Posted tagged ‘Britain’

Trump Likely to Move Britain to the Front of the Queue

January 16, 2017

Trump Likely to Move Britain to the Front of the Queue, Power Line,  Paul Mirengoff, January 16, 2017

(Despite BREXIT, Britain has been moving with painful slowness and caution in getting out of the EU. Perhaps’s Trump’s assurances will speed things along. — DM)

President Obama famously warned the British that Brexit would put the United Kingdom at the “back of the queue” when it comes to trades deals. Fortunately, Obama will be out of the White House in a few days, and his successor has other ideas.

President-elect Trump, in his first interview with the British press, said:

I will be ­meeting with [Prime Minister Theresa May]. She’s requesting a meeting and we’ll have a meeting right after I get into the White House and it’ll be, I think we’re gonna get something done very quickly.

We’re gonna work very hard to get it done quickly and done properly. Good for both sides.

Naturally, Boris Johnson, the UK’s foreign minister, was upbeat about this news:

We hear that we are first in line to do a great free trade deal with the United States. So, it’s going to be a very exciting year for both our countries.

Trump may drive a fairly hard bargain. After all, the hostile stance of Britain’s former partners in the EU gives the U.S. considerable leverage.

But Trump seems well-disposed towards the UK — something of an Anglophile — and thus may not be inclined to squeeze too hard. Trade deals aren’t always just about economics. They may also have a diplomatic dimension.

In the case of Britain, Trump says he hopes that a trade deal will “make Brexit a great thing.”And if Brexit turns out to be even a good thing for Britain, it may encourage other nations to leave the EU — something Trump appears to favor.

Bilateral trade agreements will likely be the order of the day under Trump. The demise of the TPP may lead to such deals between the U.S. and certain key Asian nations, starting perhaps with Japan.

When Congress scotched the TPP, it passed a related bill providing “fast-track” trade promotion authority to the White House. This legislation allows a trade deal to be ratified with just a simple majority of votes in Congress during the next six years.

Thus, Trump will be in a strong position when it comes to ratifying whatever deals he reaches.

In any event, it looks like we will very soon will have a president who fully values the “special relationship” between the U.S. and the UK, not just in word but also in deed — a president who reportedly plans to reinstall that bust of Winston Churchill in the oval office.

UK: Lawyer for jihad killer says he was “confused by vehicles driving on different side of road than he was used to”

January 7, 2017

UK: Lawyer for jihad killer says he was “confused by vehicles driving on different side of road than he was used to”, Jihad Watch

(Remember the old Art Linkletter segments on Kids say the Darndest Things? 

— DM)

 

A convicted murderer from Holland was able to walk through Britain’s porous borders without any checks and went on to attack two police officers with a claw-hammer.

Court documents in Holland said he was ‘inspired by Taliban movies in which beheadings were seen’…

Simon Blackford, defending, said there was a ‘long gap’ between the murder and the latest offences.

He said: ‘This offence was committed at a time of stress for my client. He was in a foreign country. He seems to have been vulnerable. He seems to have been hallucinating.

‘He was very confused by the vehicles driving on a different side of the road than he was used to.’

It is astonishing that Simon Blackford would offered the gelastic defense of his client when he was inspired by Taliban jihad videos and is by no means the first killer in the Netherlands or Britain to be inspired by the jihad doctrine. The likes of Jamshid Piruz have been freely moving in and out of Western countries for years. Take just one of innumerable examples: the Berlin jihadi Anis Amri, who was a known terror threat, yet authorities failed to detain or deport him before he ploughed a lorry into a Christmas market.

Also, research is showing that as many as 30,000 jihad fighters of the Islamic State could soon flood back into their “home countries,” ready to continue their jihad there.

Clearly there is a critical problem stemming from loose Western borders from a homeland security standpoint. Yet foes of border controls continue simply to charge their opponents with “racism.”

jamshid-piruz-1

More on this story. “Why wasn’t foreign killer turned away at the UK border? Afghan who beheaded Dutch woman is allowed into Britain… where he assaulted a Gatwick staff member and two police officers with a HAMMER”, Daily Mail, by Ian Drury, January 5, 2017:

A convicted murderer from Holland was able to walk through Britain’s porous borders without any checks and went on to attack two police officers with a claw-hammer.

Afghan-born Jamshid Piruz was allowed to enter the UK unchallenged despite being sentenced to 12 years in jail for slaughtering his female tenant in cold-blood after watching a Taliban beheading video.

Fury erupted after it emerged that the jobless 34-year-old was the latest in a string of foreign criminals to commit horrific offences in Britain after exploiting EU free movement rules.

MPs condemned the shocking lack of checks on offenders from the EU which left gaping holes in UK border controls.

European countries have no obligation to alert the UK about convictions of murderers or sex offenders, meaning many are able to travel to the UK unhindered.

Outraged critics blasted the embattled Home Office for allowing the scandal, by failing to ensure the authorities were notified about EU convicts before they set foot on our shores.

Politicians have called for Home Secretary Amber Rudd to introduce a tougher US-style warning system to flag up whether any traveller has a conviction as they attempt to enter Britain.

Failure to control the country’s borders – and the number of serious criminals arriving here – was a major reason why millions of people voted for Britain to leave the Brussels bloc last June.

Piruz, who was a permanent Dutch resident, will be sentenced on Friday after pleading guilty to an appalling hammer attack on PC Jessica Chick and PC Stewart Young, of Sussex Police, on January 7 last year.

PC Young was taken to hospital with head injuries but later recovered.

The officers were later praised in Parliament by ministers for their bravery.

Piruz had been in the UK a matter of days when he launched the frenzied assault on the officers as they investigated a burglary in Crawley, West Sussex.

Days earlier he had assaulted a member of staff at Gatwick Airport – but was released onto the streets by local magistrates.

Piruz got into Britain despite being a convicted murderer in Holland. In June 2006, he murdered his Chinese female tenant by cutting off her head at a house in Almere, a city close to Amsterdam.

Court documents in Holland said he was ‘inspired by Taliban movies in which beheadings were seen’.

The files said he locked his victim in her room, snatched her mobile phone, then cut her throat.

They said he acted ‘intentionally and with premeditation’.

Rejecting his plea of insanity, Dutch judges concluded: ‘The killing of the victim was not the result of an instantaneous violent emotion, but a decision to do so.’

Piruz was convicted of murder in August 2007 and sentenced to 12 years’ behind bars.

He was released in 2014, after serving seven years. As a permanent Dutch resident, the killer was allowed to travel freely across the EU.

Last night WED Tory MP Henry Smith, who represents Crawley, said: ‘The country has got to have tougher border controls. Clearly, being a member of the EU did not protect us on this occasion.

‘A very dangerous individual was allowed to travel here without us having prior knowledge that he’d committed murder in the Netherlands.

‘It is staggering that someone could assault staff at Gatwick and then a couple of days later attack two police officers.

‘Why was the information that he was a violent offender not available to us from our EU partners?

‘This is an appalling example of the kind of people who are getting into the country undetected.’

Piruz pleaded guilty at Hove to two counts of attempting to cause grievous bodily harm with intent, burglary and affray.

Two counts of attempted burglary and one of threatening with an offensive weapon will lie on file.

Simon Blackford, defending, said there was a ‘long gap’ between the murder and the latest offences.

He said: ‘This offence was committed at a time of stress for my client. He was in a foreign country. He seems to have been vulnerable. He seems to have been hallucinating.

‘He was very confused by the vehicles driving on a different side of the road than he was used to.’

When EU nationals arrive at the border, their passport details are checked against a ‘watchlist’ of suspected terrorists and foreign criminals compiled by the border agency.

But unless an offender is high profile, is known to have committed crimes in several countries, or is on the Interpol wanted list, the system is unlikely to be aware of their previous convictions – leaving a gaping hole in our border controls.

Except in the most extreme circumstances, Brussels does not force member states to share information on known criminals who might be planning to travel.

France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Poland flag up potential dangermen to the UK so they can be put on a watchlist and turned away at the port or airport.

But if countries do not warn the UK that a dangerous offender is on the way – and some do not even keep information of convictions for their own internal use – there is little we can do to stop them slipping through the net…..

UKIP Leader Paul Nuttall’s New Year’s message for 2017

January 1, 2017

UKIP Leader Paul Nuttall’s New Year’s message for 2017UKIP Official Channel via YouTube, December 17, 2016

Nigel Farage New Years Message at end of 2016

December 31, 2016

Nigel Farage New Years Message at end of 2016, RobinHoodUKIP via YouTube, December 31, 2016

Britain’s Little Lies

December 31, 2016

Britain’s Little Lies, Gatestone Institute, Douglas Murray, December 31, 2016

This is a serious category error for a Prime Minister to make. It puts critics of a religion on the same plane as people wanted for terrorism. It blurs the line between speech and action, and mixes people who call for violence with those who do not.

Only now, a fortnight later, has the true duplicity of Theresa May’s speech been exposed. For now the world has learned what diplomacy the British government was engaged in even as May was making her speech. At the same time as the Prime Minister was talking about “true friendship” in front of friends of Israel, her government was conspiring with the outgoing Obama administration to kick that friend in the back. The British government was exposed as being one of the key players intent on pushing through the anti-Israel UNSC Resolution 2334. British diplomats were revealed to have been behind the wording and rallying of allies for the resolution.

The British government, whilst saying that it remains committed to a peace deal that comes as a result of direct negotiations between the two sides, has its own preconditions for peace: a freeze on the building of what it calls “settlements.” They maintain this line despite the fact that settlements have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Before the June 1967 Six Day War, there were no such things as “settlements.” Palestinians were trying to destroy and displace Israel anyhow. The core problem is not, and never was, “settlements,” but the right of Israel (or any non-Muslim nation) to exist inside any borders in that part of the world.

If you take a stand that is based on a lie, then that stand cannot succeed. If you try to oppose anti-Semitism but pretend it is the same thing as “Islamophobia,” then the structure on which you have made your stand will totter and all your aspirations will fail. If you try to make a stand based on the idea that settlement construction rather than the intransigence of the Palestinians to the existence of a Jewish state is what is holding up a peace deal, then facts will keep on intruding.

On December 12, the Conservative Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, gave a fulsome speech to the annual Conservative Friends of Israel lunch. Before a roomful of 800 pro-Israel Conservative MPs and party supporters, she lavished praise on the Jewish state. She praised Israel’s achievements and castigated its enemies. She said that Britain would be marking the centenary of the Balfour declaration “with pride.” She also stressed that cooperation and friendship between Britain and Israel was not just for the good of those two countries, but “for the good of the world.”

For many of the people listening in the room, there were just two discordant notes. The first was related to the focus on anti-Semitism in May’s speech. As she used the opportunity rightly to lambaste the Labour party for its anti-Semitism problem, she extended the reach of her own claims for herself. While boasting of her success as Home Secretary in keeping out the prominent French anti-Semite Dieudonné and finally deporting the Salafist cleric Abu Qatada al-Filistini back to his native Jordan, she also used the opportunity to congratulate herself for banning Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and Pastor Terry Jones from coming to the UK. “Islamophobia comes from the same wellspring of hatred” as anti-Semitism, she explained.

This is a serious category error for a Prime Minister to make. It puts critics of a religion, such as Geller and Spencer, on the same plane as people wanted for terrorism (Qatada). It blurs the line between speech and action, and mixes people who call for violence with those who do not. The comparison also fails to follow the consequences of its logic to its own illogical conclusion. The comparison fails to recognise that anyone who objects to Islamic anti-Semitism is immediately known as an “Islamophobe.” Therefore, someone hoping to come to Britain would have to accept being attacked by Muslim extremists for fear of being banned from entering the UK. These are serious and basic misunderstandings for a Prime Minister to propagate.

There was, however, a clear political sense to them. A Prime Minister in a country such as 21stCentury Britain might believe that he or she has to be exceptionally careful not to appear to be criticising any one group of people or praising another too highly. So for the time being in Britain, a moral relativism continues to stagnate. If the Jewish community complains of anti-Semitism, then you must criticise anti-Semitism. If the Muslim community complains of “Islamophobia,” then you must criticise “Islamophobia.” To make value judgements might be to commit an act of political folly. Wise leaders in increasingly “diverse” societies must therefore position themselves midway between all communities, neither castigating nor over-praising, in order to keep as many people onside as possible.

2172UK Prime Minister Theresa May speaks at the annual Conservative Friends of Israel lunch, December 12, 2016. (Image source: Conservative Friends of Israel)

The same tactic brought the other discordant moment at the Prime Minister’s lunch — the same tactic brought to the discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. For the other discordant note in May’s speech came when she mentioned Israeli settlement building. It was carefully placed in the speech, after a passage in which May congratulated her own Department for International Development (DfID) Minister, Priti Patel. In the days before the lunch, Patel had announced that DfID would carry out an investigation to determine whether British taxpayer money being sent to what May called “the Occupied Palestinian Territories” was being used to fund salaries for Palestinians convicted of terrorism offences against Israelis. Following this May said:

“When talking about global obligations, we must be honest with our friends, like Israel, because that is what true friendship is about. That is why we have been clear about building new, illegal settlements: it is wrong; it is not conducive to peace; and it must stop.”

The comment was received in silence and May moved on.

But this comment fitted in closely with the strategy of her other comment. For having lavished praise on Israel, a castigation apparently seemed necessary. It is wrong, but hardly possible for a British Prime Minister currently to do otherwise. If there are terrorists receiving funds from British taxpayers thanks to the largesse of the UK government, then this may — after many years of campaigning by anti-terrorism organisations — finally be “investigated.” However, throughout any such investigation, the British government, whilst saying that it remains committed to a peace deal that comes as a result of direct negotiations between the two sides, has for years announced its own preconditions for peace: a freeze on the building of what it calls “settlements.” They maintain this line despite the fact that settlements have nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Before the June 1967 Six Day War, there were no such things as “settlements.” Palestinians were trying to destroy and displace Israel anyhow — in 1948, 1956, and 1967. The core problem is not, and never was, “settlements,” but the right of Israel (or any non-Muslim nation) to exist inside any borders in that part of the world.

At the time of May’s speech, these two issues seemed like minor cavils to some and gained little notice. Only now, a fortnight later, has the true duplicity of the speech been exposed. For now the world has learned what diplomacy the British government was engaged in even as May was making her speech.

At the same time as the Prime Minister was talking about “true friendship” in front of friends of Israel, her government was conspiring with the outgoing Obama administration to kick that friend in the back. In the wake of the collapse of the Egyptian-sponsored initiative at the UN, the British government was exposed as being one of the key players intent on pushing through the anti-Israel UN Security Council Resolution 2334. British diplomats were revealed to have been behind the wording and rallying of allies for the resolution.

The most obvious interpretation of this fact is simply a reflection that friends do not kick friends in the back. Especially not in the world’s foremost international forum for kicking that particular friend. But some people are putting a kinder interpretation on the facts. The kindest to date is that the May government believes that a sterner line on the issue of Israeli settlements would give the British government more leverage with the Palestinians.

If that is so, then it seems that the May government will have to learn abroad the same lesson that they must learn at home. Both will come about because of the same strategic mistake: a reliance on the short-term convenience of what must seem at first to be only convenient little lies. The problem is that such little lies, when tested on the great seas of domestic and international affairs, have a tendency to come to grief with exceptional rapidity and ease.

Politicians are keen on taking stands. But if you take a stand that is based on a lie, then that stand cannot succeed. If you try to oppose anti-Semitism but pretend it is the same thing as “Islamophobia,” then the structure on which you have made your stand will totter and all your aspirations will fail. If you try to make a stand for Israel while simultaneously conniving at the UN to undermine Israel, then your duplicity will be exposed and admiration for this and other stands will falter. If you try to make a stand based on the idea that settlement construction rather than the intransigence of the Palestinians to the existence of a Jewish state is what is holding up a peace deal, then facts will keep on intruding. They have before — at home and abroad — and they will again.

UK: 12 million more migrants will arrive in 25 years without hard Brexit

December 29, 2016

UK: 12 million more migrants will arrive in 25 years without hard Brexit, Jihad Watch

MASS immigration will continue at “unacceptable” levels for at least the next two decades unless Britain makes a full break with Brussels, a report predicted last night.

The case for a hard Brexit is compelling, given the self-induced disintegration of Europe due to its reckless immigration policy.

“An increase of anything like 12 million in just 25 years is, quite simply, unacceptable to the British public and certainly not what they voted for in the referendum.”

A hard Brexit will likely be well received by the Queen, given her views about Muslim migration. A BBC political editor reported this week that the Queen stated: “I don’t see why we can’t just get out. What’s the problem?” Back in June, the Queen accused EU Courts of denigrating Britain by “protecting terrorists,” and asked dinner guests: “‘Give me THREE good reasons’ to remain inside the European Union.”

uk-migrants

“BREXIT WARNING: 12 MILLION more migrants to arrive in UK in 25 years without hard Brexit”, by Macer Hall, Express, December 29, 2016:

Figures showed that annual net migration to the UK from EU countries would be unlikely to fall below 155,000 in the “medium term” if the country stays in the EU’s Single Market.

And the Government’s ability to reduce the influx will be “extremely limited” as long as the EU’s free movement rules remain in force.

The disturbing forecast of near-record levels of migration for years ahead was set out in a report from the population think tank Migration Watch. It was being seen last night as a devastating blow to campaigners for a so-called “soft Brexit” that retain the UK’s full Single Market membership.

Supporters of a full break with Brussels insisted that snatching back control over immigration was at the heart of the vote to leave the EU in last summer’s referendum on the UK’s membership of the bloc.

Alp Mehmet, vice-chairman of Migration Watch UK, said: “This research spells out the very serious consequences for our society of net migration continuing at its present scale with membership of the single market resulting in a relentless increase in our population.

“An increase of anything like 12 million in just 25 years is, quite simply, unacceptable to the British public and certainly not what they voted for in the referendum.”

Tory MP Philip Hollobone said: “Migration Watch’s forecasts have always been thoroughly reliable and are the best we are going to get from anyone.

“The picture they paint is completely unacceptable.

“We simply can’t stay in the Single Market if it means we are going to get that sort of level of immigration.

“Above all, people voted in the referendum for a change in our approach to immigration.”

And John Bickley, Ukip’s immigration spokesman, said: “Migration Watch have confirmed Ukip’s worst fears, that remaining in the Single Market will not result in the UK ‘leaving the EU’ as we will have to continue to accept uncontrolled immigration from the EU.

“Total net immigration will add 12 million people to the population in just 25 years, more than the equivalent of the entire current populations of Bulgaria and New Zealand.”

He added: “Theresa May needs to set out in no uncertain terms that when the UK leaves the EU it will also cease to be a member of the Single Market.

“The UK will then, like the rest of the world, have access to the Single Market, and tariff free access will be hugely beneficial to the EU, which runs a massive trade surplus with the UK.”

The Migration Watch report cited official figures showing that annual net migration from other EU nations to the UK reached 189,000 in the 12 months to the end of last June….

Transcript claims to show US worked with Palestinians on UN resolution

December 28, 2016

Transcript claims to show US worked with Palestinians on UN resolution, Times of Israel, December 27, 2016

kerryandpalPalestinian Authority lead negotiator Saeb Erekat, right, and US Secretary of State John Kerry in Ramallah, West Bank, on January 4, 2013. (State Department)

Report published in Egypt has Kerry and Rice advising senior Palestinians on strategy at UN and after Trump takes power.

An Egyptian paper published what it claims are the transcripts of meetings between top US and Palestinian officials that, if true, would corroborate Israeli accusations that the Obama administration was behind last week’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

An Egyptian paper published what it claims are the transcripts of meetings between top US and Palestinian officials that, if true, would corroborate Israeli accusations that the Obama administration was behind last week’s UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements.

At the same time, a report in an Israeli daily Tuesday night pointed to Britain helping draft the resolution and high drama in the hours leading up to the vote, as Jerusalem tried to convince New Zealand to bury the Security Council measure.

In a meeting in early December with top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, US Secretary of State John Kerry told the Palestinians that the US was prepared to cooperate with the Palestinians at the Security council, Israel’s Channel 1 TV said, quoting the Egyptian Al-Youm Al-Sabea newspaper.

Also present at the meeting were US National Security Adviser Susan Rice, and Majed Faraj, director of the Palestinian Authority’s General Intelligence Service.

riceniceUS National Security Adviser Susan Rice speaks during the American Israel Public Affairs Committee 2015 Policy Conference, March 2, 2015 in Washington, DC. (photo credit: Mark Wilson/Getty Images/AFP)

Kerry is quoted as saying that he could present his ideas for a final status solution if the Palestinians pledge they will support the proposed framework. The US officials advised the Palestinians to travel to Riyadh to present the plan to Saudi leaders.

Israel fears that Kerry, who is slated to give a speech Wednesday on the subject, will then lay out his comprehensive vision for two-state solution at a Paris peace conference planned for January. Israel has refused to attend. Israel further fears that this Kerry framework could be enshrined in another UN Security Council resolution.

The Egyptian report fits with Israeli claims that it had received “ironclad” information from Arab sources that Washington actively helped craft last week’s UN resolution declaring Israeli settlements illegal.

samanthaSamantha Power, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, addresses the United Nations Security Council, after the council voted on condemning Israel’s settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, Friday, Dec. 23, 2016 (Manuel Elias/The United Nations via AP)

Responding to a question about the Al-Youm Al-Sabea report, State Department Spokesman Mark Toner denied that the US discussed the language of the resolution with Erekat or in a meeting with officials from New Zealand.

The Obama administration has denied it was behind the resolution, saying that it only decided not to veto it after reading the final text.

Meanwhile, a report in the daily Haaretz Tuesday cited Western and Israeli officials detailing how Britain, and not the US, worked with the Palestinians to craft the text of the resolution, toning it down to make it palatable enough for Washington to avoid a veto.

“The Israeli diplomats say that from information that reached the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem, British legal figures and diplomats had been working directly with the Palestinians on the wording of the resolution even before it was distributed by Egypt,” Haaretz said.

nzdipNew Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully addresses a Security Council meeting on the situation in the Middle East on December 16, 2016. (UN/Manuel Elias)

According to Haaretz, in the hours before the resolution went forward, Netanyahu phoned New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully, and warned him that going ahead with the resolution “will be a declaration of war.”

“It will rupture the relations and there will be consequences. We’ll recall our ambassador to Jerusalem,” Netanyahu is reported to have said.

Since the resolution passed, Netanyahu has taken a series of measures against the states that supported the resolutions, minimizing ties with some and calling in their envoys for rebuke.

According to the Egyptian report, the US diplomats expressed their mistrust of Netanyahu, saying he wanted to destroy the two-state solution and was only interested in maintaining the status quo between Israel and the Palestinians.

The transcript showed Kerry and Rice advising the Palestinians not to make any provocative moves when US President-elect Donald Trump takes office on January 20, calling him dangerous.

They warned against such steps as ending security cooperation with Israel, pursuing legal action against Israeli officials in the ICC, or dissolving the Palestinian Authority.

They also said Trump’s administration was likely to adopt a policy on the Israel-Palestinian conflict that would be totally different to that of previous administrations going back to 1967.

mideast-palestinians-_horo-4-305x172In this Friday, Dec. 11, 2015 file photo, Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat delivers a speech at the Mediterranean Dialogues Conference Forum, in Rome. (AP Photo/Andrew Medichini, File)

When asked how the Palestinians would react if Trump carried out his promise to move the US embassy to Jerusalem, Erekat reportedly said the Palestine Liberation Organization would rescind its recognition of Israel and ask Arab states to expel their US envoys.

Erekat made precisely that threat in a December 19 conference call organized by the Wilson Center policy forum. He said he would immediately resign as the chief Palestinian negotiator, and that “the PLO will revoke its recognition of Israel” as well as all previously signed agreements with Israel. Furthermore, said Erekat, all American embassies in the Arab world would be forced to close — not necessarily because Arab leaderships would want to close them, but because the infuriated public in the Arab world would not “allow” for the embassies to continue to operate.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Thousands of pounds in UK benefits used to fund the Islamic State and jihad cells

December 7, 2016

Thousands of pounds in UK benefits used to fund the Islamic State and jihad cells, Jihad Watch,

In Islamic law, non-Muslims have the duty to provide for the upkeep of Muslims. British jihadist Anjem Choudary said in February 2013:

“We are on Jihad Seekers Allowance, We take the Jizya (protection money paid to Muslims by non-Muslims) which is ours anyway. The normal situation is to take money from the Kafir (non-Muslim), isn’t it? So this is normal situation. They give us the money. You work, give us the money. Allah Akbar, we take the money. Hopefully there is no one from the DSS (Department of Social Security) listening. Ah, but you see people will say you are not working. But the normal situation is for you to take money from the Kuffar (non-Muslim) So we take Jihad Seeker’s Allowance.”

This is, of course, based on the Qur’an: “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” (Qur’an 9:29).

paris-jihad-attack-1

“Thousand of pounds in British benefits used to FUND ISIS and terror cells’ expert claims,” by Charlie Bayliss, Express, December 7, 2016:

ISLAMIC terrorists are being funded by hundreds of thousands of pounds in British benefits, a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation has claimed.

The accusations come after a Birmingham man was convicted of giving Mohammed Abrini – the man believed to be the mastermind behind the Paris and Brussels attacks which killed 162 innocent civilians – £3,000 to fund terrorist activities.

The Government has been under intense scrutiny to conduct an inquiry to establish the full extent of benefit fraud linked to jihadist causes as counter-terror experts claim some British money has been used to pay for ISIS weapons.

Lord Carlile of Berriew told The Times: “Several hundred thousand pounds in small remittances have been used to fund terrorism in one way or another”.

He added: “[Such activity] has increased during the rise of ISIS. Certainly the Government should ensure that there is more triage available when housing benefits recipients are known to have gone to another country.”

Belgian-born Zakaria Boufassil, 26, moved to Birmingham and claimed British housing and child benefits and transferred the money to suspected terrorist Abrini, who travelled from Syria to Britain to pick up the money.

Abrini was reportedly captured on CCTV following the Brussels Zaventem airport suicide bombing attack.

Nearly £11,000 was funnelled into the account of Anouar Haddouchi, another Belgian living in Britain who also claimed benefits despite mostly living in Saudi Arabia.

Birmingham city council apologised for their blunder of paying nearly £6,000 to Haddouchi and Boufassil’s account – even though they were no longer living in the area.

Mohammed Ali Ahmed, who was being tracked by MI5, helped Boufassil hand over the cash having impersonated Haddouchi to gain access to his bank account.

Boufassil and Ahmen were both found guilty at Kingston Crown Court, London, of engaging in conduct in preparation of acts of terrorism….

The forgotten European slaves of Islamic Barbary North Africa and Islamic Ottoman Turkey

November 25, 2016

The forgotten European slaves of Islamic Barbary North Africa and Islamic Ottoman Turkey, Jihad Watch

 

Their capture and enslavement was based on elements of Islamic law that are still part of that law in all its various permutations and manifestations.

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

“Ohio State University history Professor Robert Davis describes the White Slave Trade as minimized by most modern historians in his book Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast and Italy, 1500–1800 (Palgrave Macmillan).”

“White slavery” is a common term, but it is unfortunate, as the slaves described in this video were not captured and enslaved because they were white, but because they were non-Muslim. Their capture and enslavement was based on elements of Islamic law that are still part of that law in all its various permutations and manifestations.

Egypt’s parliament responds to UK Commons’ ‘defence of political Islam’

November 23, 2016

Egypt’s parliament responds to UK Commons’ ‘defence of political Islam’, Ahram on LineGamal Essam El-Din, November 21, 2016

The Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee said its report aims to expose Europe and the UK’s false views on “political Islam”

egyptparliament

“The UK parliament report ignores – either on purpose or due to a lack of knowledge about historical facts – that since it was established in the first third of the previous century the Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for spreading the radical Islamic ideology upon which all terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida, ISIS, Hamas, Ezzeddin Al-Qassam, Al-Nusra Front and Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis were based,” said the report, adding that “most of the leaders of these terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida’s current leader Ayman Al-Zawahri were once members of Muslim Brotherhood.”

“This group is the godfather of all jihadist and Salafist ideologies which dream of resurrecting the state of the caliphate against the infidel West,” said the report.

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

A 10-page report issued by the Egyptian parliament’s foreign affairs committee on Sunday launched a scathing attack on EU and UK politicians and MPs who defend “political Islam.”

The report, issued in response to a 7 November UK House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee’s report on the Muslim Brotherhood and political Islam, said it does not aim to defend the Egyptian government’s security and legal measures against the Brotherhood group and its affiliated militant and terrorist organizations.

“Our report reflects our responsibility as elected MPs to stand against a group which seized its one year in power to turn Egypt into a religious state and show the world the true meaning of “political Islam,” said the report.

It added that the “Muslim Brotherhood tried to steal history and turn the Arab world’s first civilian state into a theocratic state that is hostile to human civilization and the values of freedom, equality and citizenship.”

The report said “if Europe and the West are really keen to stem the tide of religious terrorism and the political hijacking of Islam, they should correct their understanding of all political Islam movements which claim they have a licence from God to implement his laws on earth and impose the state of the caliphate on the world .”

Ahmed Said, head of the Egyptian foreign affairs committee, told reporters Sunday that Egypt’s parliament deplores the UK report’s inclusion of a number of horrible lies.

“Our committee’s report aims to expose these lies. We intend to send it to the Egyptian ambassadors in England and Germany to stand against  the attempts of several politicians and MPs in these two countries to polish the image of political Islam ,” the report said.

Said said “we know from history that Europe was able to move ahead and achieve progress only after it made a separation between religion and politics.”

“So we are surprised by the new generation of European radical liberals and progressives who defend political Islam and thereby give cover for Islamist movements which claim victimhood to spread across Europe and create a fertile ground for Islamist radicals there,” said Said.

The report said the UK parliament’s report offered a very artificial interpretation of “political Islam.”

“We wonder how a parliament that was based on separating religion from politics  approves that a country like Egypt be governed by a theocratic state,” said the report, adding that “this is a setback from all the democratic and liberal ideals which formed the foundation of European civilization.”

The report said that “the UK parliament made a very artificial and marginal differentiation between Islamist movements that exploit democracy to reach power on the one hand, and Islamist movements that seek the path of violence and armed jihad to impose their radical ideology on societies, on the other.”

“All studies that have been conducted on political Islam movements show that there are no essential differences among them and that they all seek one objective – that is trying to impose a strict code of Islam and Islamic Sharia law on the world, and to launch an armed Jihad against ‘infidel rulers’ everywhere,” argued the report.

“In other words,” the report added, “these groups want to Islamise the entire world and they only differ on when and how these objectives should be implemented,” said the report.

“While a group like the Muslim Brotherhood shows the face of artificial Islamic moderation to gain ground in the West and infiltrate societies there, other groups seek the road of violence. Each complements the other,” said the report.

The report described the Muslim Brotherhood “as the mother of all jihadist and Salafist movements.”

“The UK parliament report ignores – either on purpose or due to a lack of knowledge about historical facts – that since it was established in the first third of the previous century the Muslim Brotherhood has been responsible for spreading the radical Islamic ideology upon which all terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida, ISIS, Hamas, Ezzeddin Al-Qassam, Al-Nusra Front and Ansar Beit Al-Maqdis were based,” said the report, adding that “most of the leaders of these terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaida’s current leader Ayman Al-Zawahri were once members of Muslim Brotherhood.”

“This group is the godfather of all jihadist and Salafist ideologies which dream of resurrecting the state of the caliphate against the infidel West,” said the report.

“We doubt that UK politicians or MPs have any books about the ideological basis of this group, which is highly hostile to the West and what they describe as its “liberal and infidel culture,” said the report.

To press its case, the report reviews a number of political assassinations which the Muslim Brotherhood has carried out since it was established by its leader Hassan Al-Banna in 1928.

The second part of the response accuses the UK report of making “a big mistake” by drawing a comparison between the experience of Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia.

“The Media and politicians in the West always like to portray Tunisia as the democratic, inclusive model in the Middle East,” said the report, adding that “this is a big mistake because facts show that Tunisia has become a fertile ground for Islamist jihadists who spread extremism and terrorism in France and Europe and that more than 1,000 Tunisians — the greatest number from any Arab country — a have joined the IS group.”

“Doesn’t this show that the Muslim Brotherhood ideology was behind the transformation of Tunisia into a breeding ground for jihadists,” wondered the report, adding that “not to mention that Tunisia is a small country – with 11 million people – but Egypt is a country with 90 million and the birthplace of the Muslim Brotherhood, which exploited political tolerance over eight decades to create a wide network of businesses and secret armed militias.”

“The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt owns banks, charity organizations and receives huge donations from wealthy sympathisers in the Arabian Gulf and throughout the Islamic world,” said the report.

The report also argued that the Muslim Brotherhood in Tunisia accepted democracy only for tactical reasons. “After they saw how millions in Egypt revolted against their mother group, they decided to backtrack only for tactical reasons,” said the report.

The report’s third section is devoted to explaining the Muslim Brotherhood’s ideology and internal structure “which is highly hostile to all democratic values.”

“Their ideology is based on strict obedience to the group’s supreme guide, not to mention that its main ideologues, such as Sayyid Qutb, were the ones who invented the jihadist ideology which states that “democracy goes against the rule of God and Islamic Sharia,” said the report.

The report also reviews in detail “the one year of the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt.”

“They exploited the collapse of (former president) Hosni Mubarak’s ruling party to exclude all civilian political forces from power and impose their rule on the country. When millions revolted against them and expelled them from power on 30 June, 2013, they resorted to claims of victimhood again, only to find an ear in the UK and its parliament,” said the report, insisting that “Egyptians stand firm against the rule of ‘the supreme guide’ and will not allow their country to become a religious state.”

“Egyptians are in a battle of life and death against this group, which is the mother of all radical Islam movements,” said the report.

The report also said that many of those who implemented terrorist attacks against the US on 11 September, 2001 received training at the hands of old and veteran Muslim Brotherhood leaders.

The report spotlights what it calls the Muslim Brotherhood’s “empowerment ideology” which seeks to Islamise the entire world in a gradual way.

The report urges the UK parliament and politicians to review “the dark history of the Muslim Brotherhood” and to verify their information about it “instead of issuing distorted reports about political Islam.”

“While the world has become increasingly aware of the dangers of all radical Islam movements, we are surprised that the UK MPs and politicians still live in a coma, insistent not only on polishing the image of these movements, but also propagating the biggest lie: that it is a peaceful and moderate movement,” the report concludes.

The report includes a great number of details about the yearlong rule of former president Mohamed Morsi and how the Brotherhood exploited this year to isolate all political forces.

“For all those who believe in the West that Islamist movements can be integrated into the political process of Arab countries, we offer this bitter experience to put an end to this lie,” said the report.

The UK House of Commons’ foreign affairs committee released its report on 7 November, commenting on the findings and conclusions of a December 2015 review by the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) on the Muslim Brotherhood.

The 2015 FCO report concluded that the group has long maintained a dubious position vis-à-vis the use of violence and terrorism to achieve political change.

The UK parliament committee said that the FCO review “undermined confidence in the impartiality of the FCO’s work” due to the “misguided appointment” of Sir John Jenkins, the UK ambassador to Saudi Arabia, to head the review effort.