Translate

Showing posts with label UK foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UK foreign policy. Show all posts

Wednesday, 17 February 2016

Bad parenting and bad blood started WW1?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pw7nx
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p01pw8ds

Cousins At War was another excuse to go through the family history of the Royals again. Those of us who know, know Britain didn't have to declare war on Germany. Did Britain lift a finger to save the French during the siege of Paris in 1870? Nope.

The German Ambassador in London couldn't believe Britain was entering WW1 "over a scrap of paper" - The Treaty of London 1839 - guaranteeing Belgian neutrality.

WW1 was caused by the Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination, not George V declaring war on Wilhelm II after he had been naughty and annoyed his relations yet again.

I doubt that even if Wilhelm II had been exposed at birth that would have prevented Archduke Franz Ferdinand's assassination.

It is breathtakingly dishonest of the British to blame Wilhelm II when it was Liberal Prime Minister Asquith who declared war on Germany in 1914 in the hope increasing the chances of the Liberal Party winning in the General Election of 2015 after a short successful war. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/11/poppy-mania-day-prevents-any-rational.html When the war started to go really badly for Britain, the election was cancelled, as you would expect.

How old was Bismarck when he was sacked by Wilhelm II? 75. How old would he have have been in 1914? 99 years old, but apparently such a super statesman - as these historians seem to believe - that he would have been able to stop Kaiser in his tracks when he declared war on Britain ....

Listen to the British sneering at Wilhelm II in ‪#‎RoyalCousinsAtWar‬, blaming him for their rotten foreign policy which lost them their world empire.

When will the British take responsibility for the loss of their empire instead of forever blaming Germany and the Kaiser? "Look at what you made me do!" says Britain to Germany, for ever and ever ....

Wilhelm II, Emperor of Germany and King of Prussia (1859-1941), when Prince of Prussia

What was British foreign policy in WW1 & 2? Thwarting the Germans. What do British historians do? Blame the Germans, and never ever take responsibility for their insane foreign policy that lost them their world empire in thirty years.

The British now pretend they sacrificed their world empire to save the Jews. The Jews at least gained Israel, and the biggest loser of WW2 was Britain.

So, if Britain wants to blame the loss of their empire on something or someone they should blame the Liberal Party and Asquith who was Liberal Prime Minister of the time, as well as the operation of democracy.

Remember: British foreign policy is forged on the dunghill that is the indifference, ignorance and arrogance of the average voter on the subject. They are happy to believe any ill of foreigners, as long as they can feel that they or their leaders are not to blame. This policy continues to this day. Having lost their empire, the British are now proceeding to lose their marbles, driven mad by the depth of their folly and the extent of their loss. Their foreign policy seems to be double or quits until they they win or go broke. It is unlikely that they will win.
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , ,

Wednesday, 2 September 2015

The neurosis of the Western male politician and the migrant crisis


Simon Sheppard on Neurotic Suspension

A much simpler, and thus better, example of ‘Bystander Apathy’ occurred at a Rotterdam boating lake on 21 August 1993 (the incident features in The Tyranny of Ambiguity; 1st ed. fn. p. 250, 2nd ed. p. 395). A Moroccan girl, Naima Quaghmiri, 9 years old, fell out of a boat in the middle of the shallow lake and noisily drowned. The other girl in the boat, a year or two older, tried to hold her above the water but failed, while approximately two hundred spectators watched. One of the crowd even made a video recording of it. As in the Kitty Genovese case, subsequent newspaper articles discussed whether witnesses should be legally obliged to act, or punished for failing to do so.
The essential mechanism operating here is Neurotic Suspension: being suspended or frozen in a state of neurotic confusion. (Neurosis is here defined in Pavlovian terms as the stress induced when a single stimulus evokes two or more distinct responses.) Neurotic Suspension appears to be particularly strong when collectively expressed, in common with much other crowd behaviour.

My review of Simon Sheppard's Sex and Power: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sex-Power-Manual-Male-Female-Relations/dp/190124024X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1377715983&sr=8-1&keywords=simon+sheppard+sex+and+power


BBC sends only pro-migrant female journalists to report on migrant swarms

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, 30 June 2015

In answer to the question "What is the point of terrorism?"


at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

Monday, 22 June 2015

How much is Dr Qadri proposing to sell his #JihadAgainstISIS curriculum to the UK government?

The person Sarah Montague should have been interviewing about British Muslim adolescents joining ISIS must surely be Anjem Choudary or even me, at a pinch.

You do not even have to be Muslim to know why they want to join.

The point is that Western governments are not going to change Western foreign policy for the sake of a bunch of Muslims even they do up sticks and go fight in Islamic State.

They know that they will have to put up with terrorism if they want to continue with their foreign policy, so that is what they will do. Because this is indeed the case, all they have to do now is to smear any Muslim who points to Western foreign policy as a factor in radicalisation. Foreign policy a no-go area and anyone who gives it  more than a cursory mention in these discussions will be branded an Islamist apologist, an extremist and to be spied on and their liberty restricted.

Instead, taxpayers' money will be poured into the pockets of charlatans like Qadri and those whose solutions accept the narrative that Western foreign policy can do no wrong and that the Western God of War that is NATO is always right and never wrong.

Qadri's solution is to use his curriculum to indoctrinate all Muslim schoolchildren as to the infallibility of Western foreign policy and probably tell them to report their parents if they even so much as try to suggest to their children that NATO is sometimes wrong.

Not only are Muslim parents expected to remain silent about their views on UK foreign policy they must actively praise and worship NATO as a deity who must always be worshipped and never questioned and always denounce as blasphemers, extremists and potential terrorists anyone who deviates from this narrative.

I hope this is now reasonably clear.



Why Muslims and non-Muslims keep wanting to join ISIS

How to *peacefully* protest against Western foreign policy

Is Sima Kotecha stupid or is she DELIBERATELY avoiding mentioning FOREIGN POLICY?




http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b05zhhht From 1:36




http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2014/10/tahir-ul-qadri-political-enigma-pakistan-2014102271530973245.html

Sarah Montague:

What can be done to stop young Muslims from radicalisd here and then going on to fight with Islamic State with Syria and Iraq? Dr Mohammad Tahir ul Qadri is politician in Islam and a Sufi Islamic scholar who has issued a fatwa against terrorism. He is in London to launch his counter terrorism curriculum which he thinks should be taught to all Muslim schoolchildren. I spoke to him last night asked him where the responsibility lay - why are so many people becoming radicalised?

Qadri:

The problem of radicalisation has not been properly tackled for the last many many years. Unfortunately people in the government and agencies who have been tackling the matter of extremism they have been dividing the matter of extremism into two categories: violent extremism and non-violent extremism. By this division I think they have been allowing extremism to grow into terrorism. Extremism is extremism. Extremism which is non-violent today will become violent ultimately because it has to convert into terrorism finally and then the whole issue becomes very difficult to be tackled. 

Sarah Montague:

You make the point that government agencies have been making this distinction but it makes one wonder given what you are saying whether the Prime Minister is right when he says that some Muslims are quietly condoning the extremist ideology rather than confronting it. So it is the Muslim community themselves who should be doing this?

Qadri:

First of all I have heard Prime Minister's speech. He has I think as far as I understood eliminated this division of violent extremism and non-violent so I think he is 100% right. As far as the Muslim communities are concerned I also agree with this one point: there are some people within Muslim community who are silent on this issue or who condone it silently. Again it opens the door to justification for any kind of terrorism in any name for any faith.

Sarah Montague:

But what is it then? Who is it who needs to speak out and try to reach out to people who might be on this path?

Qadri:

First of all, this becomes the responsibility of Muslim communities, Muslim leaders, imams, clerics. This should be taught right from the beginning in the mosques, in seminaries, in madrassas and at state level in all schools. It should be taught that extremism is something which is clear enmity to humanity and this is against the teachings of the Koran.  

Sarah Montague:

Are you suggesting this should be part of the national curriculum?

Qadri:

Yes, it should be on curriculum. Peace should be taken as peace studies as a subject. Deradicalisation should be taken as a subject. Counter-terrorism should be taken as a subject. The problem is that we have not been addressing this issue on theological front and on ideological front. We have been taking it just as a political economical social issue. Although there can be and there are I don't deny it political influences and socio-economic and local circumstances also influence the youth and international situations do influence but the foremost responsibility I would say is - this is a khawarij philosophy - this is a self-concocted philosophy, ideology and concept by wrong interpretation of Koranic teachings.

Sarah Montague:

It's been perverted and it is the responsibility of communities and government to tackle that ideology head-on?

Qadri:

They have to take it in a theological and ideological manner that this is a khawarij ideology is totally condoned [sic] and extremely condemned by the Holy Prophet in his time. We should not remain silent.

Sarah Montague:

Can I ask you is it possible that somebody could be radicalised solely by what they see online or must there also be someone in their local community encouraging it?

Qadri:

Both things I agree. They are both reasons. In local communities there are somebody maybe prevailing on them and making their mindset and number two by and by remaining silent and condoning silently also creates this space.

Sarah Montague:

If, as you seem to be suggesting, other Islamic leaders are reluctant to criticise it, why do you think that is?

Qadri:

Maybe they think they are feeling insecure. There is nobody in other countries to protect them or they are themselves confused conceptually.  

Sarah Montague:

There is another argument which is that there is a pull from what they are saying online and what is being preached, but there is also a push factor. These are perhaps young people who don't feel that they belong here. Is it perhaps that they are second generation in this country and they feel that they neither know their parents' original communities or their new ones: they don't feel they belong.

Qadri:

I think whether this is a  matter of second generation or third generation if the wrong message continues to be carried and it goes on influencing the minds of the next generation then at any time anyone can get affected and in addition to that international situation sometimes not always in your favour. Whatever politically internationally is happening is not according to your wish or according to your desire so there are many issues which may create further frustrations and hatred against one another. So we should continue this message and we should try to influence the generations whether second or third or fourth to always be peaceful or always condoning acts of extremism acts of terrorism wherever it is. It should be put on the curriculum. It should be made compulsory for Muslim students and should be made optional for non-Muslim students, but they should be taught the actual real teachings of Koran and Sunnah based on love and tolerance and co-existence and togetherness.




It is interesting that Qadri thinks condone and condemn are synonyms.

The questions no Western journalist will ask are as follows:


  1. If there are just wars, surely there must logically and necessarily be just acts of terrorism?
  2. Is terrorism intrinsically worse than war?
  3. Isn't terrorism just a poor man's war?
  4. Isn't all terrorism without exception a response to bad government policy?
  5. Isn't one man's terrorist another man's freedom fighter?
  6. Wasn't Nelson Mandela imprisoned for terrorist offences?
  7. Why was Nelson Mandela - a former terrorist - later considered a world statesman?
  8. Why are Sinn Fein now considered respectable when the voices of their leaders was not even allowed on the BBC? 
  9. If both terrorism and war have the effect of killing non-combatants, does terrorism have the virtue of killing fewer of them?
  10. Does Britain have an independent foreign policy or is it just a US missile base?
  11. Would you agree that Britain has had an irrational foreign policy for over 100 years?
  12. Is it possible that Muslim terrorists commit their terrorism in the knowledge that the Israel lobby controls American politics and that Britain is but a mere vassal state of the US who are in turn controlled by the Israel lobby?
  13. Could the antisemitism of the 21st century harboured by Muslims towards Jews be explained by Question 12?
  14. Would any Western journalist be sacked the moment he or she asked any of the above questions?
  15. Would any Muslim in the West be branded an extremist the moment they made any of the points contained in the questions above?
  16. Why would any questioning, informed and intelligent adolescent trust any information received from Western media, if they already knew the answers to the questions I have asked?
  17. Is not the government's and the media's refusal to ask and address these questions in themselves a major factor in radicalisation?
  18. What are we to think if Western media and governments refuse to address these questions honestly and directly?
  19. If Western governments and media pointedly refuse to discuss these questions what are we to think? 
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/press/quilliam-alert-quilliam-welcomes-the-minhaj-ul-quran-initiative-to-prevent-islamist-radicalisation/

http://www.pat.com.pk/english/tid/13644/About-PAT/ is the party that Dr Qadri leads. Does it sound libtard enough to be backed by the Neocons?

Can a book help Muslims beat extremism?
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, 19 June 2015

How to *peacefully* protest against Western foreign policy

Refuse to condemn terrorism.

Those who wish to do so to follow me no Twitter or leave a comment below using their real name.

Or go to https://www.facebook.com/pages/Protest-Against-Neocon-Western-Foreign-Policy/416842915167525 to like this page and share it with your Facebook friends.




Why Muslims and non-Muslims keep wanting to join ISIS


at No comments:
Labels: , , ,

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?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html

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. http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/why-i-was-omitted-from-channel-5-ukip.html

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.

THE PROCESS OF RADICALISATION
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 DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RADICALISATION AND COMMITTING TERRORISM
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.

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Sunday, 12 April 2015

Why neither politicians nor Western media will facilitate a discussion about Western foreign policy

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

Who is the zealot and fanatic? (a) He who insists on his right to continue being gratuitously offensive after provoking devastating violence or (b) He who responds with violence after a deliberate campaign to gratuitously offend him

at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , , ,

Monday, 2 March 2015

Who should we blame for Muslim terrorism?







Post by Boris Johnson.

Boris Johnson:

At first I couldn’t believe my ears. “Jihadi John” had finally been exposed as Mohammed Emwazi, and there on our screens was this knife-wielding assassin – a frame taken from one of those nauseating videos in which he swaggers and gloats and boasts about the ways in which he has subverted all decency and cut off the heads of a string of innocent aid workers and journalists. And there in the television studio was a man who seemed intent on exculpating the terrorist.

He was called Asim Qureshi, the “research director” of a body called “Cage”, and he was determined to blame absolutely everyone except the killer himself. When Jon Snow gently asked him to condemn the murders, he started babbling indignantly about the deeds of Tony Blair and Dick Cheney.

When pressed again, he accused the newsreader of Islamophobia. When Snow – who did an excellent job – asked him again to assign blame where it lay, fully and squarely with the ghoul in Syria, he started, incredibly, to blame the UK security services.

Yes, the brutal security services had stopped Emwazi from going to Tanzania “to make a life for himself abroad”. Make a life for himself! He was going to join a terrorist group called Al-Shabaab, and at one stage tried to force himself on board a plane. This sick young terrorist – said Qureshi – was “a beautiful man, very caring, very compassionate towards others”. Tell that to the relatives who have seen him publicly behead their loved ones.

It was one of the most vomit-making TV interviews I have ever seen, and at first I simply dismissed it. Surely no one would believe such rubbish; and then I reflected – and of course I saw that Cage and other apologists are by no means idiotic. You and I can see through their lies, but there are thousands, if not millions, who are more suggestible and who are willing to see things that way. The Cage people are pandering to a section of the audience that is frighteningly large, and growing. We need collectively to demolish their myths; and to do it fast.

We need a proper security response. We need to be able to monitor these vipers nursed at the breast of the British state: their movements, their communications, and sometimes we need to be able to separate them from others who could aid and abet their plans. In so far as the Lib Dems are still being obstructive, they must be overwhelmed.

Then I am afraid that we must accept that Isil still has the charisma that goes with military victory. They have money, oil, huge tracts of land – flats and material comforts with which to bait the deluded girls from Bethnal Green, who think they are going out to meet a religious and gun-toting version of Brad Pitt. We need to come up with a way of beating them – and given the understandable public revulsion at the thought of British boots on the ground, we need to work harder at backing the Kurdish Peshmerga, and persuading the Sunni military that it is in their interests not to collaborate with the terrorists, but to drive them out.

Yet none of these solutions will be any use unless we also change the way these people are sometimes viewed, and especially by young Muslims growing up in this country, whether in London schools or anywhere else. We need to debunk these jihadists and their phoney ideology. There is nothing pure or honourable in their barbaric subculture – of rape camps, throwing gays off cliffs and burning people alive in cages.

They are not even religious: many are said to have a very sketchy knowledge of the Koran. They are hopeless hypocrites who claim to despise the West but who pathetically wear Nike trainers and daub their temples with expensive Chanel cologne (Egoiste, appropriately, the preferred aroma). Many of them are losers: twits, twerps and misfits who are hopelessly caught up in a mobile-assisted pornography of violence.

Above all, we must stop this fateful elision – encouraged by the likes of Cage – between this jihadism and Islam. The other day I pointed out that many of these young men are – according to the security services – heavy users of porn. I was astounded to be denounced, on the front page of The Guardian, by the Muslim Council of Britain. A spokeswoman said that I was somehow attacking Muslims as a whole. Why on earth would she say that? Why is the MCB effectively claiming these porn freak jihadists for mainstream Islam?

I believe – and I certainly want to believe – that this jihadi madness is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Muslims; and yes, I was dismayed by the recent BBC poll in which 27 per cent said they had “some sympathy with the motives behind” the Charlie Hebdo shootings. But, then, there was no control sample of the rest of the non-Muslim population, and I am afraid that there are plenty of non-Muslims who found the cartoons offensive, and plenty of readers of this paper who object (rather more than I would, perhaps) to needless insults to religion.

I seem to remember that Pope Francis himself was asked what he thought of the motives behind the shootings, and said: “If you swear at my mother, expect a punch.” That would put him pretty firmly, I think, in the 27 per cent. The point is that neither he, nor Telegraph readers who disliked the Charlie Hebdo cartoons, nor the overwhelming majority of Muslims would want to see that emotion – taking offence – translated into violence of any kind.

That is why it is vital to insist, time and again, on the difference between this sick jihadism and Islam; and that is why, conversely, we must do everything we can to stop the likes of Cage – and indeed the MCB – from eliding anti-jihadism with Islamophobia. You can loathe jihadists, in other words, and be perfectly sympathetic to Muslims.

It is obscene, looking at their defence of Emwazi, to think that Cage have been taking money from charities such as the Anita Roddick Foundation and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. They should stop apologising for terror, and start apologising to the victims.



Muslim preacher blames UK foreign policy for youth radicalization

Questions that will not be answered by Islamophobes or the British government

A Declaration Refusing to Condemn Terrorism a peaceful means of protesting against insane UK foreign policy

To cure the symptom of terrorism, treat the disease that is Western foreign policy

Claire Khaw's top tips on how to deal with radicalisation, terrorism and IS

Condemning terrorism is a distraction from condemning UK foreign policy


at 1 comment:
Labels: , , , ,

Thursday, 22 January 2015

The presence of Muslim voters in the West highlights the moral absurdity of democracy


Post by Claire Khaw.



at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,

Friday, 19 September 2014

Claire Khaw's top tips on how to deal with radicalisation, terrorism and IS


Post by Ships Miah.







https://www.facebook.com/groups/466234513398453/permalink/819194998102401/
How easy it is to be "radicalised", just by discussing this video.  

http://thevoiceofreason-ann.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/claire-khaw-refuses-to-condemn.html
Condemning terrorism is a distraction from condemning UK foreign policy
at No comments:
Labels: , , , , , , ,
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...