Translate

Friday, 20 December 2013

British voters remain indifferent to UK foreign policy even after public slaughter of British soldier in broad daylight on busy street

http://www.radiotimes.com/episode/crc8cn/woolwich-the-untold-story

https://audioboo.fm/boos/1810413-anjem-choudary-there-is-a-war-against-our-brothers-and-sisters

I suppose most people still don't get it.

The men who murdered Rigby were terrorists and you suffer terrorism when you get some aspect of your foreign policy wrong.

Yep, I know the voter doesn't give a fuck about foreign policy. He will only vote for the party that he thinks will bribe him with the mostest.

No one but people who care about the principle of the thing would give two shits about foreign policy or vote for a party on the basis of its position on any aspect of foreign policy.

If it doesn't affect them, THEY DON'T CARE.

The British voter doesn't give a shit if anyone else is bombed to kingdom come as long as he gets all the goodies he thinks he ought to get. Winter fuel allowance and child benefit etc is more important to the voter than any atrocity committed on anyone else anywhere in the world by British soldiers on the instructions of British politicians.

The most they would do is kill a few Muslims and bomb a few mosques to show how much they hate Muslims, but they will still vote for the same old parties with the same old shit foreign policy come the next General Election.

There will therefore be more incidents of terrorism because the average voter will just huff and puff for a bit about those pesky Muslims and then carry on with their lives, until the next terrorist incident.

They do after all only have the intelligence of a snail and the memory of a goldfish.

UK foreign policy is beyond their ken. They only care about things they can see and touch and have very little interest in such things as the rightness and wrongness of UK foreign policy. They support "our" boys because they are "our" boys, whatever they do. It really is too much to expect them to read a book about Islam or Israel, because they are happy only to be told what to think about this and that by their tabloids and their leaders.

In this way they resemble illiterate people who call themselves Muslims who take as gospel everything their imam says about their religion and follow blindly, rather than read it themselves.

And this is the reason why most of these ignorant fuckers should be disenfranchised.

Oh, and quite a few people I know whom I would call friends are like that too, and I would fucking disenfranchise them all the same.

It is an uphill task being a terrorist, I fear. People here are so fucking thick that even when two terrorists kill a soldier in public in broad daylight and say why they are doing it THEY STILL DON'T GET IT.

The average voter doesn't care that that British soldiers go around killing Muslims in Muslim lands.

It doesn't bother them because they don't like Muslims.

The average voter is aghast and in a state of disbelief that someone should kill and be killed in the name of A CAUSE.

That is what they don't get.

They would never dream of doing something like that for people they don't know and have never met and will never meet as individuals.

The terrorist does it for THE PRINCIPLE OF THE THING, while the average British voter really truly has no idea what a principle is, how it works and what it is for.

Omar Bakri in the Lebanon was saying that his Lebanese followers felt shamed by the dedication of the British Muslim terrorists which eclipsed their own, and have resolved to do better.

The clever thing about these preachers is that they only tell the truth. The Koran says X while the British do Y, which is the opposite of what the Koran prescribes, they might say.  Is it right for Britain to go around invading Muslim countries?  Does the Koran say go around invading other people's countries when you have suffered terrorism?  Does even the NATO treaty say so?

http://www.nato.int/terrorism/five.htm

Article 5 of the Washington Treaty:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.
Do acts of terrorism count?  Or was it envisaged that when NATO was formed its members only had the Soviet Union in mind and it was so obvious that they didn't even mention that an attack on one of them had to be made by a sovereign nation, not by some unidentified terrorist group?

Did the British invade the Republic of Ireland to take out the IRA terrorists?  Of course not.  They wouldn't dare.  Irish terrorists are white people living Europe while Muslim terrorists are usually brown people living in Asia.

All these preachers do, I believe, is show photos and videos of war casualties, point out all the verses of the Koran that the British go against, and invite their followers to come to their own conclusions on what if anything they should do about it.

Choudary I believe always precedes and ends his speeches reminding his listeners of the covenant of security, which basically says Muslims are not allowed to aggress against the government of the country they live in and by implication the people of that country too.

Interestingly, I had heard that one of the terrorists even chatted to someone running the BNP stall and was even considering voting BNP because the BNP was the only party in the land who opposed UK foreign policy.  I guess even they were not deluded enough into thinking that the BNP would ever be in a position to influence foreign policy within their lifetimes, so they decided to take matters into their own bloody hands.

I don't think these preachers directly incite anyone to commit acts of terrorism, but merely gloat when it does happen.

This is enough to keep the whole shebang going though.

You would have thought by now that we would get enough people calling for a proper debate about foreign policy but NO.  It really is like waking the dead.  If it doesn't affect them, they don't care.  Even if a British soldier is nearly decapitated by Muslim terrorists on a busy London street in broad daylight, the morally inert British just don't care. They have now turned the page even as we speak.

Why, the Evening Standard demonstrated that perfectly by how it treated this story at
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/killers-adebolajo-and-adebowale-found-guilty-of-hacking-soldier-to-death-outside-woolwich-barracks-9015567.html  It appeared in the lunchtime edition, but it was completely gone by the evening edition.  

2 comments:

Achilles ... said...

Correct, Claire.
You are one of thee VERY rare UK 'Bloggers' that I deem worthy of a ' comment'.
Take Care, my friend & please do contact me should you wish.
PAULUK: Aryannationalist.com

Claire Khaw said...

Thank you for your comment, Achilles.

I have visited your blog and hope we can chat further elsewhere.