What No Treason Trials? & Is Tony Blair A Homosexual?

Well on the front page of one of our UK papers is another towel headed, goat abusing, Islamonazi carpet kisser. Banging on about killing all us kafir and trying to overthrow the British crown with some Islamodictatorship.

See such liberal countries as: Syria, Egypt, Libia, Iran. The list go's on and on. And lo our authorities, ie the Lord Chancellor has said that NOBODY will be tried for treason.

The Hoff is defending the free world from goatfuckers...
Posted by Picasa

Onto my second point about our PM batting for both teams. This is a theory I have thought up over some time and the main points of the arguement are:

1/ You only see him and the beast known as Mrs Blair together on hols or are PR events.

2/ He wears makeup.

3/ He has a gay best mate called Peter.

Not much evidence I know but what the hell its better that what they used to invade Iraq.

Finally some bits I have found on the rags from various sites on the ol interweb:
MANILA, Philippines - U.S.-backed offensives have disrupted terrorism training by the Jemaah Islamiyah group, prompting the al-Qaida affiliate to constantly change camps and delaying the arrival of a batch of Indonesian recruits, a Philippine government report said.

That training began in 1998, mostly in the southern strongholds of the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front, according to the report seen Tuesday by The Associated Press.

Last year, though, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front began pressuring the foreign trainers to move away, apparently to avoid sporadic government anti-terrorist offensives.

16 August 2005: Luai Sakra, a Syrian national, was captured in Turkey as he was preparing for an attack to target Israeli cruse liners. Reports claim that Sakra had information about the al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden, and the triple London attacks on July 7.
Sakra told Turkish police he sent many people to the United States (US), Britain, Egypt, Syria and Algeria to conduct various terrorist activities. More immediately, however, information found after a fire in an al-Qaeda cell house in Antalya, it was indicated that al-Qaeda was preparing a suicide attack on Israeli cruse ships.

The local police was dispatched to an apartment house rented by al-Qaeda terrorists because of a strong chemical odor. While there, the police found about a ton of explosives, all of which were filled with chemicals used for making detergents.

There were also six false Turkish passports in the apartment. One of the passports had the photo of Sakra, who had been wanted by Besiktas Judiciary Court for being the planner of the double attacks in Istanbul on November 15 and 20, 2004. Sakra was believed to have financed the attacks and also provided the bombing equipment for the attackers.

Sleeping With The Enemy: Sex & The City's Kim Cattrall

By Debbie Schlussel

In Touch Magazine reports that "Sex & The City's" aging Kim Cattrall, 48, is now "dating" (euphemism) actor Alexander Siddig, who played 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in "The Hamburg Cell" and one of Saladin's soldiers in the pro-Islamist "Kingdom of Heaven" (which bombed in the theaters, earlier this summer).

But, sometimes, life imitates art. Siddig's real name is Siddig El Fadil, and he has ties to the terror-sponsor government of Sudan (on the State Department Terrorist List). Siddig's uncle, Sadiq Al-Mahdi, is a former Sudan Prime Minister, who helped oversee the wholesale Muslim torturous slaughter of Sudan's Black Christians. Al-Mahdi is president of the Sudan's Islamist Umma party and Imam of Sudan's extremist Al-Ansar religious group. These groups made Bin Laden a welcome resident of the Sudan, from which he planned the bombings of the U.S. embassies in East Africa.

Siddig not only won't denounce his terrorist uncle, he's proud of him and put him in his Hollywood bio.

Of course, the mindless In Touch Magazine doesn't tell you any of this. All the mag does is gush how both Cattrall and Siddig had roles on Star Trek. Big deal. Then it tells us how "sexy" this nephew of a terrorist leader is and describes "their obvious chemistry" as "electric." I'd say it's more like, "explosive," as in the explosions of two embassies filled with innocent Americans, Kenyans, and Tanzanians--all planned in Sudan by Bin Laden.

Kim Cattrall, sleeping with the enemy.

And a bit from the wonderfull Nick from the BNP:

If Islam is a religion of Peace, then either explain or change the Koran.

Predictably enough, New Labour’s “moderate” Muslim spokesmen in groups such as the Muslim Council of Britain have been queuing up to condemn the London Massacre as “unIslamic”.

Iqbal Sacranie’s words have been widely quoted: “(the bombers) were not Islamic, because Islam categorically prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians.”

Similar views came from Muslim spokesman Sher Khan (when I was a lad he was a rather mangy old tiger with a penchant for small boys, so I assume this is a different one), Shahid Malik (curious, having someone in Parliament at this time whose first name means ‘Martyr’) and Dr. Muhammed Abdul Bari, chairman of the East London Mosque, who told the media that “What has happened is absolutely shocking and disgusting.”

Indeed it is. But no more disgusting than the spectacle of religious leaders (Christian, Hindu and Jewish, as well as Muslim) and politicians (Labour, Tory and LibDem alike) all deliberately deceiving the British people about the true nature of the threat we now face. While, as already pointed out, the BNP does not believe that all Muslims are wicked and vicious; the stark truth is that aspects of the religion they follow ARE wicked and vicious.

Terrorism justified in Koran

Terrorism; the slaughter of innocents; war against the Unbelievers; mass murder – all are (assuming the words of various Koranic verses are taken to have their ordinary English meanings) ‘justified’ in the Koran, and anyone who denies this is a liar. How can we say such Politically Incorrect things? Because we have studied the Koran, and because we in the BNP pride ourselves on telling the truth, no matter what it costs us.

Let us start with the most cynical piece of “Islam is a religion of Peace” drivel which the Islamophiles regularly try to seduce children and the child-minded: The verse that they claim means that Islam condemns without reservation the taking of innocent human life, regardless of religion or other considerations:

“… whoever kills a soul is like one who has killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves a life is like one who saves the lives of all mankind.”

That’s from Surah (chapter) 5, ayat (verse) 32, and isn’t it a nice, pink, cuddly fluffy liberal rabbit of a sentiment? Maybe, but it is also a deliberate misquotation designed to mislead. Mr Blair, once again, is lying. For the Devil or, in this case, the true word of Allah, is concealed in the missing detail. The real version of Surah 5. 32 is:

“… whoever kills a soul, not in retaliation for a soul or corruption in the land, is like one who has killed the whole of mankind; and whoever saves a life is like one who saves the lives of all mankind.”

Analysis

So the truth is that this oft-misquoted verse doesn’t compel Muslims not to kill, but explicitly allows – arguably commands - them to kill, for two different reasons which between them offer a vast amount of scope for those who want to justify murder:

First, “in retaliation for a soul”. Put yourself for one moment in the shoes of a Muslim who regards (as vast numbers of them, including senior members of the MCB, do) Blair’s illegal invasion of Iraq, and the mass slaughter of civilians that has gone with it, as murder. Straight away, blowing up the Number 30 bus is “justified” according to the very Koranic verse that the lie-mongers in the media are using to convince us that the London Massacre was “unIslamic.”

Second, “or corruption in the land”. Again, it is instantly clear to anyone with any knowledge of the Koran and the Hadiths that all sorts of things that go on in Britain (and, on account of Britain’s influence overseas, elsewhere, including the Middle East) that can easily be taken by angry Muslims to be “corruption in the land.” All of a sudden, bombs are “justifiable”:

Banks lending money at interest (bang, there goes the City); homosexuality (bang, there goes Scotland Yard, thanks to the absurd Paddick creature, who clearly can’t distinguish between his unread copy of the Koran and his well-thumbed copy of Gay Times); pretty girls in short-sleeved summer tops (bang, there go the restaurants and clubs); people presuming to make and impose laws on the basis of humanity and reason, rather than on the often contradictory recommendations of the Koran and the Hadiths (bang, there go the Houses of Parliament and our democracy); Muslims obeying those man-made laws (bang, there go Blair’s lapdogs in the MCB, unless they get remission under the verse which allows outnumbered Muslims to “shorten the prayers” and so lull the Infidels into a false sense of security).

All those things that, for good or ill, we take for granted, spell “corruption” not just to Osama bin Laden and his merry crew of Wahhabi fanatics, but to every “good” Muslim on the planet.

Punishments specified

Nor is the Koranic recommendation for how to punish such “corruption” anything like the slaps on the wrist meted out by British courts to executives caught with their fingers in the till. As the very next verse (Surah 5. 33) makes clear:

“Indeed, the punishment of those who fight Allah and His Messenger and go around corrupting the land is to be killed, crucified, have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides or to be banished from the land.”

So now, the Koran enthusiast Anthony Charles Linton Blair might, if pushed to defend his initial Big Lie - as he would be if most journalists weren’t either Establishment whores or Islamophiles – fall back to a more defensible position. How about: “Well, the Koran and the Hadiths allow revenge killings, and blowing up banks, the murder of homosexuals, attacks on pretty girls, scrapping democracy and killing apostate Muslims; but they are all legitimate targets - Islamic teachings still condemn attacks on the truly innocent.”

No, Mr. Blair, they don’t. Take a look at Surah 27. 48, 50 and 5:

“And there were in a city nine individuals, who worked corruption in the land and did not set things right… “They schemed a scheme and We schemed a scheme, while they were unaware. “See, then, what was the outcome of their scheming. We destroyed them together with all their people.”

Just nine individuals were “guilty” of unIslamic practices, but all the innocents in their entire city were destroyed with them. And presumably, their buses and tube trains with them.

Two worlds

On top of such very specific instances in which verses of the Koran spell out very different attitudes to those claimed by the Islamophiles, there are literally dozens of other verses which preach hatred of, and encourage violence against, Unbelievers, which of course includes Christians. Thus the experiences of centuries of history, in which Islamic assaults on every kind of non-Muslim you can think of are a common thread, are grounded not in ‘Islamophobia’ or white racism, but in the Koran itself. It is, quite simply, a manual on how to grind down other people’s societies and to turn them into Islamic dictatorships.

How could it be anything else, when Islam divides the world into two, and only two, parts – the Zone of Submission and the Zone of War? Despite the impression given by the BBC, Tony Blair and assorted Church of England bishops, by the way, Britain is still in the latter Zone, which is why forensic scientists and emergency services workers are still scraping Londoners off the walls in our capital city.

Despite some undoubtedly tolerant verses (mainly in chapters written early in Muhammad’s career, which are widely regarded by Islamic scholars as having been abrogated by chapters received later, and therefore to be ignored when they clash with the more blood-thirsty material that emerged once the Prophet had a big enough army to win by force of arms instead of guile) the overall impact of the Koran in a society that is not yet Islamic is to institutionalise hate against all who will not bow to Allah.

One example will suffice, Surah 9. 123:

“O you who believe, fight those of the unbelievers who live near to you and let them see how harsh you can be.”

Perhaps Mr. Blair would try to claim that this is just badly reworded version of the New Testament stories about the Good Samaritan and Christ’s injunction to “Love thy neighbour as thyself.” But for those of us outside Blairworld it looks more like an indication of just how vast is the gulf between the teachings of Islam and those which underpin Western civilisation.

If it is the latter, then, combined with the mass murder in London on July 7th 2005, it highlights the need for an urgent national debate about how to resolve the incompatibility between Islamic values and ours. And for Blair & Co to tell lies to conceal this is an act of criminal folly.

If, on the other hand, it is the former, then it is time for the Muslim Council of Britain and all those ‘moderate’ Muslim scholars out there to tell us all – especially the young hot-heads in their community – what the blood-curdling verses quoted here REALLY mean.

There is no point whatsoever them wringing their hands and condemning “extremist” terrorism, if they will not get to grips with the intolerance within their religion that causes that extremism and ‘justifies’ that terrorism.

Rights and responsibilities

Nor is there any point them waffling on about the 500,000 copies they sent out to Muslims living in Britain of their booklet ‘Know Your Rights and Responsibilities’. Because, having read it, I can do what no journalist has dared to and reveal that, out of its 15 pages of text, fully 13 are about Muslims’ rights, while only two are about their responsibilities. And of those two at least one is very clearly only talking about their responsibilities to other Muslims.

The carefully worded reminder to its readers that they are supposed to be “working for the betterment of society as a whole” may fool a few silly liberals into thinking that the MCB are committed to a tolerant, multi-faith community. Anyone, however, who actually understands the first thing about Islam will immediately see that most Muslims will know full well that what its authors mean by “the betterment of society” is in fact its creeping Islamification.

Open questions

So it’s time for the Muslim Council of Britain and others like them to clear up once and for all the question of whether the Koran is a book of peace or a handbook for Holy War:

If verses that appear to order good Muslims to disobey, fight, subjugate and kill Unbelievers really mean “buy them a pint and help their grannies across the road” then let’s hear all about it. But if injunctions to disobey, fight, subjugate and kill the Unbelievers actually mean “disobey, fight, subjugate and kill Unbelievers”, then the Koran as it stands – while it may well have its good points when it comes to fighting crime and poverty in parts of the Third World – is a menace to our Western values and society. And if that is the case then something must be done to put an end to such intolerance and hatred:

Either Iqbal Sacranie and all his fellow “moderate Muslims” must do what liberal Christians did to the Bible when they removed Christ’s harsh comments about the Jews, and change their Holy Book, and reform their religion so as to make it compatible with modern values of tolerance and democracy,

OR

They must leave our land – and we must pull our troops out of theirs - before the fundamental intolerance within Islam brings misery and death to generations of innocents of all religions and none.

Forget all the BBC propaganda, that is the only choice before us.

At least, that’s how things look to us in the British National Party. If we are wrong then please tell us. We genuinely want to hear what you have to say on these matters, and will gladly publish your response on our website.

Nick Griffin
Chairman, British National Party

.