Thursday, 28 May 2015

What was the government response on being told in 2006 that Muslim terrorism caused by foreign policy? (Now 2015.)

Two Muslims discuss UK foreign policy in 2006.

Has there been any progress since then?

Are the media facilitating a discussion about UK foreign policy?

Of course not. Those who speak out of turn tend to lose their jobs and saying anything found to be objectionable by Jews will have you labelled as an antisemite, and antisemites are of course evil nasty Nazis whose views must either be suppressed or ignored.

This is why no one ever listens to Paul Craig Roberts, because he has been labelled as such, even if he is a wise old man and was once adviser to Ronald Reagan. In the West the young despise the old. Anyone who is not attractive enough for them to think of having sex with is automatically dismissed as worthless and even immoral. In any dispute a social conservative might have with a libtard the subject of how much sex one has had will arise as if the number of sex partners one has had in one's life is indicative of one's moral probity and intellectual respectability.

Paul Craig Roberts: "Britain never makes a decision without asking America."

Most people who consider themselves educated and well-informed in this country have never heard of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, as I discovered to my horror recently.

Which rules are more likely to discourage war - the Wolfowitz Doctrine or the Koranic rules of warfare?

Does the BBC have a moral and national responsibility to discuss UK foreign policy?

Is the BBC morally rotten because it no longer has any journalistic integrity?

I would say so. You would have thought the media would like to challenge my views but the collective consensus amongst libtards is not to give me the oxygen of publicity before they can think of any counter-arguments to my arguments. I am not even complaining about bad publicity being a sporting kind of woman and prepared to let them do their worst. My touted appearance on the Channel 5 hatchet job on UKIP suddenly came to nothing after filming me over two days for a total of six hours. It was probably because I did not seem to them to be mad and hate-filled enough to fit into the usual mould of what the left like to think of as UKIP supporters.

These people no longer play by the rules and will bend and break them if it suits, and they are so shameless they see nothing wrong with this.

I know what the problem is and I have the solution, but no one wants to hear it, even the people who are in government supposedly promoting the national interest and those who are expected to have a professional interest in reporting news with impartiality.

So, what we know now is that UK foreign policy is not about to be discussed because the government has no plans to change it at the behest of its citizens. They also know that virtually no voter will vote for any party on the basis of its foreign policy, and they think they can continue to get away with it.

Those who will not listen to reason are implicitly saying they will only be moved by force. Muslims who come to realise this are radicalised, creating a pool of radicalised people who will take the next leap of thinking: deciding to act logically on this conclusion in an extra-legal way ie become terrorists.

In the meantime both the government and the media continues to close its eyes and shut its ears, for this is now the way of the West.

In the meantime, Muslims will continue to be targeted by the police and security services while being told that only religious fanatics take what their scripture says literally.

It is laughable the way Western governments thinks they can stop radicalisation. Even if Anjem Choudary were forbidden to appear on TV or from using Twitter, there will be others who hold his views and others who will logically act on the conclusion they have formed.

The only way of peaceful protest I can think of is to form a group of Muslims and non-Muslims who make a point of refusing to condemn terrorism because condemning terrorism is a distraction from condemning UK foreign policy.

Condemning terrorism is condemning the symptoms while refusing to cure the disease that is government policy because, without exception, all terrorism is caused by bad government policy. Those who disagree with me about this are invited to think of just one act of terrorism that was not caused by bad government policy and to remind themselves that that late world statesman Nelson Mandela was imprisoned for terrorist offences.

Will the BBC facilitate an honest debate about Western foreign policy with SMS voting and will the government undertake to change it if enough people vote against it?

Can you imagine such a television event ever being broadcast?

If it were being proposed by anyone at all, it would soon be shelved after being put on the back burner. Britain is a vassal state of the EU and the US because our politicians simply have not got a visionary alternative. Only Muslims have an alternative vision.

Radicalisation does not only happens to Muslims. Breivk was radicalised and he was an Islamophobe. Radicalisation is when you come to the conclusion that the democratic process is an exercise in futility because it will never give you what you sincerely believe is moral and what you ought to have.

The radicalised person knows that the democratic process is an exercise in futility as regards what he believes it is moral and just for him to have while the terrorist is someone who is radicalised and knows that only force will move those who have ignored and marginalised him, and is prepared to use violence. The more you antagonise someone, the more he is likely to use violence against you, even if the use of force turns out to be suicidal, if that is the only way he is ever going to get his revenge.

The state should remember what happened to the Austro-Hungarian Empire when its response to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand ended its existence.

As they say, it ain't what happens to you, it is how you deal with it.

Those who refuse to be moved by reason are by implication saying they will only be moved by force. When you implicitly transmit this message, you should not be surprised when war and terrorism and perhaps revolution and defeat will be the consequence.

Muslims worship and fear an omnipotent and morally perfect God whom they believe will come to their assistance if they obey His laws. What do Islamophobes believe in? They worship and fear the fornicating slut who is the embodiment of the sexual liberation they are addicted to.

What Westerner can make the connection between respecting marriage and forbidding extramarital sex? No Western politician will speak up for marriage by denouncing those who allow and encourage extramarital sex. The almost universal practice of extramarital sex in the West is the sacrament of Westerners and what they would call their way of life and their liberty. That is really all they mean when they so grandiosely elevate fornication and widespread bastardy as their national identity and national tradition.

God if He exists sent Muslim terrorists to punish errant Christians and Jews, who really should know better, being the senior branches of the Abrahamic faith.

These days, just listening to the Today Programme, even when it does not mention Muslims or ISIS at all, is a radicalising act.

Every time you hear some stupid policy eg gay marraige, being proposed and turned into law, it is a radicalising act.

When the SNP have 56 seats with 4.7% of the vote while UKIP get only 1 seat with 12.6% of the vote, it is a radicalising act.

When your government bombs another country with no good reason at the behest of the Americans, it is a radicalising act.

You are radicalised when you know that your government and your media are the bad guys who will always ignore and smear you even if you have command of all the arguments.

You are radicalised when you hear Andy Burnham telling the Pope to accept gay marriage thinking this will make him more likely to become Labout leader.

I am sure I do not need to belabour the point.

No comments: