Gassing in Israeli perpetrated holocaust

Victim turned perpetrator:

BBC caption:
"Israel has used gas to clear tunnels it says were dug by Hamas in order to infiltrate Israel"

Evicting the bailiffs

There is a quiet revolution brewing in England. For years, banks, having defrauded the public through bailouts, also have defrauded ordinary people of their lives' savings by repossessing their homes under various pretences. But now, people are fighting back.

Tom Crawford's case in Nottingham is one which has brought a lot of this to the fore. In a desperate YouTube message he asked for help when he discovered that after having paid off his mortgage for a quarter of a century he did not own a penny in his home because the building society had, without his knowledge, converted the mortgage from an endowment mortgage to an interest only product. And now they wanted him out of the home where he brought up his children and at a time when he was looking forward to retirement after having just recovered from cancer. To his shock he also discovered that there almost 250 such repossession actions a week going through the court in his medium-sized home town of Nottingham alone.

Nottingham, of course, is known to most people for the story of Robin Hood who with his "merry men" fought the injustice of an oppressive tax collecting regime. Today it is not royalty who extract the last pound of flesh from hard-working citizens, but the banking system, with courts and governments at their knees to assist them. And a new band of merry men and women has emerged who travel the country to stop bailiffs from taking possession of homes and also assist those threatened with eviction in fighting the banks in court, using every legal loophole available and, increasingly, challenging the courts themselves under common law.

Although the bailiffs were due to arrive early in the morning, people travelled from all over the country, as far as Scotland hundreds of miles away even to send a clear message to the banks and building societies, courts and local governments, and their bailiff stooges that enough is enough. The usually quiet cul-de-sac in which Tom lives was filled with about 250 people united by having made the journey purely to support Tom in his plight and prevent the bailiff from getting anywhere near his property.

The police are usually on the side of the oppressor, but faced with large crowds they only drove past a number of times in a riot van to assess the situation, and the bailiff never turned up, scared of a public show-down. Some of the supporters left after mid-day, but many stayed on until the evening, just in case the bailiff would still try to force entry.

A lot has been written about the victims of the banking crisis, but here people had begun to fight back, using alternative media as the means to communicate and spread the message, and succeeded in preventing an eviction.

Setting Gaza up for destruction

Western governments and media are guilty of abominable complicity in the genocide and ethnic cleansing carried out by Israel under the pretence of being under threat. They are trying to sell to a repulsed public the unpalatable slaughter of innocent and defenceless men women and children. The true voice of the people, expressed through the only democratic tool available to them, demonstrations, is being hidden and played down. Many demonstrations have been banned, most notably the one scheduled for Paris, but also others for "purely administrative" reasons, and those which take place receive minor coverage, if any, in spite of huge turnouts.
As with the terror threat, hyped through high profile cases of potential planned attacks which on closer inspection frequently turn out to have been instigated by the intelligence agencies and the police themselves in order to produce a crime they can subsequently "discover", the territorial expansion of Israel is supported by shameless propaganda. Military intervention has previously been justified in many Arab countries (and now the Ukraine) for "human rights violations" which pale into insignificance compared to the cold blooded murder of Gaza inhabitants by the Israeli "Defence" Force. Having brought about a Israel-phone government in Egypt after much turmoil, the likely scenario is that Gaza refugees will eventually be pushed across the border, making room for a further land grab by Israel. Meanwhile the ISIS threat is being created in the Levant to give Israel an excuse of intervention.
A letter from a Norwegian surgeon in Gaza's As-Shifa hospital gives a graphic depiction of the Satanic inhumanity of Israel's indiscriminate and overwhelming fire power and the Palestinians' dignity in coping with the impossible consequences. But this is not the story the oh-so-independent and balanced Western media want to tell. They want to show us images of dangerous fanatic guerrilla fighters threatening to march all the way to Washington, London and Paris after annihilating peace-loving Israelis whom they deny the right to exist! I've just been alerted to this interesting image being used in making us scared of militant Palestinians:

This AFP (Agence France Press - the French are really at the forefront of Zionist propaganda in this most recent Israeli operation) was used, for example, in a BBC online special report on the Middle East "crisis" and Hamas.
Now I don't know who is fooling whom here - a blurred background prevents us from obtaining any clues as to where the photo was shot - but judge for yourself, how representative are the blond and blue-eyed and Afro-Caribbean faces under the masks and the white hand on the trigger of your average Palestinian? Worthy of Hollywood, but disgraceful when used to justify the extermination of helpless people.

The Times of Trojan Horses

I must have done something right: that neocon "think" tank (they can't really think for themselves) in the United States called Gatestone Institute had singled me out for its venom in an article about radical prison imams although I've been on parole for more than a decade now, but it was my anti-Zionist views broadcast on various media channels that really vexed them. I first heard of it when the Mail on Sunday wanted to run with the story and then, after I had supplied them with the facts, thought it better not to. Then The Times jumped onto the band wagon, and today, in spite of having obtained my prior comments and thus knowing all too well about the falsehoods peddled in her sources, Katie Gibbons penned her front page article "Prison imams linked to radicals", then picked up in the lead article inside the paper called "Inside Islam". It's part of the vilification of Islam of late where the public are asked to believe that the country is at the verge of a Muslim take-over, with Trojan horses packed with jihadi warriors hiding in schools, prisons, and many other places we never suspected to be used for the subversion of the state, maybe hospitals next, or GP's surgeries (there is a large number of Muslims GPs and surgeons and they might also harbour radical ideas: material for your next article, Katie!).

The Times did, of course, the decent thing to avoid libel action: they asked for my comments beforehand, only to ignore them in their entirety (although Katie texted me: "Thank you very much, you raised some very interesting points that I will include in my article") and then added the word "allegedly" and the disclaimer that I denied ever having held the views attributed to me. This is what press freedom is all about: you can slander people provided you do it right. Not expecting to be invited to write a response, I reproduce my email to Katie below and the articles in today's edition of The Times for reference.

This is what I sent to Katie Gibbons after publication:
"Dear Katie,
I read your article on prison imams in today's "The Times" together with that on the archbishop's comments and the lead article trying to tie the two together. It's a real pity that you didn't have the courage to buck the trend. There was little chance of coming up with much useful and truthful when using discredited sources like the Gatestone Institute or Quilliam, politically funded propaganda tools designed to decry every Muslim who does not support the illegal Israeli occupation of Palestine as extremist, leaving indeed very, very few moderates amongst the adherents of Islam wordwide. I suppose, the Times can now also proudly join the ranks of these hate-mongerers who are "often in error but never in doubt".
Of course, your article played technically save by adding "allegedly" to the views ascribed to me and acknowledging that I denied ever holding them. Between colleagues, however (I've been a card-carrying journalist for some four decades now), let me tell you it is never good practice to smear someone's reputation against better knowledge, and I hope you will never find yourself at the receiving end of such treatment. My Hindu colleagues at the prison chaplaincy would have warned of bad karma having been incurred as a price of landing this front page piece, whilst my Christian lead chaplain would have prayed for your guidance.
You and your editor may want to argue that you are doing this in order to stem the tide of radicalisation, but indeed you are doing the exact opposite: the tiny minority of highly vociferous radicals who are finding it difficult to obtain a supportive audience for their rhetoric amongst Britain's mosques thrive on such publicity. Often this scurge has been groomed and planted by our own security services (e.g. Morten/Murad Storm, recently serialised in one of your sister publications) as agents provocateurs, and just as often they are financed by Saudi Arabia, a regime rarely criticised because it is counted among our allies and a lucrative business partner - hypocrisy reigning supreme as always. By giving those elements the exposure they crave you are lending them a louder voice instead and by lumping everybody else together with them you are suffocating the voice of the bulk of ordinary Muslims. As for the "moderate" Muslims you wish to create and support, in the understanding of Gatestone and Quilliam they can only be the ones who consider the Qur'an outdated and Islam a cultural remnant of bygone times and, of course, bend over backwards to support Israel in everything she does, Muslim Zionists effectively to join the ranks of the Christian Zionists so dominant in neocon policy circles . If these are your ideal Muslims, I'm afraid you are woefully out of touch, not only with Muslims but also with the British public and British values: next Saturday's national demonstration will give you an idea of how the British people do not want to the lend their name to the holocaust waged against a defenseless population in Gaza just because their democratically elected government is portrayed as radical and that Israel finds the threat of peace a hindrance to her territorial ambitions.
Back to the good work done by chaplains of all persuasions and denominations in prisons: they are there not to proselytise but to give pastoral support and aid rehabiliation, and with the prison system already bursting at the seams, to pull the rug from under them as your article has done is highly irresponsible, as without their platinum work your front page would soon again have to be dealing with prison unrest, not radical imams.
Kind regards,
Sahib"

And these are the articles all that relates to:

On caliphs and holy war

Let's start with a proviso: these observations are written on the assumption that what we are told about developments in Iraq and Syria are at least partially true. This is not always a safe assumption to make. Britain, that self-styled peaceful post-imperial nation is at war and has been on numerous battle fields uninterrupted since the First World War she now celebrates (and upon which occasion her prime minister now wants Muslims to sell poppies for Remembrance Day), and being an experienced belligerent her propaganda machine is well oiled. Her former colony in the Americas is cut of the same cloth. Both nations are also experts at undercover and clandestine activities to further their ends. We remember some lies, such as Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction or the Kuwaiti incubators, but most lies we are dished up as news go undetected.

When today's super powers were fighting proxy wars all over the place, in Afghanistan, Syria and Ukraine, to name a few of the battle locations, we are told on this side of the conflict that we are defending freedom, sponsoring democracy and assisting populations under attack. The Arab Spring was sold to us as a spontaneous war of liberation by Arab nations tired of tyranny in order to justify intervention, and all that Western military assistance brought them in Egypt, Libya and now Iraq and Syria is untold suffering, chaos and more tyranny. The dangerous Talibans and al-Qaida whose brands have become a household name were created, trained and marketed by the same mindset and people who sell us MacDonalds and CocaCola. Words and deeds rarely match when it comes to power politics. As a Hadith of the prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, states: War is deception.

So here we are presented with another Islamic bogie man: the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (as-Sham), variably abbreviated as ISIL and ISIS. Leaving aside such confusion about its short name as a minor trademark problem whilst developing this new brand, here are its key selling points [with brief comments in brackets]: it started as a break-away faction from al-Qaida since al-Qaida has lost the pure Islamic way and got corrupted [in other words, Muslims all over the world have since realised that al-Qaida was a set-up to justify military intervention]; it is a militant Sunni group which loves killing Shia even more than it loves killing infidels [in other words, it is yet again a means of dividing rather than uniting Muslims]; it disrespects traditional borders and wants to create an Islamic state spanning multiple Muslim countries, starting with Iraq and Syria [and incidentally those borders drawn up by the West after the First World War no longer serve its purpose any more either whilst opening the border between Iraq and Syria allows the United States to bring in additional support from its bases in Iraq into Syria where its war with Russia hasn't been going all too well]; it has a self-declared caliph who demands unconditional support from all Muslims [and has never been elected or appointed by them but rose to fame out of ignominy after having been incarcerated in a US prison in Iraq]; it represents the uncompromising face of Islam which harshly squashes any opposition [and continues to present Muslims as barbaric and the Shariah, a complex legal system of statute and case laws, as limited arsenal of gruesome punishments].

Now there are a couple of ways to cut through the fog and get to the truth in most matters. Firstly, actions speak louder than words, or as Jesus said: by their fruits you shall know them. Secondly, go with where the money is, or the old Latin adage Qui Bono - who benefits? Looked at from those angles, most ideologically justified wars we are asked to support with our ever increasing taxes and concurrent cuts in services are strangely related to economic interests, more often than not oil, be it in Iraq, Afghanistan or even Sudan. They also frequently serve perceived strategic interest, first and foremost the protection of that so-called only democracy in the Middle East, Israel, that outlying member state or colony of Europe [did you ever wonder why a country in Asia takes part in the European song contests and is handled at by the European desk of travel agents?]. Here is the picture of an Israeli coin showing a map of "Greater Israel", encompassing the Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, Kuwait and parts of Saudi-Arabia.
It illustrates why removing traditional borders is maybe not quite the threat to the New World Order it is supposed to be. And seeing that America the Great is so powerless in the face of this massive advance of Muslim jihadists, maybe our well armed friend and ally Israel can be asked or enticed to stem the tide for us?

But let's not jump the gun quite yet. Let's look at the new Muslim caliphate from an Islamic perspective. Of course, ever since the old Ottoman Turkish caliphate was destroyed by the plotting of First World War victors, Muslims have yearned for a common state, for re-establishing unity, for having Islamic principles represented rather than national interests [which in turn were more often than not sold and surrendered to outsiders]. Is this newly declared Islamic state the new Medinah for Muslims to which every individual should make Hijra (migrate) similar to the Jewish migration to their promised land under the right of return? Naturally, Muslims in other parts of the world remain cautious since he who lives by the sword will die by the sword, and with this new caliphate having emerged out of factional warfare, the dangers are tangible. But it is not just out of cowardice that the Muslim masses aren't flocking to pledge their allegiance to the new caliph of Baghdad, once the seat of an Islamic caliphate under the Abbasides prior to the Ottomans.

Surah an-Nisa' (the Women) of the Qur'an lays out some of the key guiding principles for warfare as sanctioned by Islam. Incidentally it also set down inheritance and other rights of women one and a half millennia ago at a time the women of the British Isles could not dare dream of emancipation or even civilisation. One of the reasons why Western media seem obsessed with only acknowledging Muslim women when they are either allegedly being oppressed or stoned to death for adultery is that to provide information about the real status and dignity Islam affords them would inevitably embarrass them greatly: women's liberation in the West is a myth - yes, they are now allowed, or rather compelled, to work like men, but they also continue to be exploited by an industry selling its products through undressing them for potential buyers and forcing them to live up to an unnatural and unhealthy image of what their advertising agencies perceive as model beauty. Whilst Britain contemplates to emulate French laws forbidding Muslim women to cover up, she neglects her own. When England (inevitably) loses in football, there is a concomitant rise of domestic violence against women by a third. Incidentally, Surah an-Nisa' also talks about orphans and institutes, one and a half thousand years ago, child protection rights, whereas here we are only starting to find out how much child abuse has gone unnoticed and unreported in recent decades.

But since this post will become far too long if we were to start comparing the Islamic and the "democratic" way of life in more depth, let's keep to matters of belligerence. Verse 75 of Surah an-Nisa' provides us with the justification for "jihad", stating: And what is the matter with you that you do not fight in the way of Allah and for the weak amongst the men and women and children who say: our Lord, take us out from this town of wrongdoing people and assign us a protector from You and assign us a helper from You? The justification for applying military force in Islam is to protect the weak amongst men, women and children suffering from oppression. It is for this reason that in the early days of Islam the conquering Muslim armies were welcomed as liberators. It is the same justification, Western governments want to now appropriate for themselves when they try to justify military intervention in the name of freedom and democracy.

Against this reality, the new caliph's ISIS perform miserably. Their actions increase fear and terror amongst innocent men, women and children and make them flee from their advance. Furthermore, warfare in Islam does not only have to be justified in its objectives, it also must follow clearly pronounced moral principles. For example (verse 92-93): And it is not permitted for a believer to kill a believer except by mistake. ... And whoever kills a believer deliberately, his reward is hell where he remains forever, and Allah is angry with him and curses him and has prepared for him tremendous punishment.  Of course, the British-sponsored Wahhabi and American-sponsored Al-Qaida movements got round this prohibition by the instrument of "Takfir", declaring that somebody not sharing their own interpretation of Islam is not really a proper believer and may therefore be killed. As if in anticipation of this diversion, the next verse of the Surah, verse 94, provides a direct answer to such connivance: Oh you believers, when you  go out in the way of Allah then make sure and do not say to anyone who offers you peace 'You are not a believer', desiring the offering of this world when with Allah there is plenty of gain; you yourselves were like this before, then Allah bestowed His favours on you, so make sure, for Allah is aware of what you do.

Again, this is not the place to write a detailed study "On War and Peace" as ordained by Islam. But based on this cursory inspection of Qur'anic injunctions and not even having touched the wealth of advice given by the prophet of Islam on the matter, the new group allegedly spearheading the Islamic revival has failed the test. By your fruits you shall know them. Now back to "Qui Bono". Who benefits when Islam is given a bad name? Who benefits when Muslims are driven out of their homes and add to the sea of refugees already consisting of 70% Muslims? Who benefits when there is suddenly a renewed interest to support the failing interventions of the USA and Britain in Iraq and Syria? Who benefits when the countries surrounding Israel get further destabilised? Who benefits when Western security agencies are given more powers due to renewed security concerns, forgotten that only very recently they were found out to having been spying on their own people? Who benefits from a permanent state of war?

The jury is out but it shouldn't take all too long to reach a verdict. Provided, as I said at the outset, evidence and information we have so far is reliable.