Yesterday, the 22nd of May marked two horrific anniversaries and these anniversaries were linked by one thing and one thing only, Islamic extremism. The first was the brutal murder of Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich South London in 2013 and the second was the mass slaughter of concert goers at the Manchester Arena in 2017.
We the people, no matter what our race, sexual preference or peaceful religious belief system remember these two horrific attacks. We know why they happened, we know how they happened and we know that it was Islam that motivated them. We recall them vividly and see them for what they are, which are attacks carried out by those following an ideology that is intricately and closely linked with violence.
We understand clearly that Lee Rigby died in truly monstrous circumstances at the hands of two converts to Islam, that many of the mosques that this evil pair passed through did little or nothing to divert them from extremism and that the aftermath of this truly bestial murder was hijacked by those from the Left, the mainstream media and from Islamic groups, who wanted to divert attention away from the ideology that was ultimately behind this killing. The aim of these entities was to promote the falsehood that Lee Rigby’s murder was ‘nothing to do with Islam’ despite it being quite obvious that the two murderers were followers of Islam and not for example Methodism.
The Manchester Arena bombing was carried out by a beast of a man, who with the assistance of members of his own family, murdered 22 people. The savage bomber was clearly motivated to kill by his interpretation of Islam yet the state decided to play down this aspect in the immediate aftermath and instead encouraged people to ‘not look back in anger’. As time has gone on and more has come out about the savage behind the Manchester bombing has come out via various enquiries. We’ve found out that not only was the bombing savage’s whole family suspect as regards Islamic extremism but also that successive British governments had done nothing to prevent them moving to Britain and that this bombing could have been prevented had those in charge of security and those who were working in security on the night of the bombing, not been so fearful of being called ‘racist’ when the bomber was seen acting suspiciously prior to the bomb being triggered.
These are two undoubtedly horrific anniversaries that should have been marked with honesty and candour, however the Government’s response to these anniversaries in the form of a Tweet from Prime Minister Boris Johnson left a lot to be desired.
Here’s the Tweet from the Prime Minister:
What a complete crock of shit this Tweet is. Firstly there’s no mention of the murder of Lee Rigby nor the plainly obvious reason why he was targeted for death by two Islamic savages and secondly there’s the use of the mealy mouthed words ‘lost their lives’ regarding the Manchester Arena bombing.
Those who died in the Manchester Arena bombing did not lose their lives in a tragic accident, they were murdered and what’s pertinent here is that they were murdered in the name of Islam, by a Muslim who saw nothing wrong in killing for Islam’s deity Allah. To use the term ‘losing their lives’ in the context of this Tweet implies that this was a random tragedy, something that could not have been prevented when that is plainly is not the case. Both of these tragedies, the murder of Lee Rigby and the Manchester Arena atrocity could have been prevented had the governments of the day taken a robust, critical and realistic view of Islam. These governments could have stated the obvious and took the view that whilst Islam is a quite nasty death cult whose tenets are at odds with those of Western societies, that doesn’t mean that all Muslims are potential terrorists, there are some Muslims who are decent but they are decent in spite of Islam and not because of it. Unfortunately, various governments did not take this ‘Islamocriticial’ view, instead they promulgated the lie that ‘Islam is a religion of peace’, appeased Islamic activists and groups and demonised those who asked awkward questions about the theology of Islam and its effects on non-Muslim societies.
So where has all this appeasement of Islam and failing to tackle Islamic extremism got us? Has it brought about genuine tolerance and a positive relationship between decent Muslim individuals and members of other groups and with the majority? Reader, I’m afraid that it has not done anything of the sort. Successive and baleful appeasement of Islam and a failure of governments to be honest about the ideology of Islam has brought us nothing but more destruction more death and, as you can see from the video below, gangs of Muslims and Leftists playing ‘hunt the Jew’ on British streets.
Boris Johnson’s government, like so many other governments prior to his, has failed to even acknowledge where the vast majority of terrorism and extremism is coming from and I’m afraid that this failure will ultimately not end well. You can fool some of the people with the sort of mealy mouthed platitudes of the sort that can be found in Boris Johnson’s Tweet, but the rest of us know better and we are disgusted by such dishonesty and failure to observe a very aggressive elephant in the room.
One of the main reasons I decided not to believe in any religion is because I think religion freezes culture in time.
If people want to believe in religion it should be acknowledged that this should be a belief only and not law. Nobody who believes storytellers of the past should ever think their own beliefs are the epitome of what is right.
And welcome back FH.
Does that include Judaism, the religion of our very own FH?
What say you, FH.
Have done and will do. For example I’ve called out the hypocrisy of those members of the Jewish Left calling for ‘refugees welcome’ whilst never having to live alongside the ‘refugees’ that they want to import.
Thank you for the welcome back. You have a point about freezing culture in time and that’s a good one. However there is a counter argument to that in that peaceful religions act as a cultural brake against anarchy and unfettered progressivism, preserve moral standards and provide a cultural framework for a society. I respect atheists and agnostics who’ve chosen their path and I see your point about stories from the past but these stories are not untouched by later knowledge and often, at least in Judaism and Christianity, get reinterpreted for the modern world. For example: A Jew of the Temple period prior to 70 CE could have a very different interpretation of the Biblical passage about the binding of Isaac than a modern non Orthodox Jew might have. The Temple Jew might see this story as representing unflinching obedience to the Eternal One whereas a modern Jew might see both unflinching obedience and mindless obedience.
Plenty of good points for me to consider.
I have missed your wise words FH.
Dear FH
I have been thinking about what you said and I think that people from an early age should be taught about religions with an emphasis on the country’s main following religion yet what I find a problem is that in the past and occasionally currently, religion is taught as fact.
Good morals, social preservation and progression and kindness should be the things taught as fact yet this seems to be preached combined into religion which I don’t think it should be.
Let me know what you think.
I believe that schools should teach religions only by teaching this is what this religion believes and this is what that religion believes. I certainly agree that there should be an emphasis in Christianity as it is what has been the backbone of morality and culture in the UK. We are the only Jews in our village and I have no objection to our child being taught the fundamentals of Christianity just as long as the school doesn’t make him wear a Cross. I certainly do not agree with the teaching of the Biblical Creation stories as fact as they conflict with pretty solid scientific knowledge. What non-Orthodox Jews of my acquaintance do is teach their children the Genesis story but also point out that this was how an ancient people with little scientific knowledge explained the world. However we can still be inspired by the stories as moral lessons and allegories.
I agree that good morals and the other things that you mention need to be taught but so many of these things are bound up in religious roots that it is difficult to separate them. How for example to teach the concept that stealing is wrong without reference to the Eighth Commandment?
I’ve seen some really awful misuses of religion for political ends over the last few years. For me one of the most egregious is the small (at least in the UK) but noisy Jewish Left’s hijacking of the verse from Deuteronomy ‘You shall love the stranger because you were once strangers in the land of Egypt’, which can be taken to mean do not take an instant dislike to someone because they are a stranger or a foreigner without finding out about them first but the Jewish Left has misinterpreted it to mean ‘lets have no borders’. This misguided misreading of this Deuteronomy passage has not only harmed Western societies by landing them with burdensome migrants from unassimilatable cultures but has also endangered Jews as so many of these unassimilable burdensome migrants come from cultures that not only hate Jews but want to kill us. The Jewish left has done the same with the term ‘tikkun olam’ which for Orthodox Jews means bringing about a perfect world by shying away from all forms of idolatry but which the Jewish Left has interpreted as ‘social justice’. BTW I despise the term ‘social justice’ because if you are putting prefixes onto the word ‘justice’ then it means something other than pure justice.
At the end of the day Muslims are a bunch of brainwashed idiots who follow a cult which is thousands of years old, started by a psychotic mental case who was a peadophile.
If you read through the Koran you will see only hatred and intolerance towards anything other than the Islamic cult. Nothing about love or forgiveness, nothing kind or right, only hate, murder, rape, the horrific list goes on & on & on…….
Just a thought here …
I wonder how much encouragement for the “Hunt the Jew” mob etc. was provided by the Batley “Hunt the teacher” mob who were appeased and grovelled to by all the “Authorities” associated with it.
I think we are seeing the beginning of the switch from Meccan Islam to Medinan Islam in the UK.
The “Mumin” are seeing that they have a great deal of control (they not condemned by the MSM and hence),they have freedom to act now that there is a de facto Blasphemy law in place which asserts that any critique of Islam is both racist and Islamophobic (hence people “lost their lives” when they were actually murdered by an Islamic terrorist and the ) and we are (mostly) conditioned to instantly decry any “-ist” or “-phobe”.
They are ever more pandered to, their anti-Semitism is still widely supported by the Left and their terrorist violence is (as Sadiq Khan,said after the 2016 bombing in New York City) “part and parcel of living in a big city” (so get used to it you Dhimmi Kaffir!) and presumably even more so when Muslims form a large part of that population.
I find it ironically amusing that the BBC (Boring, Biased, Corrupt) claims “Trust is the foundation of the BBC. We’re independent, impartial and honest. We’re honest and fair with the courage to say and do the right thing. We deliver on what we say and take responsibility for our actions.” and yet they lack the honesty, courage and impartiality to report Islamic terrorism as such (being Base, Bird-hearted, Cringing of course) especially now that the truth about Bashir has come out, but that’s what the BBC (Boring, Banal, Crooked) has come to, not to mention the anti-semitic journos (e.g. Tala Halawa) the BBC employs.
I believe that you are correct in identifying that appeasement, most recently over the Batley teacher incident and previous appeasements, such as the failure by police to tackle the Grooming Gangs earlier than they should have done and the mealy mouthed statements made by politicians following Islamic terrorist atrocities, has brought us to where we are today. The use of the term ‘Religion of peace’ to describe Islam following terror atrocities that are plainly inspired by Islam is also a form of appeasement. Whilst it is in my view quite right and proper to not treat every Muslim as a terrorist the State needs to acknowledge that Islam the ideology is not all that peaceful.
You are correct to point out that the anniversary of the Manchester Arena Islamic atrocity deserved much stronger and honest words from the PM than ‘people lost their lives’. At the very least the words should have been something along the lines of ‘were murdered in an Islamist terrorist attack’.
The State is giving the impression, even if they are not intending to do so, that extremist Muslims can do whatever they damn well want and this is emboldening them.
I completely agree that the BBC has failed miserably when it comes to reporting on Islam inspired terror atrocities.