Britain finally convicts Choudary

It’s about time. Maybe at least it will end his commentary supporting Islamic radicalism?

Britain’s ‘most hated man’ Anjem Choudary convicted for ISIS support

By Bryony Jones, CNN — Bryony Jones is a journalist at CNN International in London.

(CNN)A notorious hate preacher who led a flag-burning demonstration outside the US embassy on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks and voiced support for jihad has been convicted of inviting support for ISIS.

Anjem Choudary, 49, has courted controversy over two decades, skirting the edges of the law, backing extremism but with no proof of actually inciting violence. He earned the wrath of Britain’s tabloid newspapers, making him – by his own admission — the country’s “most hated man.”

In 2014, he pledged allegiance to ISIS and its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, bringing him under scrutiny and leading to his arrest. […./] “

More: http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/16/europe/anjem-choudary-hate-preacher-convicted/index.html/

But the sentence is only up to ten years. Is it time for life sentences in these cases? This does seem punitive, when they can also have a radical recruitment effect in prison.

TRUMPED UP BAN

So with all the flurry over Trump’s remarks it is easy to get swept away in the ensuing flood of criticisms.

But really, what was so bad about his ban proposal? Forget the Marxist Left, they call everything names and they were licking their lips at this one. But if reason prevails, then there is a lot to consider on his proposal. Religious, Islamic fascists declared war on us.

Trump’s Muslim Ban Is Not ‘Fascist,’ and Is Not Unconstitutional

by John Hayward | 8 Dec 2015
Breitbart

Because it has caused a great deal of controversy (to put it mildly), it seems appropriate to quote the “Donald J. Trump Statement On Preventing Muslim Immigration” in full:

Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country’s representatives can figure out what is going on. According to Pew Research, among others, there is great hatred towards Americans by large segments of the Muslim population.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/12/08/trumps-muslim-ban-not-fascist-not-unconstitutional/

Great article on it. Have people realized that if we plan on screening out ISIS from our border, then that is a religious test? Why kid ourselves? That’s who is at war with us.

This all made me think that Hitler made a critical error. It was dumb that he didn’t just declare the the Third Reich a religion. Then he would have had our hands tied.

It seems that the people are ahead of the government and lawmakers. We understand what is happening. Obama loves to lecture that we just don’t understand, yet we are way ahead them. Of course they don’t listen to us which, is the second part of the problem.

When Trump makes a sensible statement that people agree with, their knee-jerk response is to blame him and all those who support him. Instead of realizing the people understand the problem, the ruling class elites stick their heads in the sand and tell us what they cannot do. Obama says, “What I will not do is…” That’s a confidence builder.

It’s terrorism, stupid

Only here would we spend a day and a half debating whether or not this is Terrorism? Nah, we can’t jump to conclusions.(what jump?) Obama again calls it “a tragedy.” They wouldn’t even release the name because it might point to Islamic terrorism.

But they jumped to a gun control problem. Obama ensures the American people that ‘we are going to get to the bottom of this’. I really wish he hadn’t said that. It is not the guns that are the problem here.

All the Democrat pols sounded like parrots talking about gun control and politicizing the act within minutes. Then they say the prayers aren’t working and a paper declares “God is not fixing this.”

Yet oh don’t talk about the elephant in the room, Islamic jihad terrorism, or Islamic radicalism.(shhhh) What nonsense. Sorry, but God doesn’t have a lot to work with there.

I’m offended by Muslims

Yes, you read that right. It’s not politically correct, you say? No, but it is correct to say. (Sorry Hillary, Obama, et al)

News for Muslims: I’m offended we have to sacrifice and fight this battle of Islamic terrorism. What are you doing? What have you done about it? Do you plan on doing anything about it? But our men, women, civilians, and soldiers are killed and maimed by this ideology, which happens to align itself with Islam and Muslims’ faith.

War with Islamists is a 100 year war, but also a permanent one. No one wants to think this is a permanent state of the world. It’s a way of life. Yet our leaders are crying and whining about global warming being a permanent condition of this world. They want us to change our entire lifestyle to reflect that reality their scientists’ claim. No, they demand we do.

I’m offended by Muslims. They all offend me, since they haven’t been able to stop ISIS or any of the other 100 plus terrorist groups. Have Muslims at large ever prevented or intercepted a terrorist plot? Even if they did it would only be one plot, one act. Can they show me a mosque or network that they shut down? No. Do they want us to police it?

But when France was attacked, a Muslim group ran out to say they condemned this act on the strongest possible terms. What’s that mean and what is that worth? Are they just going to come out every time and condemn the act? Are they also condemning ISIS for their existence? Sorry, I’m having a hard time qualifying their condemnation.

Yet they, Muslims and Islamists, tell us that the real problem is people like me that suggest the whole religion might be to blame. That’s the problem they are concerned about and that’s the problem they want all of America (everyone) to actively work on. They want our government stepping in to prevent that injustice. Their biggest worry is that their religion is being slandered somehow by the victims and citizens of the world.

Some people say they are afraid to speak out or come forward to criticize ISIS or Islamist radicals. Yet they are not afraid to come out to criticize us for “hating” on Islam. Isn’t Islamic terrorism giving Muslims a bad name? Wouldn’t you think they would be concerned about that enough to take a stand and do something to stop it? We’ve been waiting over 12 years now. It hasn’t happened and doesn’t look like it is going to happen. It has declared war on us and civilization. It is left to the world to deal with and combat it. That is insulting and offensive.

RightRing | Bullright

The social fabric of Islamic terrorism

Try to unpack some of these statements.

“We haven’t always gotten it right,” Vice President Joe Biden said Tuesday as he opened the summit. “But we have a lot of experience integrating communities into the American system, the American dream.”

“Groups like al-Qaida and ISIL exploit the anger that festers when people feel that injustice and corruption leave them with no chance of improving their lives,” Obama wrote in an op-ed article Wednesday in the Los Angeles Times. “The world has to offer today’s youth something better.”

To the State Department, Marie Harf talks about it as a social problem. Chris Matthews opens describing it as evil, and her answer is the social ills at the root of the problem. But she criticized other strategic thinkers as being too simplistic.

Harf “We’re killing a lot of them, and we’re going to keep killing more of them. … But we cannot win this war by killing them,” department spokeswoman Marie Harf said on MSNBC’s “Hardball.” “We need … to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it’s lack of opportunity for jobs, whether –”

Chris Matthews who pointed out; “There’s always going to be poor people. There’s always going to be poor Muslims.”

“If we can help countries work at the root causes of this — what makes these 17-year-old kids pick up an AK-47 instead of trying to start a business?”

While Harf wants to return to the social roots and mores, she has overlooked the social ill that is Islamic radicalism. They are returning to their roots of violent jihad that gave rise to Islam from the beginning. As soon as they had enough adherents to wage regional jihad war on others that is what they did. That is how it spread. So what ISIS is doing has historic precedent. This is their social program or paradigm.

If, as she says, we want to treat and deal with underline conditions and causes, how can you do that while evading the premises of faith on which it is built? Their central purpose and cause is Islam. Do people think a jobs program or youth after-school basketball is going to solve that? It seems ISIS recruits are taking a vow into communal poverty in joining, as a central tenant. Remember bin Laden’s gripe with Saudi Arabia and others that their material wealth outstripped, corrupted the tenants of Wahhabi Islam. So they aren’t interested in a better, more civilized society since barbarism is their social model — as long as their Islam is the central authority controlling it.

Right, lets address some of the social inadequacies. (all of which are centered on their Islamic faith) A faith that can create an edict to justify slaughter of anyone or marry children, or anything else they deem necessary for jihad. Those are the rules of the road. Including the use of Taqiyya toward the same ends. When these are their rules, it tells you what social deficiencies are really involved. Plus the fact that they certainly are not going to listen to an outsider telling them to reform or bringing them enlightenment.

Obama also said in his op-ed in the LA Times:

Governments that deny human rights play into the hands of extremists who claim that violence is the only way to achieve change. Efforts to counter violent extremism will only succeed if citizens can address legitimate grievances through the democratic process and express themselves through strong civil societies. Those efforts must be matched by economic, educational and entrepreneurial development so people have hope for a life of dignity.

Obama wants to apply the blanket of human rights to an ideology that doesn’t accept human rights. That’s probably why we have the millennium-old problem. Obama should consult his old buddy Bill Ayers and the Weather Underground — with their radicalism and militant violence — who have been absorbed into academic institutions. Similar to the way Obama’s gang have endorsed the Muslim Brotherhood. Creative radicalism? Look at their successes across Egypt and Libya. It goes full circle with Obama.

Lastly, their latest justifications for their social poverty-talk formula is saying Bush made similar comments. They would refuse Bush’s advice or doctrines anywhere else, but now channel Bush to support their case. Under Bush, we did not know how wide spread the problems were. Bush also proved to be naive with a tin ear on the subject too.

However, Obama, as a fellow radical himself (above), should have some understanding of basic tactical strategies involved. They aren’t too far removed from progressives’ rules for radicals. Some people wish we could win over radical hearts and minds of progressives too. That has proved futile.

So Obama decides to have an extremism summit. At the same time he is willing to make a deal with Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But one thing they are not doing is connecting the dots of terrorism and ISIS with Iran, in general. They want to draw imaginary distinctions where none really exist, but yet they want to lump all terrorism under one “extremist” umbrella. Even if we had extremists under another banner committing terrorism, it would not be on the international scale as these caliphate-crazed Islamists. It would be an outlier. So they can shove their Timothy McVeigh comparisons.

Has anyone noticed the great jobs programs from all the aid to Palestinian areas? That’s a stunning example of where the money goes? It all depends on your definition of “jobs.”

But “all aboard the social-jobs train”. Wait, there’s another idea: how about training them to be social workers? Eureka, that’s it!

RightRing | Bullright

Guess who got denied?

Montreal: Muslim cleric with jihad ties denied permit for Islamic center

January 31, 2015 — By Robert Spencer | Jihad Watch

This is “just one person,” we’re told. “He has preached at the St-Jean-sur-Richelieu mosque attended by Martin Couture-Rouleau, the Muslim convert who killed warrant officer Patrice Vincent in October.” Has that mosque been investigated? “Chaoui was also the leader of a Muslim association at Laval University. One of that association’s members, Chiheb Esseghaier, is about to be tried on charges related to a plot to derail a Via Rail train travelling between Toronto and New York two years ago.” Has the Muslim association at Laval University been investigated?

Also, “Chaoui uses social media to share his fundamentalist interpretation of Islam. He has posted to YouTube and Facebook his views sympathetic to sharia law, and he advocates that women should have designated guardians.” But that is not a “fundamentalist interpretation of Islam”; that is taught by all the schools of Islamic jurisprudence. Likewise, Chaoui has said: “There are non-Muslims who come to our home and tell us, ‘Really, you cut off heads, you cut off hands?’ But that’s religion. It’s our religion in our own country. We decide how we implement it.”

That’s not “extremist”; that’s the Qur’an. Cutting of heads is in Qur’an 47:4, and cutting off hands is at Qur’an 5:38. The Canadian authorities are kidding themselves if they think this kind of thing is being taught by “just one person.”

More: http://www.jihadwatch.org/2015/01/montreal-muslim-cleric-with-jihad-ties-denied-permit-for-islamic-center

Sounds like another rising star in the Jihadist Central Camp. All he wanted was a little permit for his fellow Muslims.  Now we’ll hear the complaints about denial. Contrast that with an administration in the US who refuses to address the Islamic fundamental problem — much less mention it. So maybe this one will just move his operation to the States? Looks like one less Islamic “community centre” for Canada. In the meantime, what are the chances any of those ties were investigated? I hope they are more on the ball than the US government lost in the state of denial.

Here come the Muslim victims

Just a rant on some very old territory.

One little Muslim, two little Muslims, three… victims.

It has already begun on the heels of the Boston bombing, Muslims are out in defense of, well, just about anything relating to Islam. They do what they always do…attack any criticism of Islamisists’ radical ideology as “criticism of all Muslims”.

Yea, that might be a good rally point for Muslims (hello, are they connecting the dots? – likely just what radicals had in mind.) but it really serves no other purpose. We get it, not every Muslim is a terrorist. But the terrorists are predominately Islamists. Do they get it?

Who has time for all this crapola being hoisted on outraged Americans? Muslims were not the victims here and they certainly were not the intended targets. Yet here they are saying Muslims are being victimized putting everyone on notice not to “generalize”. Imagine that, someone indiscriminately bombs random innocent people, and they tell us not to generalize? Go figure.

**This sounds like Obama: his administration does something and we get the lecture.

Maybe instead of spending all their time in defense of their “peacefulness”, they should be facing off, marginalizing and criticizing the Islamists for doing what they are doing? Why doesn’t that occur to them? Why don’t we hear and see it? Are they afraid?

There is one ironic note in the saga, Muslims are distancing themselves from the funeral of the eldest bomber. Imams and mosques have been asked, in the greater Muslim community in Boston, about the funeral for him and they decline to say they will hold it or hold the prayers for him. That is a positive note. Though I wonder if it is just talk?

Now if Muslims were victims of stereotyping etc. — IF it is happening — then you’d think they would focus on the source of that characterization, Islamist radicals and radicalism in general. No, they would rather blame us and “broad brush” Americans for discriminating against them.

The problem is how many times and years have we been through this. Its old. If the caliphate is the chief goal among Islamist radicals, they are all beneficiaries to the same agenda. Do they stand up and protest that agenda? Hardly. But then why is it all the rest of us, outsiders, are the immediate problem when one of them detonates something? Who are they kidding?

Seems to me we played out this act before too, we tried the dialogue route. About all we get in return is “Americans are picking on, stereotyping, and discriminating against Muslims.” But that is not the case.

I’m sorry, when people are losing limbs, their livelihood, and their very lives, my first reaction is not “poor Muslims“. So if they are not happy, then its time they face the real problem not rally up another false flag.

It is much easier for them to point to Americans lack of sensitivity for Muslims. When do I, Christians, Jews, or Americans get to be “offended”?