[Left: the Luton bomber and Embracer of Diversity. Right: Salma 'doesn't make or explode bombs herself' Yaqoob.]
The presenter of this news piece glibly states that 'extremism breeds extremism' - referring to the EDL’s response to Luton's Islamists and Islamoterrorists. But that’s just a cliché at best. For example, when Churchill and the British people responded (with war) to Hitler's extremism, did that make them extremists too? When the Libyans recently rose up against the extremist Gaddafi, did they become extremists as well (although the Islamist 'revolutionaries' are probably worse than Gaddafi)? When the 'oppressed' fight back against dictators and tyrants, are they thus just as bad as them?
So that neat little cliché doesn't always work. That's why Searchlight's (Nick Lowles's) neat little gimmick, 'plague on both your houses', doesn't work either.
For a start, the Islamists of Luton want universal sharia. The EDL is only concerned with the Islamification of England and perhaps also of Europe.
The Islamists of Luton believe in - and sometimes even practice - terrorism. The EDL is unequivocally against all manner of terrorism.
Luton ISLAMISTS want to destroy, subjugate and even kill every non-Muslim. The EDL doesn't want to do anything to non-Christians or any religious group. Only the Islamists must be stopped from destroying everyone and everything they don’t like or approve of.
The Luton Islamists call for the 'death of gays' - see what’s happening today in the Islamist Tower Hamlets. The EDL is not anti-gay.
You see, the EDL is not equally extreme. There may be some violence at some of our demos by some people in certain situations, but what’s all that when compared to Islamoterrorism; the Islamic attempt at worldwide subjugation on behalf of Allah; and the massive daily death toll of the Global Jihad?
I will comment on the Muslim who is interviewed in this news piece about the Stockholm bomber from Luton.
This Muslim feigns a moderate image. Yet he says all acts of Islamoterrorism are exclusively responses to, or justified by, British and American foreign policy since 2001. (So what about the terrorist attacks in the US in the 1990s? What about Islamoterrorism of the 1970s? What about the Muslim Brotherhood campaign of bombings and assassinations which began in the late 1920s? What about the Islamic jihad which began with Mohammed around 1,300 years ago?)
So he used the Salma Yaqoob ruse. That is,
I'm against Islamoterrorism but...
She, and this man, are against Islamoterrorism but they still justify it, legitimise it, explain it, and even sympathise with it. They just don't carry out the bombings themselves, or publicly praise them. Of course they don't! Yaqoob knows, as we all know, that to do so would result in her political suicide. She's not dumb. Thus she stays a millimetre from the actual celebration of - and praise for - Islamoterrorism. From such a hypocritical stance, a stance of pure taqiyya, she will be better placed to destroy our political system, traditions and cultures from within; just as is the case with the pseudo-moderate Muslim interviewed in this news piece.
The journalist herself seem to agree with the 'moderate' Muslim. Unemployement is even used as a possible excuse, which is strange because the bomber was a middle class ex-student. In any case, this is ourageous Yaqoobite blackmail:
The British Government should bow down to the demands of Muslims, Islamists and Islamoterrorists otherwise you will face the consquences!
The journalist, or presenter, has probably never once thought about even the possibility that Islamoterrorism may have at least something to do with Islam, the Koran, etc. That is, it is not even possible that Islam itself fosters and encourages killing and violence. No religion could ever possibly do that! It's unthinkable.
Though probably not knowingly Leftist, her news piece appears to concur entirely with the moderate Muslim's view - and the Left's view! - that all Islamoterrorism is about poverty and/or British foreign policy or 'oppression'. (Not about Islam itself!) So why don't Sudanese Christians become terrorists? What about the Tibetans or the Kurds? If it's all about poverty, political policy, etc., why the hell are 99% of all acts of terrorism today carried out by Muslims? Surely this lazy journalist is missing at least something.
*) The 'moderate' Muslim offers his Islamoterrorism apologetics at 3 minutes and 10 seconds.