? 


*) According to the BBC, 'Muhammed' and 'Muhammad' are different names simply because one includes an 'a' and the other has an 'e'.