Last night, Thursday November 25, a most sympathetic interview took place between a leader from the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and Richie Allen on “Talk Radio Europe”.

Not ONCE did Allen ask this leader of this Islamofascist organization what was his position towards Israel.

During the discussion which followed openly antisemitic attacks on Israel took place and Allen stayed silent.

The attack in question that I refer to was when a caller stated that Israel wanted to take over “all of Palestine”

In fact that is far from the case, Jordan today sits on 78 per cent of historic Palestine.

At Camp David Barak offered the Arabs in this “Palestine” another 10 per cent. That makes it in total 88 per cent.

Yet this claim voiced on TRE that the Israelis were taking over all of Palestine was voiced and Allen did not refute this filth. I think Allen said in reply to this filth that he was “weak” on the subject.

But yet Allen gave the MCB the most kid glove treatment it is possible to give, during the interview.

One of the features of the MCB is that they continually portray themselves as being pro peace and pro moderation. This is a front. So it is necessary for responsible journalism to get behind this front and show the real truth. It seemed that last night that this man Richie Allen did not wish to go there.

For example I would have thought that Allen was duty bound to ask the MCB about their position towards Israel. This was shown very graphically in the MCB defence in 2008 of a man called Al-Qaradawi, who called for the murder of Jewish people in Israel, as we will now show:

The MCB has been closely associated with the likes of the above man, whose name is Al-Qaradawi, and the following is an extrace from a BBC report on this Islamist bigot

The arrival in Britain of the Islamic preacher, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, to take part in a conference has sparked a row because of his controversial views on suicide bombings.

Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi achieved a star status with the emergence of the Qatari satellite channel, Al-Jazeera, several years ago.

Thanks to his weekly appearance on the religious phone-in programme Al-Shariaa wa Al-Haya (Islamic Law and Life) he has become a household name for many Arabic-speaking Muslim communities.

He is an articulate preacher and a good communicator.

The subtext of the programme, and indeed that of Sheikh Al-Qaradawi’s responses to all the issues raised throughout the broadcast, is that Islam has an answer to all of life’s problems.

That is essentially the ideology of Islamist movements across the region.

(read the rest on the url above)

His position on suicide bombings is particularly crucial as the following extract from the same URL above shows clearly:

Suicide bombings

It is particularly his views on suicide bombings that has courted controversy, but mainly in the West.

He has distanced himself from suicide attacks in the West but he has consistently defended Palestinian suicide attacks against Israelis.

Recently he told Al-Jazeera that he was not alone in believing that suicide bombings in Palestinian territories were a legitimate form of self defence for people who have no aircraft or tanks.

He said hundreds of other Islamic scholars are of the same opinion. In this respect, he is very much in tune with what the vast majority of people in the Arab world believe.

Defending suicide bombings that target Israeli civilians Sheikh A-Qaradawi told the BBC programme Newsnight that “an Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier.

“I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God’s justice.

“Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do”.

At the same time as the above Al-Qaradawi said this on the Newsnight programme:

He repeated similar views during an interview with Newsnight:

An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier. I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God’s justice. Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do.


Is that not the very worst type of antisemitic Fascism that you have ever heard, every bit as bad as the worst that the German Nazi movement came up with.

This is not so accidental either if you know your history, which Allen on Talk Radio Europe admits he does not.

The acknowledged leader of all the Arabs during the Holocaust was Hajj Amin el Husseini. He was an Arab from Palestine and he played an absolutely pivotal role during the Holocaust.

Allen has told in the past of his visiting a concentration camp and being moved by the experience and of course I accept his sincerity.

But then he had better, if he is really sincere, follow up this link of Arabs during the Holocaust and in particular of Hajj Amin el Husseini.

In fact Hajj Amin el Husseini is known to be the uncle of Arafat, and thus is linked to the present PLO, PA and Hamas. It is not of purely historical interest.

But last night Allen had this man from the MCB on his show.

And the MCB lined up with this utter fiend Al-Qaradawi when the British Government banned Al-Qaradawo in 2008 from visiting Britain, showing they are cut from the same cloth.

As this makes very clear:


The Muslim Council of Britain deplores the government’s decision to refuse a visa to the renowned Islamic scholar Dr Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

The MCB recognizes the Prime Minister has been under immense pressure from the pro-Zionist and neo-conservative lobby in recent weeks to take this decision. It is regrettable that the government has finally given way to these unreasonable demands spearheaded by the Tory leader whose government had in fact allowed Dr Qaradawi to visit the UK five times between 1995-97.

‘Yusuf Al Qaradawi enjoys unparalleled respect and influence throughout the Muslim world. I am afraid this decision will send the wrong message to Muslims everywhere about the state of British society and culture. Britain has had a long and established tradition of free speech, debate and intellectual pursuit. These principles are worth defending, especially if we would like to see them spread throughout the world,” said Dr Muhammad Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the Muslim Council of Britain.


Let there be no doubt about it. Allen proved very sympathetic  to the MCB speaker on his show last night.
Even to the extent of defending the MCB speaker in the later conversations on his show.
THESE ARE VERY SERIOUS MATTERS INDEED. We on 4International will follow with interest to see if Allen makes a reckoning with the above material on the MCB. Surely Allen has to look critically at the way he conducted this interview with the MCB last night.


MCB Deplores Government Decision to Bar Sheikh Qaradawi




After this American election last night where Muslim Brotherhood Dhimmies around Obama have taken a right whacking things in Europe will never be the same again!

Obama bows before Saudi King




The US election has fair put the wind up these European Dhimmis!


Just forget about the BBC trolls for a moment. I was listening to Richie Allen on TRE last night. This guy flunked the whole scene. As America was voting in the most historical parliamentary election the world has ever seen, this troll from Waterford could not bring himself to talk about what was underway in the land of the free. Instead he rambled on about…Christ I forget! That is how moving and memorable it was.


I would advise any of 4international friends, if this TRE ask you to talk (for free), full name Talk Radio Europe!!!,  don´t be tempted! A bunch of conspiracy freaks!


Anyway, the most important move the American people have ever made, no less than that.


Obama used the race card big to get himself and his criminal entourage elected.


In the selection process, we are learning more about this all the time, thanks to a bunch of Hilary supporters in the Chicago area… in the campaign to have Obama chosen over Hilary Clinton the Obama family wheeled out the race issue “If you do not vote for me against Hilary then you must be a racist” kind of deal.


This reminds me of a conversation on that same dreary TRE that I heard.


To criticise or attack Islam then you are a raaaacist!


This went on all the time and is going on all the time in Europe.


Pamela Geller, Robert Spencer and leaders like that do not know how important they are for Europe.


Europe is held in a kind of political correctness strait-jacket!


It did not begin there but it picked up speed with the Yugoslav wars of the 1990s.


The media coalesced around the notorious Nazi Islamofascist and participant in the Holocaust, Elija Izetbegovic who was the darling of the US and EU, and who illegally became President of Bosnia.


Harry´s Place, Oliver Kamm and The Times, the BBC of course, provided a “journalistic cover” for this evil fascist Izetbegovic and try as they could the Serbs just could not break through.


America is different though!


America is a very powerful country and it has a people who when all is said and done are based on the traditions of the Great American Revolution.




Hence the opposition of the American people to the building of the Rauf Muslim Brotherhood Mosque on Ground Zero was a DECISIVE factor in this election yesterday.



The Republicans of course are another arm of the American elite, but the Tea Party movement, like the English Defence League, and other similar movements in Europe (think Geert Wilders for one!) is another matter entirely.


Tea “Partiers” must remind themselves that it was Bush who was the first American president to recognise the Palestinian Fascist Arabs state plans.


And it was Bush who supported the Iranian Fascists by removing Saddam, THE MORTAL ENEMY OF THE IRANIAN ISLAMISTS.


Saddam, for all his entirely brutal and evil ways, was a secular kind of guy. He did use Islam but he used it as an opportunist uses it.



In any case it was the American people who entered into the frame last night.


THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD AND CAIR who sheltered behind Obama and Ayers was dealt a huge blow.


We on 4international can do no better than conclude with the summing up by Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs last night on hearing of this huge movement:



Our team hit a grand slam tonight — the opening salvo in the war to take back our country from this illegal ruling class. America unshackled! OBAMA REBUKED. Pelosi fired! The Republicans completely seized control of the House — REPUBLICANS TAKE 65 SEATS IN THE HOUSE.  Historic. 

Never write off America.


No Pamela, 4international will never write off America, the great and historic American people!


We salute you!


In November 2008 this happened in Somalia (thanks to Jihadwatch)

“We will do what Allah has instructed us.”

But remember: the real problem is “Islamophobia.”

Sharia Alert from Somalia: more on this story.

“Somali girl ‘pleaded for mercy’ before Islamists stoned her to death for being raped,” by David Williams in the Daily Mail, November 5 (thanks to Elisa):

A girl of 13 begged for mercy moments before a mob buried her up to her shoulders and stoned her to death, it was claimed yesterday.The Somalian youngster is said to have pleaded ‘Don’t kill me, don’t kill me’ before her horrific execution in front of a 1,000-strong crowd.

A boy is thought to have been shot dead amid the appalling scenes inside a football stadium in Kismayu, a rebel-held port.

According to Amnesty International, the girl was 13 and had been raped by three men.

Officials say she was 23 and had confessed adultery before an Islamic court.

The stoning, which took place on October 28, is the first public killing in war-torn Somalia for two years.

Convicting a girl of 13 for adultery would be illegal under sharia law but the authorities said she had lied about her age. Print and radio journalists who were allowed to attend the execution put her age at 23.

Amnesty and Unicef, the UN children’s agency, said that the girl, identified as Aisha Ibrahim Duhulow, was raped while travelling to see a relative in Mogadishu, the Somalian capital.

Her family is said to have tried to report the crime to the militia who control Kismayu, only for Aisha to be arrested and accused of adultery. None of the men she accused of rape was detained.

David Copeman, Amnesty’s Somalia campaigner, said: ‘This was not justice, nor was it an execution. This child suffered an horrendous death at the behest of the armed opposition groups who currently control Kismayu.

‘This killing is yet another human rights abuse committed by the combatants in Somalia and again demonstrates the importance of international action to investigate and document such abuses, through an international commission of inquiry.’

Amnesty said partway through the stoning nurses checked whether Aisha was still alive. They pulled her body out of the ground to ascertain she was still breathing before the stoning continued.

A Unicef statement said: ‘She sought protection from the authorities, who then accused her of adultery and sentenced her to death.

‘A child was victimised twice – first by the perpetrators of the rape and then by those responsible for administering justice.’…

A witness told the BBC the woman had begged for her life and had been crying as she was forced into the hole in the ground.

He said the girl had asked the Islamic administration in Kismayo: ‘What do you want from me?’

They replied : ‘We will do what Allah has instructed us.’

She said: ‘I’m not going, I’m not going. Don’t kill me, don’t kill me.’

The witness added: ‘A few minutes later more than 50 men tried to stone her.’

He said no one tried to stop the Islamist officials, who were armed.


It has been observed in the media before that jihadist groups like the Taliban, al-Shabaab, and the former Islamic Courts Union in Somalia bring “law and order” and work quickly to “resolve” cases that take longer in other court systems. The catch, of course, is living under brutally arbitrary tyranny with due process subject to the whims of those who were given carte blanche to restore “order” under Sharia law, and sentences intentionally carried out too hastily to allow appeals or protests.

These are the consequences. “Two teenage girls executed by Somali militants,” from CNN, October 28 (thanks to Robin):

(CNN) — A Somali militant group publicly executed two teenage girls Wednesday after accusing them of being spies for the Somali government, according to the group, eyewitnesses and a relative of one of the girls.

“Those two girls were evil and they were spies for the enemy (the Somali government), but the mujahedeen caught them and after investigation, they admitted their crime, so they have been executed,” said Sheikh Yusuf Ali Ugas, commander of Al-Shabaab in Beledweyne, a town in central Somalia.

The teens were blindfolded with their hands behind their backs against a tree, and shot, according to a local journalist.

A resident of Beledweyne told CNN that Al-Shabaab called on the town’s residents to come out and watch the execution.

“Hundreds of people came out to watch the execution,” he said. “It was very bad … the girls looked shocked and were crying but [no one] could help.”

But, Alhamdulillah!, the onlookers weren’t watching soccer or listening to music!

A relative of one of the teens denied they were spies.

“My cousin, Ayan Mohamed Jama, was just 16 years old and she was absolutely innocent,” said the relative, who did not want their name used out of fear of retribution from Al-Shabaab. “And Al-Shabaab caught her and the other girl between El-gal and Beledweyne and simply accused them of what they were not.”

The other girl, said the relative, was 15. Al-Shabaab refused their families’ request to see the teens while they were in detention, “and they executed them at a public gathering, so this is inhumane and cruelty.”

The El-gal area has been the scene of heavy fighting recently between Somali government forces and Al-Shabaab.

“Ayan didn’t have any contact with the government and even in her life, she never had a mobile [phone] so we can’t understand how she could be accused of being a spy,” the relative said.

Last year, Al-Shabaab stoned a teenage girl to death in Kismayo, a town in southern Somalia.

Here is a report of a 2008 stoning in Kismayo, of a 13-year-old girl who came to report that she had been raped.

Al-Shabaab is waging a war against Somalia’s government in an effort to impose a stricter form of Islamic law, or sharia….


(thanks to Atlas Shrugs)

More moderates in action, peace, tolerance, interfaith “dialogue”:

Christian professor

India: One of the Muslims accused in chopping off of Christian professor’s hand over “blasphemy” wins local election from jail Jihadwatch

The prospects for a democracy to succeed in upholding human rights and a free society are ultimately only as good as the values that inform those who participate in it. An update on this story. “Kerala man accused of chopping hand wins poll,” from the Press Trust of India, October 28 (thanks to GS):

Thiruvananthapuram: Contesting from prison, an accused in the sensational case of chopping off the hand of Thodupuzha Newman college lecturer TJ Joseph, has won from a block panchayat division in Ernakulam in the civic body elections.

Anas won from the Vanchinad division of Vazhakkulam block in Ernakulam district on a ticket of Socialist Democratic Party of India (SDPI), political arm of Popular Front of India (PFI), whose activists were allegedly behind the attack on Joseph for preparing a question paper containing blasphemous references to Prophet Mohammed.

Whose prophet?

Joseph was then fired in addition to being maimed.

Anas, now in judicial custody and lodged in the Viyyur central jail in connection with the case, won from the division defeating the nearest UDF candidate by a margin of more than 1,000 votes, while the LDF candidate came third.

The accused, who contested the seat after getting permission of the local court, could neither campaign for the poll nor cast his vote. Anas is the 47th accused in the case.



by Felix Quigley

1 December, 2009


The very first response of the EU bureaucrats to the decision to ban minarets in Switzerland is to reach for the “Human Rights Nazis” to reverse the decision of a majority of the Swiss. Same thing in bureaucratic terms as the Irish vote!


This exposes the real nature of the EU, a totally anti democratic reactionary alliance, and forum for Islam.


This brings into line now the study of the work of Bat Yeor, the Egyptian Jewess who has studied Islam, especially the dhimmi aspects of Islam.


Now just watch those EU dhimmis rabbits run for the cover of the Human Rights Nazis who will come in wielding their big cudgel of Human Rights Nazi Legislation against the hapless ordinary European people. How dare they vote against Islam!


We on 4international have our own independent political line. We do not agree with Bat Yeor in that she offers no strategy to fight Islam. She leaves the aspect of defeating Islam hanging in the air.


But her research and analysis is uncanny in its correctness


The Swiss vote is up there, a really courageous action, with the Gates of Vienna and the Knights of Malta decisive and courageous opposition to the Islamic Imperialism


A great beginning to our new era!


The vital need is for our Trotskyist Party to take up the struggle on this and to provide correct leadership


And we say again…Thank you Bat Yeor!


[Begin analysis of the EU and Islam by Bat Yeor here]


The EU’s craven, morally bankrupt stance was sadly consistent with Eurabian policies evident now for three decades. In fact, the EU has been completing a slow metamorphasis into the “Christian” arm of the Pan-Arab world, different in religious observation (or lack of same) but united in its views of Israel and America.


The European Community (EC), and later the EU, has been aligned with Arab policy regarding Israel and the United States since its June 1977 declaration.


Disruption of the Western alliance by separating Europe from America, and the piecemeal destruction of Israel were the pillars of the Euro-Arab alliance that gave birth to Eurabia.


The formation of this tactical alliance can be traced clearly to a document issued 24 years ago. Prompted by fears of Khomeini’s Shi’ite theocracy in Iran, international Arab terrorism and the rise of oil prices, the EC adopted the 1980 Venice Declaration.


This declaration made clear that the EC, under French leadership, had adopted Pan-Arab conditions regarding Israel without qualification, including: the 1949 armistice as Israel’s legitimate borders; Arab sovereignty over East Jerusalem; an Arab Palestinian state; the recognition of the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinians, as well as its participation in all negotiations, and the obligation of Israel to negotiate with Arafat, exclusively; and the refusal to recognize a separate peace between Israel and any Arab country, for the resolution of the “Palestinian problem.”


By adopting all those conditions (which contradicted UN Resolution 242) Europeans could in turn justify their ahistorical designation of Judea and Samaria as occupied Arab land.


 Ultimately, the entire European effort to delegitimize and vilify Israel hinges upon this inaccurate, disingenuous formulation.


In the 1970s and 80s, the Communist bloc and the burgeoning Euro-Arab alliance granted international legitimacy to the denial of Israel’s rights by the PLO. France, and to a lesser extent Germany, directed the entire European Community foreign policy in accord with Arab-Islamic sentiments.


A careful reading of the Venice Declaration (1980), the Fez Islamic Conference (1980), the Amman Arab Summit (1980), and the Taif-Mecca Islamic Summit (1981) reveals the similarities between the European and Arab positions in relation to Israel.


Europe’s modified wording is just a fig-leaf.


This subterfuge allows the EU to pose as a “neutral” agent between Israel and the Arab world and to retain a role in the peace-for-terrorists-process.


At the Durban circus in September 2001, European representatives tried in vain to conceal the anti-American and anti-Semitic animus that permeates Eurabian policies, most visibly through the collusion of Eurabian and Arab NGOs.


 And again, during the recently completed International Court of Justice proceedings in The Hague, Eurabian judges employed similar tactics but joined their colleagues from the Muslim world in finding Israel’s anti-terrorist barrier “illegal” (and thus denying the Jewish state its legal right to self-defense).


Beyond a fleeting awareness, the overwhelming majority of Europeans and Americans do not understand the new Eurabian entity, which is only the first step in a steady progression toward its Arabization and Islamization.


Europe has evolved from a Judeo-Christian civilization, with important post-Enlightenment/secular elements, to a “civilization of dhimmitude,” i.e., Eurabia: a secular-Muslim transitional society with its traditional Judeo-Christian mores rapidly disappearing.


This evolution of Europe has been duplicated internally within every EU country.


This deliberate, comprehensive process has taken place through several means: the control of Middle Eastern Studies departments at European universities, and the re-writing of historical textbooks; allowing Euro-Arab bodies to screen cultural exchanges and publications relating to Islam and the Arab Muslim world for unwelcome content; taboos imposed on issues related to immigration and Islam; disinformation campaigns demonizing Israel (and America), while fostering a comprehensive and “brotherly” alliance between EU and Arab League countries on the political, economic, cultural, and social levels; and the servile obedience of the EU’s mainstream media to all these initiatives.


Most recently, this program of Euro-Arab symbiosis has been codified in a detailed report entitled, “Dialogue between Peoples and Cultures in the Euro-Mediterranean Area.”


Released last October, this report (whose contributors included Umberto Eco and Tariq Ramadan) was to establish complete interdependence between Europe and the Arab-Muslim world. Romano Prodi, President of the European Commission, established the High-Level Advisory Group which stated the aims, policies, and routine functions of the foundation. The Advisory Group mandated that the foundation have complete financial and administrative independence in managing its budget and in choosing its partners.


In support of this remarkable request, the Advisory Group argued that the foundation needed considerable resources to cover its activities that would be extraordinarily expensive, as they will encompass all the countries of the EU.


The Advisory Group further justified such conditions by invoking its lofty aim, which “is nothing less than peace itself.”


And this “peace” — accomplished through “brotherly love” and “dialogue” between the North and the South of the Mediterranean — will be achieved by a total economic, political, and cultural fusion.


This May (2004), the EU followed this report up by accepting the creation of the Euro-Mediterranean Foundation for the Dialogue of Cultures, named after Anna Lindh, the Swedish minister murdered by a deranged man. Lindh was a staunch defender of Arafat and advocated an economic boycott of Israel by the EU, a policy long desired by Eurabian politicians. Not surprisingly, the Anna Lindh Foundation draws inspiration from the spirit of Edward Said, the late dhimmi ideologue bent upon subverting Western culture, and values.


The Anna Lindh Foundation endeavors to fight what it dubs “Fortress Europe” on Arab immigration issues, and to establish a totalitarian academic structure which alone will be entitled to teach and publish material on the Euro-Arab Mediterranean. It will also monitor the texbooks and university curricula for all of the EU.


Moreover, the Foundation promotes the vision of a unified Euro-Mediterranean world where people are not even defined as being from the North or the South, (terms considered too provocative as they might evoke visions of a once-Christian North and a very Muslim South).


 The Euro-Arab continent will instead be populated by an amorphous mass called only “Us,” without acknowledged ethnic, national, or religious features.


 In reality, Europe is creating a gigantic Muslim community, or “umma,” which is also inhabited by an anonymous (and precipitously dying) European dhimmi population. One can choose to ignore it, but Eurabia is a tangible entity.


Eurabia has a discernible historical development, and its functionaries are now well entrenched in each European parliament, and at the head of the European Commission.


Often Javier Solana merely parrots the Arab League’s Amr Moussa, or the Palestinian Authority’s Yasser Arafat. Hence Solana’s parrots the pan-Arab refrain that no reforms can be achieved in any Muslim country before the settlement of the Arab-Israeli conflict, reiterating the same fatuous statements made by Amr Moussa.


The EU continues to proclaim that all negotiations must be conducted with Arafat alone and that the Middle East conflict is at the center of world politics. Those two assertions were repeated endlessly at the Fez, Amman, and Taif Summits (1980-81).


 The EU’s unlimited funds finance anti-Israeli and anti-American campaigns, as well as the “dialogue” industry.


Regarding Israel in particular, it appears as if the EU has become the obsequious mouthpiece of the Arab League.


This Eurabian ethos operates at all levels of European society. Its countless functionaries, like the Christian janissary slave-soldiers of past Islamic regimes, advance a jihadist world strategy.


Eurabia cannot change direction; it can only use deception to mask its emergence, its bias and its inevitable trajectory. Eurabia’s destiny was sealed when it decided, willingly, to become a covert partner with the Arab global jihad against America and Israel.


 Americans must discuss the tragic development of Eurabia, and its profound implications for the United States, particularly in terms of its resultant foreign policy realities.


Americans should consider the despair and confusion of many Europeans, prisoners of a Eurabian totalitarianism that foments a culture of deadly lies about Western civilization.


Americans should know that this self-destructive calamity did not just happen, rather it was the result of deliberate policies, executed and monitored by ostensibly responsible people.


Finally, Americans should understand that Eurabia’s contemporary anti-Zionism and anti-Americanism are the spiritual heirs of 1930s Nazism and anti-Semitism, triumphally resurgent.




[end Bat Yeor analysis here]


Welcome to the world of sharia law. More on this story. “Somalis watch double amputations,” from Reuters, June 25: Hardline Islamists in Somalia have carried out double amputations on four men for stealing phones and guns.

They have each had a hand and foot cut off after being convicted by a Sharia court in the capital earlier this week.

More then 300 people, mainly women and children, watched as masked men cut off their limbs with machetes.

The four men reportedly admitted to the robberies, but were not represented by a lawyer and were not allowed to appeal against their sentence.

The al-Shabab group, which controls much of southern Somalia, has carried out amputations, floggings and an execution in the port of Kismayo but such punishments are rare in the capital.

The amputations were carried out in the open in front of an al-Shabab military camp in the north-east of Mogadishu. A local resident said the four men cried out during and after the amputations. Each man had his right hand and left foot cut off.

“‘Help, help, help!’ one of them shouted,” Mohamed Abdi told the BBC.

Eyewitnesses estimate the age of the four men – Aden Mohamud, Ismail Khalif , Jeylani Mohamed, and Abdulkadir Adow – to be between 18 and 25.

 Mr Abdi said the whole process took about an hour to complete.

‘Torture’ Human rights lobby group Amnesty International has condemned the amputations.

“These punishments amount to torture,” said Tawanda Hondora, Amnesty’s Africa deputy director.

The group says that committing torture could amount to a war crime.

After the four were sentenced to double amputations on Monday, mosques in the area announced through their loud speakers that the amputations would take place at 0800 local time on Thursday. Al-Shabab spokesman Ali Mohamud Rage told journalists that the amputations were a warning to all thieves. “If they are caught red-handed in similar circumstances, they will face amputation,” he said. He also said al-Shabab would look after the welfare of the amputees… Posted by Raymond at June 25, 2009




Wednesday, June 17, 2009

I’ve often heard that the Iranian security forces use a lot of Palestinian Arabs. Sounds like it’s really showing at the moment: ‘Hamas helping Iran crush dissent’

Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of reformist presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi, two protesters told The Jerusalem Post On Tuesday…

…Hamas formally welcomed incumbent Ahmadinejad’s ostensible reelection victory on Saturday. The Palestinian Islamist movement receives arms and funding from Iran, and its members have often received training there, including in terror tactics and weapons manufacture…

…”The most important thing that I believe people outside of Iran should be aware of,” the young man went on, “is the participation of Palestinian forces in these riots.”

Another protester, who spoke as he carried a kitchen knife in one hand and a stone in the other, also cited the presence of Hamas in Teheran.

On Monday, he said, “my brother had his ribs beaten in by those Palestinian animals. Taking our people’s money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too.”

It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad “tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel.” His hope, he added, was that Israel would “come to its senses” and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.

When asked if these militia fighters could have been mistaken for Lebanese Shi’ites, sent by Hizbullah, he rejected the idea. “Ask anyone, they will tell you the same thing. They [Palestinian extremists] are out beating Iranians in the streets… The more we gave this arrogant race, the more they want… [But] we will not let them push us around in our own country.”…



by Felix Quigley

December 20, 2009

A discussion on Iran at Harry´s Place

The introduction was the following

Those saying that Khamenei’s sermon Thursday was a conciliatory one and a call for calm are living in a dream world. The fact that Ayatollah Khamanei called the millions of people who came to the streets in the past few days “agents of the West” and called the election fair and historic is shocking and divisive, but expected.

His unwavering support for Ahmadinejad and the unwillingness to investigate the vote has made it impossible for any compromise to be reached.

This speech was absolutely meant to terrify the Iranian people off the streets and back into their homes. He has now stated that any protest is illegal and that any violence will be the responsibility of the opposition.

His calls for using legal systems for protesting the election results are meaningless when those laws have already been circumvented to declare Ahmadinejad the winner. Saying that Iran is a great democracy is also meaningless when any protest is illegal and lethal force is used to crack down on demonstrators.

There were 2 noteworthy comments to this

First from “Field”

Those saying that Khamenei’s sermon Thursday was a conciliatory one and a call for calm are living in a dream world. The fact that Ayatollah Khamanei called the millions of people who came to the streets in the past few days “agents of the West” and called the election fair and historic is shocking and divisive, but expected.

His unwavering support for Ahmadinejad and the unwillingness to investigate the vote has made it impossible for any compromise to be reached.

This speech was absolutely meant to terrify the Iranian people off the streets and back into their homes. He has now stated that any protest is illegal and that any violence will be the responsibility of the opposition.

His calls for using legal systems for protesting the election results are meaningless when those laws have already been circumvented to declare Ahmadinejad the winner. Saying that Iran is a great democracy is also meaningless when any protest is illegal and lethal force is used to crack down on demonstrators.

Second from Mettaculture

For me the speech shows that Khameini iis not the all powerful wise one, but someone who deep down realises that he has been out manoeuvred by Khameini and his Iraq war veterans military power base.

Caesar is now the puppet of his captain of the praetorian guard.

Moussavi is clearly the candidate that represents the old power of the clerical Khomeini’ists of the Revolution and would be the far more compliant president for Khameini, if he were any longer in any position of real rather than symbolic power.

This now has all the ingredients for an intra regime driven civil war.

The clerics of Qom are for Mousavi and against Ahmadinejad who they must see as having betrayed the ideals of the Islamic revolution, exchanging the Kingdom of Allah for a Military dictatorship in the name of Allah.

The Islamic Theo-political regime shows us how weak and unstable a theo-politics is as the politics is winning over the theology shifting to a military politico-theological regime.

The two are irreconcilable through history but the separation of church and state only happens with a strong state not a strong church.

I am afraid that Iran may need another 30 years before demographic and technological change see off the old guard of both the revolution and the Iraq war, which has created the character of modern Iran even more strongly than the Islamic revolution.

I don’t want to see huge numbers of people killed for what is a the regime wins in any event scenario.

If Khameini had sided with the clerics and the idealistic principles of the revolution, and chosen Moussavi to do this, rather than with military power in his his own self interest, he could have faced down the massive engine of repression that Ahminedjad now seems to be in control of (with his probable active conniving prior to this election).

As it is Moussavi’s immense stature within the conservative elements of the regime is now compromised and denied legitimacy.

it is a fascist military coup d’etat indeed and apparently a well planned one.


What I feel is left out even though I do not have as much information as has say mettaculture is the issue of

1. the nature of the world crisis

2. the role of the US Government and its relationship with Islamofascism, remembering that these western governments supported Islamofascism (Izetbegovic) in the Balkans

3. they leave out totally the issue of leadership

4. they tend to downplay the revolutionary nature of the youth and mix up content and appearance.

We will write more on this on Monday.

Please comment below. If private mark it private.


by Felix Quigley

April 20, 2009

Of course they are. They have to be there and these are witness reports which affirms it. It was Arafat who was first on the scene in Iran in 1979 in support of Khomeiny which is normal and what you would expect since Arafat is a close relative of the Nazi Islamist Hajj Amin el Husseini who played a very leading role in the Holocaust of the Jews.

So it would be one big surprise if Fatah and Hamas (whom the journalist Stephen Ritson calls a resistance movement) were not on the streets of Teheran keeping order for the Islamists.

The discussion on Jihadwatch to this very issue I have found so interesting I take the liberty of reprinting it here for our readers. I agree with Robert the Palestinians being there is THE number one issue.

[begin discussion on Jihadwatch here]

It was ironic, this man said, that the victorious Ahmadinejad “tells us to pray for the young Palestinians, suffering at the hands of Israel.” His hope, he added, was that Israel would “come to its senses” and ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians….

Thats just plain weird.


4 replies · active 2 days ago  

Wow to hear a Muslim say Israel should ruthlessly deal with the Palestinians.. that’s incredible.

7 replies · active 2 days ago  


Hugh's avatar - Go to profile



Hugh  96p · 2 days ago

Who trained Khomeini’s bezonians?
It was the PLO, and Yassir Arafat was happy to help.
Who was Khomeini’s very first honored foreign guest, when he first came to power and started his reign of terror?
It was PLO Chairman Yassir Arafat, whose henchman for years Abu Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas), fresh from receiving his Holocaust-denying doctorate from MGU (Moskovskij Gosudarstvennij Universitet imeni Lomonosova, promptly went to work for the PLO) is now the head of the Slow Jihadists of Fatah.
Who today helps the secret services of the Iranian dictatorship?
Hamas and Hezbollah.
Hezbollah and Hamas.

But let’s go further back.

Who brought, to the advanced and superior civilisation of Persia, Islam?
It was the Arab invaders, the Arabs who attempted to wipe out the Persian language and literature and culture, as they did everywhere they went, but in Iran were repelled not by warriors but by Firdousi, Hafez, Sa’adi, and Omar Khayyam, who through artistic creation and the preservation of Iranian history in verse, prevented the same Arab linguistic and cultural imperialism from succeeding as it had in so many other places, all over North Africa and the MIddle East.

The “gift of the Arabs.” Possibly it is time for at least some Iranians to “Return To Sender.”

One hopes, in any case, that the role of the “Palestinians” — the Gazan Arabs and “West Bank” Arabs and those who swell the UNRWA ranks claiming, not always truthfully, to be descendants of those “West Bank” or Gazan Arabs, so that they can remain permanently on the Infidel-taxpayer-supplied aid, through Arab-administered UNRWA — will never be forgotten by the Iranians who are now being beaten up, forced on the run, or even killed.

What, in the long history of Persia, have the Arabs ever brought to Persia that was for the good?


1 reply · active 1 day ago  

A little off-topic but…….

Have you read some of the bizarre opinions Robert Fisk has expressed lately in the Independent?

Such as describing Mohammad Khatami as “saintly” on 12/06/09.

You have to wonder if this “saintly” man repealed the laws making the age of consent for Iran girls being nine.

Statements Khatami himself has said include

“talk of changing the constitution amounts to changing the state. This is treachery”.

“Let me remind you that I did not come in the name of reform”.

This is what British politician, David Alton, said of Khatami

“in one year alone, in 1988, 30,000 political prisoners were butchered, an atrocity that has never once been condemned by Khatami. Indeed, as the Sunday Telegraph reported on 4th February, it is alleged that he was complicit in the massacre. It also begs a question, which I put to the Minister, as to whether we are pressing for those responsible to be tried for crimes against humanity. Amnesty International points out that under President Khatami, the reformer, there have been 800 executions. The question for us is whether such a regime is one in which we should be investing morally and politically.”

For Mr Fisk, it seems, there is no such question.


0 replies · active 2 days ago  

I agree with the quoted Iranian… Israel really needs to wake up! There can be no peace solution with Jihadists!

0 replies · active 2 days ago  

Iran under the Shah was one of the most progressive Muslim countries ever. It is too bad that most “reform” in the Muslim world comes from the top down like in Turkey in past days, or Egypt under Sadat.
I say let Iran fall apart then trick the Saudis into invading them…that should distract the Muslim world for a decade or two or internecine infighting while diverting a lot of money from soft jihad in the West.

0 replies · active 2 days ago  

“Palestinians” played a key role in the Khomeini revolution in 1978 that brought the Mullahs to power in the first place, and in the US Embassy takover on Nov. 4, 1979, and just 17 days later, on Nov. 21, 1979, they also led the Pakistani mob who attacked and burned down the US Embassy in Pakistan, horribly butchering and murdering 4 people – all this during the reign of Carterus. And yet, both Carterus and Obamus Carterus are always ready to bat for the “Palesinians” who sided with all the worst enemies of the United States during the past century. Both betray Israel to aid the “Palestinian” enemy.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

2 replies · active 2 days ago  

Without the Mullahs, Hamas will have to find another source of weapons. They are linked so badly that if one falls, the rest will fall.

0 replies · active 2 days ago  

Totally off topic, but I think important. The Boeing Company has blocked internet access to Jihadwatch. It says it’s filters recognize Jihadwatch as a HATE site. Someone needs to confront these people.

1 reply · active 1 day ago  

A defense contractor that makes a boatload of money each day selling products to defeat the global jihad thinks that a website which links news reports about Islam is a hate site. WTF! Expose these hypocrites!

1 reply · active 2 days ago  

I have got this through email today, still have no verification.
Here’s an excerpt:

As the large news agencies are woefully uninformed on the situation in Iran, I’m here to fill in the details.
1. The goons in armor that you are seeing beating and killing unarmed civilians are Hamas and Hezbollah. They are paid killers brought in from Palestine and Lebanon to quell the uprising. The Iranian Regime knows that Iranians are very hesitant to fire on their own people, and has thus adopted the wise strategy of bringing in foreign mercenaries.
2. The body count that is being reported is well below the true number.
3. Word has gone out not to use the Ambulances. They are torturing then killing the wounded, then burying the bodies in mass graves.
4. Iranians Freedom Fighters have adopted new strategies. Hamas troops have been taking down apartment buildings and killing the inhabitants. The Iranians have started fleeing their buildings as the set them on fire, thus trapping the assault troops in an inferno.

Anyone else seen this in their inbox?


4 replies · active 2 days ago  

Grahamr, what most visitors here already know, but might surprise you, I am originally from a Muslim minority in Russia. I am now a non-practicing Muslim, a Muslim for identification purposes only. I am well aware that Islamism is the greatest threat to humankind, and determined to oppose and fight it, ballot or bullet, word or sword. I identify a lot with the German anti-Nazi author Hans Habe who fought his fellow Germans and passionatelly called on the US to join Britain in defending against Hitler. The US did not listen, and got attacked, from both oceans. As for Russia, I am objective here: it has its faults, but in the Balkans it is a fully positive force, while the US is squarely allied with the forces of pure evil. Its anti-Russian imperial strategy aids the Global Jihad. Instead of trying to win Russia over as an ally against jihad, it aids jihad against Russia and Serbia.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

3 replies · active 1 day ago  

Grahamr, in response to your ?, I am now an American citizen, which motivates me all the more to speak out against the wrongs committed by my US government. Throughout that memorable year of 1999, I held countless “one-man rallies” in downtown Seattle, protesting the US and NATO Kosovo war on Albanian terrorists’ side and against the Serb victims, signs and posters all around me using language more ferocious than that in any of my posts here. Crowds gathered and asked questions which confirmed what I already knew: the vast majority of Americans had no idea what their government was doing in their name. I knew, and was enraged. Exactly 10 years later, I still am. Kosovo, I will never get over. I have no doubt whatsoever that 9/11 was punishment for Kosovo. Indeed, the CIA criminals threw away German tip on a future 9/11 hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi, because, as they themselves admit, they were too busy helping Albanian KLA terrorists murder Serb civilians.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.

3 replies · active 1 day ago  

Thank you, Hugh. An apt quote from a wise Russian fable-writer Krylov.

0 replies · active 2 days ago  

Interesting, this bit, when the angry Persian says: “Taking our people’s money is not enough, they are thirsty for our blood too.”

Rephrase as: ‘Why should we give money / aid to the ‘palestinian’ Arabs when all they want to do is kill us?”.

Right on mate. There’s plenty of folks in the west, too, whose governments have *ALSO* – for entirely different reasons to those motivating the ayatollahs – been pouring their citizens’ money down the ratholes of Gaza and Ramallah and Jenin, etc, and who have become aware that the overweening desire of the jihadis who inhabit those rat-holes, is to kill (or at best enslave) the donors.

Obvious thing to do, if one can manage it, is to stop giving money to the ungrateful murderous b*st*rds. What fun if, for entirely different reasons, yet activated by a very similar disgust, BOTH ‘the West’ AND assorted Muslims were to simply stop giving money to the shock-troops of Jihad, in and around Israel.

This young man in Iran – in Persia – is a Persian Muslim; and he will, therefore, given that Islam is at its core a rationale for Arab Imperialism, Arab supremacism, NEVER be seen as an equal by ARAB Muslims. In the glee with which Arab Muslims are seizing their excuse to kill Persian Muslims, this young man is getting a hint of the horrid fact that he and his are despised.

Arabs on top, in the ummah; everyone else, Persians and Pakistanis and Malays below that, to be used and abused (the Arab Muslim jihadis in Afghanistan did not endear themselves to the locals by their obvious contempt for the non-Arabs); and right at the bottom the black Muslims, slave-fodder, eunuch-fodder.


0 replies · active 2 days ago  

Abu Lahad,
Saw a second or two of a Burning Building in Tehran on ,I believe FOX, but no Reference per se to what ,why, or WHOM.
This is COMPLETELY Believable about Palestinian (Fatah & Hamas) and Lebanese(Hezbollah).
The Mullahs Learned from 1979 NOT to make the SAME Mistakes today, that the Shah,FORCED by Carter’s actions and NON-ACTIONS,had to make.
It’s OBVIOUS that their Nurturing of Hezbollah and now Hamas as well, had another Target in addition to Israel, THEIR OWN IRANIAN /PERSIAN POPULATION.
As Iran gets CLOSER to a Nuclear Weapon, They are INCREASINGLY More OUTRAGEOUS!
NOW is Not the time to just be “Present”
It’s Time to SHOW UP for the Free World ,Right NOW!

1 reply · active 2 days ago  

On Tuesday two protesters told The Jerusalem Post that Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of Mousavi.

Brothers in arms is all. That’s why they call it the Land of Islam, that’s why they call their precious belief system Surrender, and they ain’t talking about being on the business end of a surrender, either.

*** 3:19 ***

Lo! Religion with Allah is Surrender.
— God belatedly giving his new religion a name in Koran 3:19

Mousavi and Prez Mahmoud are on the same page. Just a nasty little spat of careerism here. Nothing to see here, folks, please move along. Prez Obama did, so should you.


0 replies · active 2 days ago  

The Persians call islam “arab occupation”, Khomeini regime they call “second arab occupation” and this might be the third one – but this time they will fail. Some Turks call islam also disdainfully “arap dini” – arabic religion.

This might be the last chapter of islam in Iran. The final seal of prophet – a little silly monkey – Ahmedinejad the stupid. Even little kids in Iran know who is the monkey. A bogey man – who brings islam to your neighbourhood.

We had the same – the last communist monkey (to close the communst chapter in Czechoslovakia) – called Miloš Jakeš. I have recognized immediately Ahmed as such genius. These ultraorthodox morons or monkeys have a magic power to destroy their own regimes…please give them some credit.

Having him in Iran saved us probably many years of tedious opposition fights, tricks, hiding, compromises, silly pseudoreforms. Even nuclear bomb. I hope Israel will build one day a monument to Ahmeds stupidity in Haifa or Tel-Aviv and celebrate his true greatness. That might bring a lot of Iranian tourists. All laughing at the monument and enjoying the ice-cream with the family.

Yes – the mullahs got something quite reliable in him to keep their privileges and businesses. Alas – too reliable. Alas – showing too much of the greatness of islam and islamic revolution – in his face, threats, boasting, cowardly criminal acts and inspired speeches.

In 2009 – a little lonely monkey defeats islam – what a shame: talking heads, analysts, academics, secret services! You should have studied all the monkey political law.

And if I am right – expect more chain reactions. Oh, poor jihadis, you want to conquer Europe, unable to keep Iran? Who will send money to you? To Bosna, Lebanon, Gaza? I hope Iranians will claim all the money back. Work hard!


0 replies · active 2 days ago  

Iran for the last 29 years has been ruled by the ayatollahas. almost half of the iranians are less then 30 years old. These people have seen that the islamists in power, have given them poverty, drug abuse, boredom, oppression, and general discontent. many of these are dissadents, they oppose everything that the ruling ayatollahas and their henchmen stand for. don’t surprised that these young people express very strong pro western and anti ayatollahas feelings.

0 replies · active 2 days ago  

This is not a new thing unfortunately. During the early times following the islamic revolution, my parents had an ugly encounter with one of those arab imported thugs. My parents were walking in the street and this militia man went up to my mum and right up into her face and started screaming at her in arabic and waving his hands around in a threatening manner. My mum had no idea why this neanderthal was screaming at her but instinctly put her hands to her head to see whether her hijab was on “correctly” and scanned the rest of her body as to whether she was properly dressed according to “islamic ideals”. My dad lost his cool and shoved the twirp and screamed back “What are you saying? We dont understand you. Speak Farsi or atleast Armenian so I can understand why you would be treating my wife in such an ugly manner”

30 years on and my parents are still p*ssed off about that incident.


1 reply · active 2 days ago  

Another Family Feud! A Grudge match over the Pie being made with Rotten or Wormy Apples. I suppose we should support the Wormy Apples. If your handy with a knife you might save enough of the Fruit.

In the mean time, let them throw the Apples at each other while the crust is baking.


0 replies · active 2 days ago  

Free Persia!

1 reply · active 2 days ago  

Where will all these displaced Syrians called ‘palestineans’ be able to encamp without causing trouble ?

Bermuda ?

The Obamination can get them there.


0 replies · active 2 days ago  

On Tuesday two protesters told The Jerusalem Post that Palestinian Hamas members are helping the Iranian authorities crush street protests in support of Mousavi.

I’ve heard rumors that Hizb’allah members are involved also–not withstanding that Mousavi was *one of the founders* of that murderous organization.

Islam–where everyday is the “Night of the Long Knives”. The “peace of Islam” in action. Ugly, ugly stuff.


2 replies · active 2 days ago  

Is there no way we can encourage the people of Iran who are now being brutalized by the bastard thugs running that theocracy ?

The failed pres hasnt the balls or the brains to stand up for the Iranian people.

This failed president is not even for our own liberty. Screw him.

How can we encourage the Iranian people ?


By Felix Quigley

June 20, 2009

Robert on Jihadwatch has an excellent insight into the war against the Mullahs in Iran

[begin quote from Jihadwatch here]

This just in from a contact who is in touch with people in Iran. Usually Khamenei doesn’t lead Friday prayers or give a sermon — usually a “substitute” prayer leader does it. But today Khamenei gave his pitch, and here’s the result:

I just had call from Iran, tonight people in streets and the roof of their houses were shouting “Allah Akbar”, “Down with Khamenei”, “Down with Dictator”.

This has, of course, gone way beyond a call to allow Mousavi take office. Will it topple the Islamic Republic itself? Certainly things are spiraling way out of control as far as the mullahs are concerned. The shouts of “Allahu akbar” should not be taken to indicate that the Islamic Republic is not threatened — that’s the cultural context in which these people are operating, and doesn’t mean that there is not discontent with the very foundations of the state.

[end quote from Robert here]

Readers of this blog should now visit this thread on Jihadwatch and view in particular the comments which are infredibly reactionary and show the strange paths that they can get into. A little like Yamit82 on Israpundit getting the fols there all tied up in Holocaust denial, if it is Serbs who are holocausted.

The discussion is on


The comments stand in marked contrast to the correct reference above of  Robert. I will repeat what he says


“The shouts of “Allahu akbar” should not be taken to indicate that the Islamic Republic is not threatened — that’s the cultural context in which these people are operating, and doesn’t mean that there is not discontent with the very foundations of the state.”

In dialectical terms it is the difference between form and content.

The content is the crisis in world capitalism which has driven the Islamofascists into a corner, where they can satisfy no single demand of the masses in the cities and universities especially, and where the Ahmadinajad base among the ruRal poor has eroded as well.

What is left then for the Mullahs? Mainly just hatred of Jews. Their attacks on America has got this as content as well, that is antisemitism.

The form is the demonstrations which are exceedingly dangerous to participate in and require the ultimate in courage on the part of the youth.

Read how these shit commentators on Jihad watch run these youth into the gutter, in their minds and language, they do not see the revolutionary content of the demonstrating youth.

If you scan through Israpundit you will see something similar by a Mr Bill Narvey. Que surprise!

Please comment below, if private mark it private.


June 20, 2009

This has been covered in Jihadwatch as well

[begin quote here]

Militants behead Afghan university student 2009-06-19 21:17:26  
    KABUL, June 19 (Xinhua) — Several armed militants entered the compound of Kandahar University in south Afghanistan Friday and after beheading a student took away another.

    “The gruesome incident occurred at 11:00 a.m. local time when several unknown armed militants entered the compound while students were enjoying weekly holiday (Friday) in the garden of university and horribly beheaded Mushtaq Ahmad and took away another,” Ahmad Shah a student of the university told Xinhua.

    The terrified Shah added that Mushtaq was a student of grade fourth of medical faculty of Kandahar university.

    This is the first time that militants attack higher educational institutions in the country.

    Police officials at the site did not put finger at any particular groups, saying the enemies of peace a term used against Taliban militants are behind such barbaric acts.

    Taliban fighters who have vowed to intensify activities this year in Afghanistan have not made comment so far.


by Felix Quigley

13 May, 2009

We on 4international are of course dialectical materialists. A recent controversy on Israpundit affirmed however that being dialectical and materialist we are intensely interested in the green shoots of living reality. One of these is certainly the outrage and hatred which was and is showed towards the lecture of the present Pope when he visited his old university to give a lecture. This was at the University of Regensburg back in 2006.

The Pope´s lecture was in essence dealing with Jihad.

We can dispense with the first small talk paragraph which goes back to 1959 when the Pope was a teacher there.

The rest is what is directly relevant

[Start remained of Pope´s lecture here]

I was reminded of all this recently, when I read the edition by Professor Theodore Khoury (Münster) of part of the dialogue carried on – perhaps in 1391 in the winter barracks near Ankara – by the erudite Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus and an educated Persian on the subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both. It was presumably the emperor himself who set down this dialogue, during the siege of Constantinople between 1394 and 1402; and this would explain why his arguments are given in greater detail than those of his Persian interlocutor. The dialogue ranges widely over the structures of faith contained in the Bible and in the Qur’an, and deals especially with the image of God and of man, while necessarily returning repeatedly to the relationship between – as they were called – three “Laws” or “rules of life”: the Old Testament, the New Testament and the Qur’an. It is not my intention to discuss this question in the present lecture; here I would like to discuss only one point – itself rather marginal to the dialogue as a whole – which, in the context of the issue of “faith and reason”, I found interesting and which can serve as the starting-point for my reflections on this issue.

In the seventh conversation (διάλεξις – controversy) edited by Professor Khoury, the emperor touches on the theme of the holy war. The emperor must have known that surah 2, 256 reads: “There is no compulsion in religion”. According to some of the experts, this is probably one of the suras of the early period, when Mohammed was still powerless and under threat. But naturally the emperor also knew the instructions, developed later and recorded in the Qur’an, concerning holy war. Without descending to details, such as the difference in treatment accorded to those who have the “Book” and the “infidels”, he addresses his interlocutor with a startling brusqueness, a brusqueness that we find unacceptable, on the central question about the relationship between religion and violence in general, saying: “Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.”[3] The emperor, after having expressed himself so forcefully, goes on to explain in detail the reasons why spreading the faith through violence is something unreasonable. Violence is incompatible with the nature of God and the nature of the soul. “God”, he says, “is not pleased by blood – and not acting reasonably (σὺν λόγω) is contrary to God’s nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats… To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death…”.[4]

The decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion is this: not to act in accordance with reason is contrary to God’s nature.[5] The editor, Theodore Khoury, observes: For the emperor, as a Byzantine shaped by Greek philosophy, this statement is self-evident. But for Muslim teaching, God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality.[6] Here Khoury quotes a work of the noted French Islamist R. Arnaldez, who points out that Ibn Hazm went so far as to state that God is not bound even by his own word, and that nothing would oblige him to reveal the truth to us. Were it God’s will, we would even have to practise idolatry.[7]

At this point, as far as understanding of God and thus the concrete practice of religion is concerned, we are faced with an unavoidable dilemma. Is the conviction that acting unreasonably contradicts God’s nature merely a Greek idea, or is it always and intrinsically true? I believe that here we can see the profound harmony between what is Greek in the best sense of the word and the biblical understanding of faith in God. Modifying the first verse of the Book of Genesis, the first verse of the whole Bible, John began the prologue of his Gospel with the words: “In the beginning was the λόγος”. This is the very word used by the emperor: God acts, σὺν λόγω, with logos. Logos means both reason and word – a reason which is creative and capable of self-communication, precisely as reason. John thus spoke the final word on the biblical concept of God, and in this word all the often toilsome and tortuous threads of biblical faith find their culmination and synthesis. In the beginning was the logos, and the logos is God, says the Evangelist. The encounter between the Biblical message and Greek thought did not happen by chance. The vision of Saint Paul, who saw the roads to Asia barred and in a dream saw a Macedonian man plead with him: “Come over to Macedonia and help us!” (cf. Acts 16:6-10) – this vision can be interpreted as a “distillation” of the intrinsic necessity of a rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek inquiry.

In point of fact, this rapprochement had been going on for some time. The mysterious name of God, revealed from the burning bush, a name which separates this God from all other divinities with their many names and simply asserts being, “I am”, already presents a challenge to the notion of myth, to which Socrates’ attempt to vanquish and transcend myth stands in close analogy.[8] Within the Old Testament, the process which started at the burning bush came to new maturity at the time of the Exile, when the God of Israel, an Israel now deprived of its land and worship, was proclaimed as the God of heaven and earth and described in a simple formula which echoes the words uttered at the burning bush: “I am”. This new understanding of God is accompanied by a kind of enlightenment, which finds stark expression in the mockery of gods who are merely the work of human hands (cf. Ps 115). Thus, despite the bitter conflict with those Hellenistic rulers who sought to accommodate it forcibly to the customs and idolatrous cult of the Greeks, biblical faith, in the Hellenistic period, encountered the best of Greek thought at a deep level, resulting in a mutual enrichment evident especially in the later wisdom literature. Today we know that the Greek translation of the Old Testament produced at Alexandria – the Septuagint – is more than a simple (and in that sense really less than satisfactory) translation of the Hebrew text: it is an independent textual witness and a distinct and important step in the history of revelation, one which brought about this encounter in a way that was decisive for the birth and spread of Christianity.[9] A profound encounter of faith and reason is taking place here, an encounter between genuine enlightenment and religion. From the very heart of Christian faith and, at the same time, the heart of Greek thought now joined to faith, Manuel II was able to say: Not to act “with logos” is contrary to God’s nature.

In all honesty, one must observe that in the late Middle Ages we find trends in theology which would sunder this synthesis between the Greek spirit and the Christian spirit. In contrast with the so-called intellectualism of Augustine and Thomas, there arose with Duns Scotus a voluntarism which, in its later developments, led to the claim that we can only know God’s voluntas ordinata. Beyond this is the realm of God’s freedom, in virtue of which he could have done the opposite of everything he has actually done. This gives rise to positions which clearly approach those of Ibn Hazm and might even lead to the image of a capricious God, who is not even bound to truth and goodness. God’s transcendence and otherness are so exalted that our reason, our sense of the true and good, are no longer an authentic mirror of God, whose deepest possibilities remain eternally unattainable and hidden behind his actual decisions. As opposed to this, the faith of the Church has always insisted that between God and us, between his eternal Creator Spirit and our created reason there exists a real analogy, in which – as the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215 stated – unlikeness remains infinitely greater than likeness, yet not to the point of abolishing analogy and its language. God does not become more divine when we push him away from us in a sheer, impenetrable voluntarism; rather, the truly divine God is the God who has revealed himself as logos and, as logos, has acted and continues to act lovingly on our behalf. Certainly, love, as Saint Paul says, “transcends” knowledge and is thereby capable of perceiving more than thought alone (cf. Eph 3:19); nonetheless it continues to be love of the God who is Logos. Consequently, Christian worship is, again to quote Paul – “λογικη λατρεία”, worship in harmony with the eternal Word and with our reason (cf. Rom 12:1).[10]

This inner rapprochement between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry was an event of decisive importance not only from the standpoint of the history of religions, but also from that of world history – it is an event which concerns us even today. Given this convergence, it is not surprising that Christianity, despite its origins and some significant developments in the East, finally took on its historically decisive character in Europe. We can also express this the other way around: this convergence, with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage, created Europe and remains the foundation of what can rightly be called Europe.

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a dehellenization of Christianity – a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the programme of dehellenization: although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.[11]

Dehellenization first emerges in connection with the postulates of the Reformation in the sixteenth century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system. The principle of sola scriptura, on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this programme forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of dehellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this programme was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In my inaugural lecture at Bonn in 1959, I tried to address the issue,[12] and I do not intend to repeat here what I said on that occasion, but I would like to describe at least briefly what was new about this second stage of dehellenization. Harnack’s central idea was to return simply to the man Jesus and to his simple message, underneath the accretions of theology and indeed of hellenization: this simple message was seen as the culmination of the religious development of humanity. Jesus was said to have put an end to worship in favour of morality. In the end he was presented as the father of a humanitarian moral message. Fundamentally, Harnack’s goal was to bring Christianity back into harmony with modern reason, liberating it, that is to say, from seemingly philosophical and theological elements, such as faith in Christ’s divinity and the triune God. In this sense, historical-critical exegesis of the New Testament, as he saw it, restored to theology its place within the university: theology, for Harnack, is something essentially historical and therefore strictly scientific. What it is able to say critically about Jesus is, so to speak, an expression of practical reason and consequently it can take its rightful place within the university. Behind this thinking lies the modern self-limitation of reason, classically expressed in Kant’s “Critiques”, but in the meantime further radicalized by the impact of the natural sciences. This modern concept of reason is based, to put it briefly, on a synthesis between Platonism (Cartesianism) and empiricism, a synthesis confirmed by the success of technology. On the one hand it presupposes the mathematical structure of matter, its intrinsic rationality, which makes it possible to understand how matter works and use it efficiently: this basic premise is, so to speak, the Platonic element in the modern understanding of nature. On the other hand, there is nature’s capacity to be exploited for our purposes, and here only the possibility of verification or falsification through experimentation can yield decisive certainty. The weight between the two poles can, depending on the circumstances, shift from one side to the other. As strongly positivistic a thinker as J. Monod has declared himself a convinced Platonist/Cartesian.

This gives rise to two principles which are crucial for the issue we have raised. First, only the kind of certainty resulting from the interplay of mathematical and empirical elements can be considered scientific. Anything that would claim to be science must be measured against this criterion. Hence the human sciences, such as history, psychology, sociology and philosophy, attempt to conform themselves to this canon of scientificity. A second point, which is important for our reflections, is that by its very nature this method excludes the question of God, making it appear an unscientific or pre-scientific question. Consequently, we are faced with a reduction of the radius of science and reason, one which needs to be questioned.

I will return to this problem later. In the meantime, it must be observed that from this standpoint any attempt to maintain theology’s claim to be “scientific” would end up reducing Christianity to a mere fragment of its former self. But we must say more: if science as a whole is this and this alone, then it is man himself who ends up being reduced, for the specifically human questions about our origin and destiny, the questions raised by religion and ethics, then have no place within the purview of collective reason as defined by “science”, so understood, and must thus be relegated to the realm of the subjective. The subject then decides, on the basis of his experiences, what he considers tenable in matters of religion, and the subjective “conscience” becomes the sole arbiter of what is ethical. In this way, though, ethics and religion lose their power to create a community and become a completely personal matter. This is a dangerous state of affairs for humanity, as we see from the disturbing pathologies of religion and reason which necessarily erupt when reason is so reduced that questions of religion and ethics no longer concern it. Attempts to construct an ethic from the rules of evolution or from psychology and sociology, end up being simply inadequate.

Before I draw the conclusions to which all this has been leading, I must briefly refer to the third stage of dehellenization, which is now in progress. In the light of our experience with cultural pluralism, it is often said nowadays that the synthesis with Hellenism achieved in the early Church was an initial inculturation which ought not to be binding on other cultures. The latter are said to have the right to return to the simple message of the New Testament prior to that inculturation, in order to inculturate it anew in their own particular milieux. This thesis is not simply false, but it is coarse and lacking in precision. The New Testament was written in Greek and bears the imprint of the Greek spirit, which had already come to maturity as the Old Testament developed. True, there are elements in the evolution of the early Church which do not have to be integrated into all cultures. Nonetheless, the fundamental decisions made about the relationship between faith and the use of human reason are part of the faith itself; they are developments consonant with the nature of faith itself.

And so I come to my conclusion. This attempt, painted with broad strokes, at a critique of modern reason from within has nothing to do with putting the clock back to the time before the Enlightenment and rejecting the insights of the modern age. The positive aspects of modernity are to be acknowledged unreservedly: we are all grateful for the marvellous possibilities that it has opened up for mankind and for the progress in humanity that has been granted to us. The scientific ethos, moreover, is – as you yourself mentioned, Magnificent Rector – the will to be obedient to the truth, and, as such, it embodies an attitude which belongs to the essential decisions of the Christian spirit. The intention here is not one of retrenchment or negative criticism, but of broadening our concept of reason and its application. While we rejoice in the new possibilities open to humanity, we also see the dangers arising from these possibilities and we must ask ourselves how we can overcome them. We will succeed in doing so only if reason and faith come together in a new way, if we overcome the self-imposed limitation of reason to the empirically falsifiable, and if we once more disclose its vast horizons. In this sense theology rightly belongs in the university and within the wide-ranging dialogue of sciences, not merely as a historical discipline and one of the human sciences, but precisely as theology, as inquiry into the rationality of faith.

Only thus do we become capable of that genuine dialogue of cultures and religions so urgently needed today. In the Western world it is widely held that only positivistic reason and the forms of philosophy based on it are universally valid. Yet the world’s profoundly religious cultures see this exclusion of the divine from the universality of reason as an attack on their most profound convictions. A reason which is deaf to the divine and which relegates religion into the realm of subcultures is incapable of entering into the dialogue of cultures. At the same time, as I have attempted to show, modern scientific reason with its intrinsically Platonic element bears within itself a question which points beyond itself and beyond the possibilities of its methodology. Modern scientific reason quite simply has to accept the rational structure of matter and the correspondence between our spirit and the prevailing rational structures of nature as a given, on which its methodology has to be based. Yet the question why this has to be so is a real question, and one which has to be remanded by the natural sciences to other modes and planes of thought – to philosophy and theology. For philosophy and, albeit in a different way, for theology, listening to the great experiences and insights of the religious traditions of humanity, and those of the Christian faith in particular, is a source of knowledge, and to ignore it would be an unacceptable restriction of our listening and responding. Here I am reminded of something Socrates said to Phaedo. In their earlier conversations, many false philosophical opinions had been raised, and so Socrates says: “It would be easily understandable if someone became so annoyed at all these false notions that for the rest of his life he despised and mocked all talk about being – but in this way he would be deprived of the truth of existence and would suffer a great loss”.[13] The West has long been endangered by this aversion to the questions which underlie its rationality, and can only suffer great harm thereby. The courage to engage the whole breadth of reason, and not the denial of its grandeur – this is the programme with which a theology grounded in Biblical faith enters into the debates of our time. “Not to act reasonably, not to act with logos, is contrary to the nature of God”, said Manuel II, according to his Christian understanding of God, in response to his Persian interlocutor. It is to this great logos, to this breadth of reason, that we invite our partners in the dialogue of cultures. To rediscover it constantly is the great task of the university.

[1] Of the total number of 26 conversations (διάλεξις – Khoury translates this as “controversy”) in the dialogue (“Entretien”), T. Khoury published the 7th “controversy” with footnotes and an extensive introduction on the origin of the text, on the manuscript tradition and on the structure of the dialogue, together with brief summaries of the “controversies” not included in the edition;  the Greek text is accompanied by a French translation:  “Manuel II Paléologue, Entretiens avec un Musulman.  7e Controverse”,  Sources Chrétiennes n. 115, Paris 1966.  In the meantime, Karl Förstel published in Corpus Islamico-Christianum (Series Graeca  ed. A. T. Khoury and R. Glei) an edition of the text in Greek and German with commentary:  “Manuel II. Palaiologus, Dialoge mit einem Muslim”, 3 vols., Würzburg-Altenberge 1993-1996.  As early as 1966, E. Trapp had published the Greek text with an introduction as vol. II of Wiener byzantinische Studien.  I shall be quoting from Khoury’s edition.

[2] On the origin and redaction of the dialogue, cf. Khoury, pp. 22-29;  extensive comments in this regard can also be found in the editions of Förstel and Trapp.

[3] Controversy VII, 2 c:  Khoury, pp. 142-143;  Förstel, vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.5, pp. 240-241.  In the Muslim world, this quotation has unfortunately been taken as an expression of my personal position, thus arousing understandable indignation.  I hope that the reader of my text can see immediately that this sentence does not express my personal view of the Qur’an, for which I have the respect due to the holy book of a great religion.  In quoting the text of the Emperor Manuel II, I intended solely to draw out the essential relationship between faith and reason.  On this point I am in agreement with Manuel II, but without endorsing his polemic.

[4] Controversy VII, 3 b–c:  Khoury, pp. 144-145;  Förstel vol. I, VII. Dialog 1.6, pp. 240-243.

[5] It was purely for the sake of this statement that I quoted the dialogue between Manuel and his Persian interlocutor.  In this statement the theme of my subsequent reflections emerges.

[6] Cf. Khoury, p. 144, n. 1.

[7] R. Arnaldez, Grammaire et théologie chez Ibn Hazm de Cordoue, Paris 1956, p. 13;  cf. Khoury, p. 144.  The fact that comparable positions exist in the theology of the late Middle Ages will appear later in my discourse.

[8] Regarding the widely discussed interpretation of the episode of the burning bush, I refer to my book Introduction to Christianity, London 1969, pp. 77-93  (originally published in German as Einführung in das Christentum, Munich 1968;  N.B. the pages quoted refer to the entire chapter entitled “The Biblical Belief in God”).  I think that my statements in that book, despite later developments in the discussion, remain valid today.

[9] Cf. A. Schenker, “L’Écriture sainte subsiste en plusieurs formes canoniques simultanées”, in L’Interpretazione della Bibbia nella Chiesa.  Atti del Simposio promosso dalla Congregazione per la Dottrina della Fede, Vatican City 2001, pp. 178-186.

[10] On this matter I expressed myself in greater detail in my book The Spirit of the Liturgy, San Francisco 2000, pp. 44-50.

[11] Of the vast literature on the theme of dehellenization, I would like to mention above all:  A. Grillmeier, “Hellenisierung-Judaisierung des Christentums als Deuteprinzipien der Geschichte des kirchlichen Dogmas”, in idem, Mit ihm und in ihm.  Christologische Forschungen und Perspektiven,  Freiburg 1975, pp. 423-488.

[12] Newly published with commentary by Heino Sonnemans (ed.):  Joseph Ratzinger-Benedikt XVI, Der Gott des Glaubens und der Gott der Philosophen.  Ein Beitrag zum Problem der theologia naturalis, Johannes-Verlag Leutesdorf, 2nd revised edition, 2005.

[13] Cf. 90 c-d.  For this text, cf. also R. Guardini, Der Tod des Sokrates, 5th edition, Mainz-Paderborn 1987, pp. 218-221.

[End the Pope´s Regensburg lecture here]


The key issues in the above was explained to us by another Catholic writer and it makes interesting reading indeed

This is by a Fr Joseph Fessio, S.J.

(Is Dialogue with Islam Possible? Some Reflections on Pope Benedict XVI’s Address at the University of Regensburg | Fr. Joseph Fessio, S.J. | September 18, 2006 )

[Start quote by Fr Fession here]


as the starting point of his lecture, Benedict takes a 14th century dialogue between the Byzantine Emperor and a learned Muslim to focus on the central question of the entire lecture: whether God is Logos. The Emperor’s objection to Islam is Mohammed’s “command to spread by the sword the faith he preached”. The emperor asserts that this is not in accordance with right reason, and “not acting reasonably is contrary to God’s nature”. Benedict points to this as “the decisive statement in this argument against violent conversion”.


It is at this point in the lecture that Benedict makes a statement which cannot be avoided or evaded if there is ever to be any dialogue between Christianity and Islam that is more than empty words and diplomatic gestures. For the Emperor, God’s rationality is “self-evident”. But for Muslim teaching, according to the editor of the book from which Benedict has been quoting, “God is absolutely transcendent. His will is not bound up with any of our categories, even that of rationality”.

Benedict has struck bedrock. This is the challenge to Islam. This is the issue that lies beneath all the rest. If God is above reason in this way, then it is useless to employ rational arguments against (or for) forced conversion, terrorism, or Sharia law, which calls for the execution of Muslim converts to Christianity. If God wills it, it is beyond discussion.

The key words from Fessio are “If God is above reason in this way, then it is useless to employ rational arguments against (or for)”

And Fessio has emphasised int he strongest possible terms that if this is not confronted then they can talk to Islam till the cows come home but they will get nowhere.

Fessio seems to me as a materialist to bog himself down in a few paragraphs which follow the above so I will skip those. But he comes back to earth with the following:

[Begin second quote from Fessio here]


 It’s worth noting, however, that while consistent Christians and Muslims in fact hold the position of the other to be erroneous in important ways, the Christian is not obliged by his faith to subject the Muslim to dhimmitude nor to deny him his religious freedom. There is a serious asymmetry here, which Benedict has criticized before. The Saudis can build a multi-million dollar mosque in Rome; but Christians can be arrested in Saudi Arabia for possessing a Bible.


Certainly, it may sound provocative to make the claim the Emperor did. But why (since Christians believe that God’s full and definitive revelation has come with Christ, who brings all prophecy to an end) isn’t it just as provocative for a Muslim to proclaim that Mohammed is a new prophet, bringing new revelation that corrects and supplements that of Christ?

Is it really offensive to say that Christians and Muslims disagree profoundly about this? Is not this the necessary starting point that must be recognized before any religious dialogue can even begin?

And if the response from Islam is violence, then must we not ask precisely the question raised by Benedict: Is this violence an aberration that is inconsistent with genuine Islam (as similar violence by Christians would be an aberration inconsistent with genuine Christianity)? Or is it justifiable on the basis of Islam’s image of God as absolutely transcending all human categories, even that of rationality? And if the response to this question is violence, then the question has been answered existentially, and rational dialogue has been repudiated.

[end second quote from Fessio here]

So the whole forces of the Muslim world were suddenly breathing fire and thunder against poor old Benedict.

Fessio in the above is not overly optimistic at there being a “reasonable” discussion.


And he concludes with a few more gems in this: “Byzantium was increasingly threatened in the 14th century by an aggressive Islamic force, the growing Ottoman Empire. The Byzantine Emperor seems to have committed the dialogue to writing while his imperial capital, Constantinople, was under siege by the Ottoman Turks. It would fall definitively in 1453. Muslims were military enemies, engaged in a war of aggression against Byzantium. Yet even in these circumstances the Christian Emperor and the learned Persian Muslim could be utterly candid with one another and discuss civilly their fundamental religious differences. As Benedict described the dialogue, the subject was “Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both”.


The West is once again under siege. Doubly so because in addition to terrorist attacks there is a new form of conquest: immigration coupled with high fertility. Let us hope that, following the Holy Father’s courageous example in these troubled times, there can be a dialogue whose subject is the truth claims of Christianity and Islam.”

The fact that Benedict scuttled back into his Vatican shell at something approaching speed of light is neither here nor there.

The main point that he had made could not be so easily withdrawn. OK so Benedict proves to an absolute weasel. He appears yesterday in Bethlehem and uses all of the antisemitic emotion of his church, and attacks Jews openly by giving his support to the Jihad against Israel in the form of “his” beloved Palestinians, who merely wish to have a Palestinian state in order to ensure that the Jews will have no state, the Palestinians seeing this as a step towards the destruction of Israel, this vital step of forming a Jihadist state old Benedict pops up and advocates.

So he is a weasel. He cannot carry though on any of the logic he employed in his Regensburg Lecture.


That will be for a new leadership in the world, a Trotskyist leadership, a leadership which will not flinch from reasoning and from Reason. 





by Felix Quigley

July 11, 2008

Israel must now act to destroy the Iranian Nuclear Bomb making without any delay. This means that Israel must without any hesitation whatsoever declare war on the Iranian Islamofascist regime and must strike and strike hard at these bomb making facilities which the Mullahs are running.

At the same time Israel must break decisively from American Imperialism which in every statement and in every action that it takes now, shows that it is a friend of Iran, and not a friend of Israel.

Every single thing that we have learned about the US Imperialists in the destruction of Yugoslavia shows that the US is in league with Islam and Islamofascism on a world scale. We know that the US supported the Fascist Tudjman in the murder and ethnic cleansing of the Krajina of half a million of Serbs. We know that the US was fully behind the Islamofascist Izetbegovic. We know that the US in Bosnia joined with Bin Laden, Saudi Arabia and Iran in using Islamist killers to crush the Serbs. We know that the US along with the party of Izetbegovic planned and created the hoax “massacre” in Srebrenica in otrder to crush the Serbs. Continue reading


by Felix Quigley

July 4, 2008

When the BBC reported on the Bulldozer driven by the genocidal and Jew Hating Arab in Jerusalem two days ago this is how it went:  “The first report by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) on Wednesday’s deadly terrorist attack in Jerusalem was aired under the headline “Israel bulldozer driver shot dead” [sic] according to media watchdog organization”

The BBC as is well known is extremely anti Israel, anti Jew and Zionist, anti Serb, so it was therefore no surprize that it reported the horrific murder by a Palestinian Arab of 3 Jews in Jerusalem in the strangest and most evasive manner possible. To the BBC in its first report, it was as if the bulldozer suddenly acquired animate powers and took off by itself. That is animate PLUS genocidal powers.

This aspect of the reporting was taken up by Honest Reporting which fortunately for all of us keeps a good close eye on the Media and especially on the BBC.

If only we had something as powerful as Honest Reporting to plot all the lies against the Serbs in Yugoslavia for the past 20 years.

Quite rightly IsraelNationalNews also fastened onto the bias towards the Arab “Palestinians” shown by the BBC. It is well worth noting! Continue reading


by Felix Quigley

29 June, 2008

Penny Marshall tried to say that she never used the word “concentration camp” when she and her cameraman took the photo composed of two main elements, a skinny man and some strands of barbed wire. However in the last article, the report by Professor Wladimiroff we see that it was totally unnecesasary for Marshal to do so. Marshall and ITN had a whole organizational backup for distributing that film around the world and the film was accompanied by text which did just that.

Penny Marshall is an accomplished deceiver, that special kind of deceit which has been bred into the British ruling class over many centuries. Continue reading


By Felix Quigley

May 11,2008

Just a few hours ago this happened as reported in IsraelNationalNews:

[begin quote here]

Israel Air Force pilots were back in the skies above Gaza on Wednesday, pounding terrorist positions in the wake of more attacks on southern Israeli communities.

Shortly after 12:00 noon, IAF aircraft struck a terrorist cell that launched a mortar attack against Kibbutz Nir Oz earlier in the morning killing one terrorist. Nir Oz is where a 51-year-old factory worker was killed by mortar fire less than a week before.

[end quote here]

This is the reality of life for Jews in Israel. They continue to have to fight a war against Arabs who seek to kill Jews. Continue reading


By Felix Quigley

June 2, 2008

Things are very far advanced along the road of the betrayal of Israel to Antisemitic Fascist Arabs as the following report makes clear.

[begin quote here]

Israel and Palestinian Authority negotiating teams, headed by Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Ahmed Qurei (Abu Ala), respectively, have been meeting for months with the goal of formulating a final status peace agreement, or at least the principles of such.  Their goal is the creation of a Palestinian state on most or all of Judea and Samaria, which is currently populated by hundreds of thousands of Jews.  Intermittent reports of various levels of progress have been reported, but without details.  Continue reading