Friday, July 15, 2005

Islamic Democracy in Action, Again

What will Muslims do when given the chance to govern themselves at the ballot box? Unfortunately, much the same as without it.
Pakistan's North-West Frontier province has passed a controversial bill to introduce Taleban-style moral policing in public places.

The legislation called "Hisba" (accountability), was passed with 68 votes in favour and 34 against.

Under the new law, an Islamic watchdog will monitor the observance of Islamic values in public places.

The plan is reminiscent of the infamous Department of Vice and Virtue, set up by the Taleban regime in Afghanistan.

The passage of the bill followed a heated debate between the ruling conservative six-party religious alliance Mutahida Majlis Amal (MMA) and the opposition.

Under the new law, the principal duty of the cleric, called "mohtasib" - one who holds other accountable - will be to ensure people respect the call to prayers, pray on time and do not engage in commerce at the time of Friday prayers.

He will also stop unrelated men and women from appearing in public places together, and discourage singing and dancing.

One of his tasks will be to monitor the media to ensure "publications are useful for the promotion of Islamic values".

Ruling party president Chaudhry Shujaat Hussain has said the law is "unconstitutional".

He warned that it would lead to confrontation between Islamabad and the provincial governments.

The opposition Pakistan Peoples Party called it an "obscurantist pipedream" and an attempt to "Talebanise" Pakistan.

But the MMA says it was mandated by the people in the 2002 elections to bring in such laws.

The Department of Vice and Virtue set up by Afghanistan's former ruling Taleban became the focus of criticism from human rights organisations.

As Chirac Fades, Squabbling Begins

After suffering a humiliating loss of face when French voters overwhelmingly rejected the proposed European Union constitution that he strongly backed, French President Jacques Chirac's political fortunes have nosedived. As Mr. Chirac's popularity has sunk to new lows, other French politicians are vying to replace him. The political feeding frenzy at the highest levels of Paris government became clear yesterday when Mr. Chirac's most vehement foe, Nicolas Sarkozy publiclly ridiculed Mr. Chirac's Bastille Day speech ... before it was given.

Growing tension - even loathing - between President Jacques Chirac and his interior minister and would-be successor, Nicolas Sarkozy, burst into the open yesterday.

In private comments leaked to the press, M Sarkozy ridiculed in advance President Chirac's traditional Bastille Day "state of the nation" television appearance this morning. There was "no real point" this year in the President's tame 14 July interview with leading television news anchors, M Sarkozy told a meeting of ministers.

The President should only speak "when he has something to say ... why persist with this tradition when there is nothing new and the French are already thinking about their holidays?"

Mr. Chirac's supporters denied the President's irrelevance.

The Prime Minister, and Chirac loyalist, Dominique de Villepin, reportedly told the ministerial breakfast meeting that the President would have "important" comments to make on "all subjects". According to accounts given by other ministers present, an "agitated" M. Sarkozy retorted: "Perhaps he imagines that he is the only person with a right to speak."
As it would happen, Mr. Chirac's Bastille Day address did in fact contain some very, very important observations. He criticized Britain for having less unemployment than France.

“Certainly, their unemployment is lower than ours. But if you take the big elements in society — health policy, the fight against poverty, . . . spending involving the future — you notice that we are much, much better placed than the English.”

M Chirac said that France spent 5.6 per cent of its annual income on education, compared with Britain’s 4.2 per cent. Later, citing Britain unprompted, he noted that 7 per cent of French children lived in poverty compared with 17 per cent in Britain.

He also insisted that he would “not make the least concession” to Mr Blair in his campaign to reform EU farm spending and would fight his attempts to open Europe’s service market to competition. Although polls show that M Chirac, 72, is trusted by only 25 per cent of the public, he refused to rule out running for a third term in 2007.

The President’s chief goal in his 45-minute state-of-the- nation chat was to persuade a dubious French public that he has the ability to respond to an economic crisis that is fuelled by a decade of 10 per cent unemployment. But France remembers that in his first Bastille Day appearance in 1995 he promised a “great campaign to curb unemployment”.

The Socialist Opposition said that he appeared “laborious, self-contradictory and on the defensive” during his broadcast. The Greens said that the President had shown himself “completely out of touch with the discontent of the French people”.

Mr. Sarkozy has positioned himself as an iconoclastic alternative to the comatose pro-Brussels, Eurosocialist policies of Mr. Chirac and de Villepin (Mr. Chirac's closest ally).

In a speech last weekend, M Sarkozy said it was time for France to engage in a "critical self-examination". He also suggested the country needed its politicians to show the same courage as "Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair in Britain" and make unpopular decisions for the good of the nation.

France's high-tax, large state, high job security "social model" - defended by M. Chirac from implied criticism by Mr Blair - has proved a failure in the past 20 years, M. Sarkozy said.

The Interior Minister - who likes to criss-cross between traditional "right-wing" and "left-wing" issues - has also called again for a policy of positive discrimination towards ethnic minorities, an idea rejected by M. Chirac and M. de Villepin.

Unfortunately, for those hoping to set France back on a productive and stable course, opinion polls consistently show the French people stronly supportive of the socialist economic policies that have put their economy squarely in a prolonged decline and driven innovation and creativity away from France.

Thursday, July 14, 2005

France Moves to Secure Its Borders

In the aftermath of last week's deadly Islamist terror bombings in London, the French government did something rare -- it acted sensibly to protect its own people from attack.
France has reimposed border controls with its European Union neighbours in response to the threat of attacks after the London bombings.

The move activates a safety clause of the Schengen open-border agreement between many EU countries.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy announced the measure after meeting EU counterparts in Brussels.

"If we don't reinforce border controls when around 50 people die in London, I don't know when I would," he said.

Indeed. And when 2,800 Americans are murdered by foreign terrorists you would think that Washington's first act would be to regain control of the nation's broken borders to prevent other terrorists from entering the country to do Americans harm. But no! The Bush administration has resolutely ignores the increasingly dire warnings of intelligence agencies, terrorist experts, security professionals, the pleading of Border Patrol agents and the clearly expressed desire of the American people and has left US borders virtually undefended as millions of aliens pour across them. The GOP controlled Congress has sat idly by and watched Bush's inaction on the border. Apparently, the French government would actually like to prevent a major terrorist attack on its soil, whilst Washington seems not to particular care if the terrorists penetrate America or not.

Wednesday, July 13, 2005

Blair "Shocked" that London Bombers were British

Addressing questions at the House of Commons, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he found it shocking that the four men inplicated in the July 7 series of terrorist bombings that killed more than 50 Londoners were British-born Muslims. If Mr. Blair is truly "shocked" by the revelation, then that fact only demonstrates just how blind he is to the reality around him. Young British-born Muslims have been linked several Islamist terror attacks abroad over the past few years, and radical Muslim clerics and agitators have made London the epicenter of their outreach activity since the early 1990s. Just a week before the London attacks, the Sunday Times reported that more than 70 British-born Muslims had travelled to Iraq to attack British and American troops there.

The growing problem of militants from Britain travelling to Iraq has been highlighted by Eliza Manningham-Buller, director-general of MI5, in recent briefings to Tony Blair.

The MI5 boss warned the prime minister that would-be suicide bombers and other fighters who want to kill British and American troops were using “a number of routes” to get to Iraq from Britain. Most have travelled to Damascus in Syria before being smuggled over the border to meet rebel leaders.

Senior police sources say that they are trying to unravel a British-based network recruiting “martyrs” for the Islamic “holy war” in Iraq. The operation emerged following the arrest last week of a 40-year-old man who is alleged to have shared a house in Manchester with Idris Bazis, a 41-year-old French Algerian who blew himself up during a terrorist attack in Iraq four months ago.

Anti-terrorist detectives believe that Bazis travelled from Britain to Iraq in January after Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Al-Qaeda leader in Iraq, appealed for volunteers to carry out suicide attacks in a bid to undermine the election.

“We shouldn’t be surprised that there are people travelling from the UK to Iraq to fight or try to fight,” a security official said. “You’re looking at dozens of people in total coming from the UK since the war.”

The official said that the recruits were mainly young Muslim men in their twenties and thirties who had volunteered independently of each other. They ranged across the social classes.

Thus, Mr. Blair can hardly claim to have been unaware of increasingly violent tendencies of many young Muslims in Britain. More damning is the recently leaked UK government white paper detailing radical Islamist recruitment of British-born Muslim men in UK universities. That this paper, or numerous other warnings from British intelligence regarding the growth of Islamic extremism in Britain, never crossed the desk of the prime minister, or that he has never once been briefed on the gravity of the situation, simply is not credible.

This leaves us with two equally distressing possibilities. Either Mr. Blair's faith in the fantasy of multiculturalism is so strong that he simply ignored the mountain of evidence warning of pending violence from Britain's Muslim community because that evidence wasn't "politically correct." Or, perhaps worse, he feels he has to profess surprise at terrorists' origin in a "politically correct" rhetorical effort to deny the evidence of rising Islamist extremism in Britain and deflect blame from the Muslim community, which now comprises a significant percentage of the electorate. In either event, it is clear that the current British government is unable, or unwilling, to admit the extent or even source of the problem - the burgeoning Muslim community in Britain. If the British PM feels compelled to lie about being shocked that British-born Muslims would attack London, what hope is there that the UK government can successfully combat the problem ... and what hope is there for the survival of Britain and British culture in the long run?

The Soul of an Islamist

The trial of the Muslim charged with the brutal muder of Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh on an Amsterdam street last year has begun in the Netherlands. The words of the man charged with killing van Gogh provide a perfect glimpse of the mindset of an Islamist and, sadly, the views of a significant percentage of most Muslims as well.

Mohammed Bouyeri, 27, an Islamist, faces possible life imprisonment for stabbing and shooting Mr van Gogh on 2 November last year. He did not mount a defence. "I did it out of conviction," he said. "If I ever get free, I would do it again."

At one point he turned in his chair and spoke to Anneke Van Gogh, the victim's mother, who was in the public gallery. "I don't feel your pain," he said. "I don't have any sympathy for you. I can't feel for you because I think you're a non-believer."

Bouiyeri, who is accused of terrorism and other offences, spoke slowly in Dutch with a Moroccan accent. He glanced down at notes, paused between sentences, and chose his words carefully. "Maybe you could find some consolation if the maximum sentence is given," he said. He also addressed police who he fired upon eight months ago: "I shot to kill and to be killed. You cannot understand."
The Dutch people are now aware of the poison they permitted to enter their once idyllic little country through open immigration. Unfortunately, so many Muslims - and so many Islamist radicals - now live in the Netherlands, it seems very unlikely that the Dutch can ever mount the political courage to expel enough of them to save their own culture. The Netherlands is the logical outcome of multiculturalism put into practice. If you don't respect your own culture enough to protect it, others will be very happy to destroy it for you. The Dutch opened their doors to hundreds of thousands of immigrants from countries with completely alien cultural values, who proceeded to colonize the Netherlands. Now Dutch culture is in retreat and ethnic-Dutch are being ethnically cleansed from Dutch cities.

Tuesday, July 12, 2005

Another Victim of the London Bombing

Among the casualties of last week's bombings in London is the Bush Administration's half-baked idea that the US occupation of Iraq had caused all the Islamist fanatics to flock to Baghdad to fight our troops, drawing them away from Western countries and cities. The argument, which has become the administration's most recent justification for the war (the initial ones having failed), suggests that it is better to "fight them over there, than to fight them here." On TechCentralStation, Gregory Scoblete labels this the "flypaper strategy."

It's true enough that al Qaeda and its ideological aspirants have swarmed into Iraq. It's also largely irrelevant to the larger question of whether al Qaeda retains the capabilities, and desire, to mount further attacks on Western targets. The attacks in London demonstrate that the jihad network can simultaneously battle U.S. forces in Iraq and mount sophisticated and lethal strikes on Western targets.

The idea that Iraq is an irresistible magnet for jihad, diverting the radicals' attention from U.S. domestic targets, assumes that there is a hard-and-fast number of holy warriors and that once they enter the killing fields of Iraq in sufficient numbers our troubles will be over. It also ignores the still open question of whether the conflict is motivating Muslims who would otherwise have demurred from martyrdom to join the fight and thus constitute a seemingly limitless suicide assembly line.

Flypaper was always a flawed paradigm, but it becomes even more so in the wake of increasing revelations as to the structure of the international Islamist threat. As the London and Madrid attacks show, al Qaeda is an even more decentralized movement than the one that coordinated the 9/11 assault, drawing principally from bin Laden's politics if not his purse. This means that the "central battlefield" on the war on terror is wherever a suitably fanatical Muslim is prepared to blow him/herself up. That U.S. forces are decamped enticingly in Iraq does not mean that terrorists will forsake Western targets.

Indeed, bin Laden recently exhorted his "field commander" in Iraq -- Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- to broaden his horizons with attacks on the West and against the American homeland. A follow-up strike on American soil is, according to CIA director Porter Goss' senate testimony, the ne plus ultra of the al Qaeda-inspired Islamist movement. An attack against the West in the West is obviously very much in the mind of senior terrorists regardless of the presence of U.S.Iraq. forces in

This is not to suggest that Iraq is not a vastly important battlefield in the war on Islamic terrorism. Terrorists do view the battle for Iraq as a chance to duplicate the Soviet Union's bruising defeat in Afghanistan, which they erroneously credit for its subsequent collapse. In their eyes, an American loss in Iraq (the definition of which is still very fluid) would be an immense moral and psychological victory for the terrorists, proving definitively that America and the West can be cowed with the application of brutal violence. Yet this apocalyptic battle in Iraq is not enough of a lure to ensure that the homeland or allied capitals are secure, and if we draw comfort from the fact that we're battling them "over there" in Iraq it is false comfort indeed.

The grim truth is we're battling them everywhere.

If the Bush administration wants to ensure that we aren't fighting Muslim extremists in the streets of American cities, the best means of preventing that would be make it impossible for them to enter the US. This would mean securing our borders and forbidding entry - whether for business, education or tourism - of persons from certain countries, or persons who meet certain criteria (i.e., young Muslim men and women from Europe, particularly those educated in European universities.). It would also mean stopping all immigration, legal or not, from the Middle East. Unfortunately, this is the one strategy that the Bush administration has made absolutely clear that it will not carry out. If the President is willing - in the middle of the "war on terrorism" - to stand by and permit literally millions of aliens to pour across our southern border, their provenance and intentions unknown, and goes out of his way to condemn those citizen who try to mitigate that invasion, what credibility does the President have when he says he wants to "keep America safe." Answer: none.

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Britain's Islamic Timebomb

London's Sunday Times reports on a disturbing white paper produced by the British government regarding terrorist recruitment among native-born, British Muslims. The white paper has special resonance after the carnage of last week's terror attack in London. Even as the police are still pulling bodies from twisted subway cars, speculation is rife that the attackers were not experienced al-Qaeda operative sent to Britain from abroad, but "home grown" terrorists - meaning, British born Muslims. The white paper discussed in the Sunday Times lays out a frightening brief of the current state of young Muslim men in the UK.

The paper prepared for the prime minister spelt out the breadth of the problem: “By extremism, we mean advocating or supporting views such as support for terrorist attacks against British or western targets, including the 9/11 attacks, or for British Muslims fighting against British and allied forces abroad, arguing that it is not possible to be Muslim and British, calling on Muslims to reject engagement with British society and politics, and advocating the creation of an Islamic state in Britain.”

It stated that “a small number of young British Muslims are known to have committed or participated in terrorism abroad . . . a number of extremist groups operate in the UK and seek to recruit young Muslims . . . and an increasing number of British Muslims, often young, have needed UK consular services after being detained on suspicion of terrorist or extremist activity in other parts of the world (eg Yemen, Egypt and the US)”.

The paper cited an intelligence estimate that the number of British Muslims engaged in terrorist activity, whether at home or abroad, or supporting it, was “less than 1%” of the UK’s Muslim population of 1.6m. But that suggests that up to 16,000 may be involved — a numbing figure.

It went on to explain why these thousands of potential terrorists remain below the security radar: “Whilst many have grown up in Muslim households, a significant number come from liberal, non- religious Muslim backgrounds or only converted to Islam in adulthood. These converts include white British nationals and those of West Indian extraction.

“By and large most young extremists fall into one of two groups: well educated — undergraduates or with degrees and technical professional qualifications in engineering or IT — or under-achievers with few or no qualifications and often a criminal background.

“The former group is often targeted by extremist recruiters circulating among university-based religious or ethnic societies. Among the latter group some are drawn to mosques where they may be targeted by extremist preachers; others are radicalised or converted while in prison.

“However, a significant number of young radicalised British Muslims have been recruited through a single contact, often by chance, outside either of these environments. Such individuals are encouraged to maintain a low profile for operational purposes and do not develop the network of associates or political doctrines common to many other extremist Islamists.”

The white paper's conclusions are echoed in interviews of various experts and community leaders conducted by the Sunday Times.
Intelligence experts and Islamic leaders agree that Thursday July 7 marks the bloody emergence of home-grown Islamic terrorism in Britain rather than the arrival of Al-Qaeda’s bombers on these shores. The favourite hypothesis of investigators is that the bomb teams comprised a cell of some eight or nine young British Muslims, led by a foreign-born “talisman” figure who controlled and directed them.

“This is a very worrying situation,” said M J Gohel, head of the London-based Asia Pacific Foundation which monitors Islamic terrorism. “We’re looking at a new generation of terrorists — people who are not directly linked to Osama Bin Laden or Al-Qaeda so they can slip under the net of the security services. These are people born or brought up in western Europe, so they fit in but are infected by Bin Laden’s ideology.”

His view was echoed by a former radical who sometimes leads prayers at the Finsbury Park mosque in north London where Abu Hamza, the blind hook-armed cleric, used to preach.

“There is a growing phenomenon of angry young Muslims in Britain,” said this man, who wished to remain anonymous. “I get many young people who watch Al-Jazeera or Al-Arabiya [the satellite TV channels] coming to me after Friday prayers saying they have seen the atrocities at Abu Ghraib or the defacing of Korans at Guantanamo and what should they do.

“I tell them to study, take care of their own lives, that if they are angry with George Bush or Tony Blair there is no point killing innocent people in Oxford Street. But there may be many more going to crazy people who tell them to take matters into their own hands. There is an absolute majority among Muslims who share the anti-US sentiment of Al-Qaeda and it is easy to harness that.”

Notice that these young Muslims are more outraged to the point of violence at the "defacing of Korans" and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib than they were at 19 hijackers slamming planes into buildings and killing 2,800 innocent people explicitly in the name of Islam. What does that tell you about them? What should it tell you about Islam as a religion?

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, British intelligence analysts warned ministers about a new breed of terrorist recruit.

Increasingly, hundreds of young Muslim men, most of them British born, were being drawn to the cause of fundamentalism. Radical websites and imams in mosques in London, Luton, Birmingham, Bradford and Manchester were preaching holy war to disaffected young Muslims who were looking for a purpose.

Unlike the September 11 hijackers, the new terrorists did not have a rigid leadership structure. The majority of them had no criminal record and did not appear on any intelligence data bases linking them to terrorism. They were, in effect, “clean skins” and they were much more difficult to detect.

To counteract this danger, Project Contest was born in Whitehall. Its purpose was set out by Sir Andrew Turnbull, the cabinet secretary, in a letter to permanent secretaries at key government departments in April last year. He wrote: “The aim is to prevent terrorism by tackling its causes . . . to diminish support for terrorists by influencing social and economic issues.”

Referring to the role played in this by radical preachers such as Abu Qatada (also known as Abu Omar), Turnbull explained: “Al-Qaeda and its offshoots provide a dramatic pole of attraction for the most disaffected.”

Of particular concern was that the Islamist terrorist recruiters were targeting the poor and the jobless. An official audit provided to the Project Contest working committee showed that Muslims were three times more likely to be unemployed than the population as a whole.

Surveillance of the Muslim community by MI5 and Special Branch found that extremist groups were also operating within universities to recruit middle-class students. A small group of postgraduates at Imperial College and others at Brunel University in west London were of particular concern.

The intensity of the fanaticism amongst British Muslim youth has its origens not only in the fanatical imams and extremist agitators, but in the families from which they come, the Sunday Times discovered.

The exporting of home-grown jihadis — and their fanaticism — was confirmed in Iraq last month by a senior insurgent commander, “Abu Ahmad”, who revealed that about 70 volunteers had arrived from Britain. Two had been killed fighting alongside him against American troops.

One of these, a 22-year-old known as Abu Hareth, had been born in Britain of Iraqi parents. He was killed in fighting in Falluja in April last year.

“When the battle intensified and due to his lack of military experience I asked him to take shelter in a basement. He refused my advice and told me off for asking him to hide and he said, ‘I will hold this against you when the day of reckoning comes for you tried to prevent me from attaining martyrdom’,” Abu Ahmad said.

Two brothers — Ammar, 22, and Yasser, 18 — arrived in Iraq from Britain after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003: “They could not wait to go out and fight and kept on asking when they will go into battle.”

After about a month, Ammar was killed fighting American troops: “His younger brother Yasser, who witnessed Ammar’s death, surprised us by shedding tears of joy and praising Allah for his brother’s martyrdom.”

The commander continued: “When we returned to our base we asked Yasser to return home, telling him it was enough that his family had lost one son; it would not be right if the second son was also killed and that there were others who would fight on his behalf here.

“But he refused and told us: ‘What would I tell my mother? She will not accept me in the house for when she bid us farewell she told us either to return victorious or to achieve martyrdom. I cannot return. I have to finish off what Ammar my brother started here, and anyway I do not want to leave my brother all alone in this land. I want to be buried with him’. And he began to cry.”

Abu Ahmad said that having been ordered home, Yasser wrote a letter revealing that when he had arrived in Britain his mother had celebrated on hearing about Ammar’s death — “ululating with happiness and calling her friends and relatives to tell them the good news. She distributed sweets and juices in celebration to all those that came to pay their respect”.

Despite vastly augmented efforts after September 11, 2001, British intelligence and law enforcement agencies have made only a partially successful effort to infiltrate and disrupt Islamic extremists in their country, the incompleteness of the their efforts becoming tragically apparent last Thursday. But Britain's response to Islamic terror has been hampered - as in the US - but the government's adherence to the politically correct niceties of multiculturalism, which have prevented the British from looking to deeply, or too honestly, at the infection now festering within their cities and countryside. Downing Street doesn't want to see what's really happening, and because of its ideological blinders, can't admit the truth. Thus, better not to look to close.

Reda Hassaine, an Algerian journalist who came to Britain in the early 1990s, ended up working for MI5 and French intelligence, reporting on radicals inside the Muslim community. But Hassaine believes that despite huge efforts, the government and the security forces have been been far too complacent in dealing with the threat.

For more than a decade, Hassaine says, Britain has been a “soft touch” for Islamist radicals who used it as a fundraising and propaganda base to launch attacks in Algeria and elsewhere: “The groups here now are much more independent of each other. There are plenty of them and they’ve been here in London for a long time.”

The Sunday Times relates, rather hopefully, the experience of one former extremist, perhaps wishing that his story points to a peaceful solution to Britain's problem.

One former Algerian jihadi may hold the answer to the terrorist threat. When he was 24, Abdullah Anas reached a turning point in his life. A member of the Muslim Brotherhood and an imam, he had been brought up on stories of the long war for Algeria’s independence from France. Now he decided it was his turn to take up the gun for a cause: in his case, jihad.

Anas travelled to Peshawar in Pakistan and then walked for 40 days to northern Afghanistan. He lost most of his toenails, but “I felt I was reborn when I first got there . . . Even though I was sick for 10 days, I was so happy to be walking along with my Kalashnikov and with my brothers”.

He fought there for eight years, becoming close to Bin Laden. But he was eventually disillusioned. “I am proud God chose me to be part of that holy war. I went there prepared to become a martyr. But it was very sad for me to see that once they had liberated their own land, they were unable to build their country. It was a big lesson for me,” he said last week.

“I realised that Muslims can win the battle, but can’t stabilise afterwards and win the peace. I saw it with my own eyes. I saw the same in Algeria, where my father and grandfather fought for freedom from the French, but once we had it, it fell to pieces. The Muslim fighters know how to die, but not how to live.

Islamic extremism offers nothing but pain, death, tyranny and squalor, but if the Sunday Times thinks that will disabuse the fanatics from their cause, they need only examine the continued adoration of communism and socialism by Western academics. Despite the utter economic failure, social bankruptcy and mass murder caused repeatedly around the world by these failed ideas, they remain very popular on American and European college campuses (though, virtually no where else). Young Muslims are not likely to be blunted from their violent extremism even by the knowledge of what that extremism will ultimately bring. They don't care. You can't argue rationally with religious fanatics. No amount of "reformed extremists" nor tales of the real results of their ideology will dissuade them.

The British government created this crisis by inviting hundreds of thousands of non-European, non-Western peoples to migrate to its shores, bringing with them their alien culture and ideas. It is manifestly clear that a significant percentage of these people - mostly Muslims - possibly a majority, have no intention of assimilating into British culture, but rather, plan to change Britain to suit their liking. Britain, imbibing deeply into the false idea of multiculturalism - better understood as Western self-hatred - has poisoned itself. The number of militant young Muslim men in Britain will only grow, as well the violence. Meanwhile, native born Anglo-Saxons have allowed themselves to be ethnically cleansed from large areas of the country's largest cities, now home to colonies of foreigners. The threat to Britain's long-term survival today is, ironically, far worse than it was when Nazi bombers rained ordinance down on a burning London. Today, the fascists are inside the country, at Britain's own invitation, and they plan to burn down the house.