Cameroons Twitching

Apparently, David "hug a hoodie" Cameroon is alive and twitching and spouting the type of nonsense i would more likely associate with Two-jags Prescott. This person ( i cant bring myself to call him a man) has launched a diatribe against many elements in our island home, most notably the BNP, and dares to compare us with the home-grown terrorists and radicals from the muslim community. Excuse me? For a moment there i thought he was drawing a parallel between a legitimate political party and people who want to take over our country by any means available including terrorism. My God! He is! As far as i am aware the BNP do not fly planes into tower-blocks, blow up buses and trains, inhumanely slaughter animals while chanting payers, beat women or advocate the killing of homosexuals. It is certainly not in the BNP manifesto this year so perhaps he has an old copy?
Additionally many members of the BNP enjoy the occasional packet of pork scratchings, so how we mirror radical muslims is beyond me.
Do you think we are starting to see yet another smear campaign against the BNP beginning to sprout as we head towards the may elections? Heaven forbid! We live in a democracy, right?

To quote Cameroon "The best answer to ignorance like this is a good education." Seems to me like you should enrol promptly Dave, i believe there are courses on living in the real world starting in september at an ethnically enriched and diversified school near you. Or would you go private?
I believe that this fools comments will lose the CONservatives even more votes and expose this twitching poppinjay for the traitor to the British people that he is. I understand that Cameroon, speaking at the New Testament Church of God in Handsworth, was due to say that many barriers to integration are the fault of politicians. But he didnt - now theres a surprise! Now almost a trademark of Cameroons press releases is the comment "he was due to say/speak/dicuss etc" on some hard-hitting topic, but he never does. All piss and wind is our Dave, with no style or substance. Hmmmm....who else does that description remind me of?



English news paper headline
"Fog in Channel - Continent cut off".

Comments

Thanks to all you readers who have taken the time to comment on various postings, it is appreciated. To answer a couple of questions -

Yes the friends i stayed with over Christmas have joined the party! Onward and upward!

I do not believe that muslims should be allowed to wear any religous garb they like as some of it causes divisions within communities and has allowed fleeing suspects to escape justice.

Muslims Pushing Again

A twelve year old student has been banned from wearing a Muslim veil in lessons because it is not seen as uniform, which seems reasonable to me.
The girl, who goes to a Buckinghamshire school, has been asked to stop wearing her niqab, a veil that covers the face usually leaving only the eyes visible (assuming it is a female as it would not be the first time a male had used one - remember the fleeing "alleged" bomber?).
The school is now facing a court battle about whether she can wear the veil and could be left with a £500,000 legal bill.
The pupil and her father, who do not want to be named (now theres a surprise), are taking their case to court through a judicial review next month, on legal aid (thats you and me paying). The Muslim pupils at the school are allowed to wear a hijab, a scarf which covers the head, but not a full niqab.
Buckinghamshire Council , responsible for the county's schools, are in talks with the family to try to stop the case going to court. The girl, it is reported, is having lessons at home. This is being paid for by the school (for "paid for by the school" read "paid for by the taxpayer"- you and me!).
Apparently, wycombe MP Paul Goodman has written to Alan Johnson, the Secretary of State for the Department of Education and Schools asking for a meeting.
He has said its right that the school should take the religious requirements of its Muslim pupils into account. "It already does so by allowing students to wear the hijab or headscarf, a policy on which it has consulted. It's worth noting that the vast majority of Muslim women in my constituency don't wear the niqab or veil."
"I gather that the school maintains on educational and security grounds that its students shouldn't wear the niqab. I support the school one hundred per cent."
The Council has said it cannot fork out taxpayers money on the case, and the DfES said it does not comment on individual cases (where have i heard that before?). But Mr Goodman thought the two authorities could help.
He added: "I believe that the Department of Education and Schools and Buckinghamshire Council should support the school in principle, and should work together to help fund this court case."
Marion Clayton, county council cabinet member for achievement and learning, said: "I can confirm that a parent has asked for a judicial review regarding his daughter not being allowed to attend a Buckinghamshire school wearing a niqab. A hearing is expected shortly to decide whether that review should go ahead.
"The school and parent have asked for anonymity. Neither the school nor this council feel it is appropriate to comment on the issues of the case until the review, if any, has taken place. We have been working with the school throughout to try and achieve a resolution in the best interests of the pupil and the school."
Now correct me if im wrong, but didnt we have a similar situation a year or so back in Luton? A court case costing a shedload of taxpayers money with no winners? Eh Begum lad. In that instance the girl "lost" her case to wear some obscure item of clothing. These meetings and consultations are a waste of time (surely these people have more important things to be getting on with than being seen to be pandering to the latest Muslim demand, for that is what it is) and the only winners are the legal teams. The Muslim communities are continually pushing at the boundaries, testing the waters of Britain, and pushing further with every concession they receive from our government who are too stupid to realise it will never stop until Britain is an Islamic state.
The BNP would ban the wearing of the full face veil in public places like schools - its divisive to community relations and makes terrorism and illegal immigration easy. VOTE BNP!


Jeremy Paxman - Political analyst & tv presenter
"Those countries which do best in the world - the ones that are safe and prosperous - have a coherent sense of their own culture".
(Extract from his book "The English")

Forget Big Brother - The Real Hate Was Here..........

So is Celebrity Big Brother racist? Who gives a damn? The real racism that week was aired on Channel 4s Dispatches programme where we were treated to the unedifying sight of various muslim preachers of hate (for that is what they are) calling for Jihad against the infidel (thats you and me, folks). I waited with baited breath for the powers that be to spring into action and arrest them on any one of a dozen charges...........................and im still waiting. Big Brothers name calling "racism" was no doubt used as a distraction from the real extremists exposed within the muslim communities, even to the extent of questions being raised in parliament, keeping the chattering classes busy with another red herring, rather than addressing the real issues. Not surprisingly there was no condemnation by muslim "community leaders" or by any members of our government. I understand that some of these mosques are either wholly or partly publicly funded and yet again NO QUESTIONS were raised by anybody with access to the purse strings! To my mind all monies should be withdrawn immediately until the muslim communities get their house in order. In addition all footage collected by channel 4 should be passed to the police for further investigation prior to criminal proceedings being issued against these extremist preachers of hate. I could rail on but those of you who have seen the programme will know how much vile hatred was spewed our way during the programme. For those of you who have not seen it, it is available here : http://hotair.com/archives/2007/01/15/video-dispatches-undercover-mosque/


John Milton (1643) - English poet
"Let not England forget her precedence of teaching nations how to live".

The Crusades - Our History

Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common. The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. According to Muslims they are a stain on the history of the Church in particular and Western civilization in general. The Crusaders introduced aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins?
So what is the truth about the Crusades? Much can said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression—an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.
Christians in the eleventh century were not fanatics. Muslims really were gunning for them.
Islam was born out of war and grows the same way. From the time of Mohammed the means of Muslim expansion was always the sword. Muslim thought divides the world into two spheres, the World of Islam and the World of War. Christianity—and for that matter any other non-Muslim religion—has no abode. Christians and Jews can be tolerated within a Muslim state under strict Muslim rule. But in traditional Islam, Christian and Jewish states must be destroyed and their lands conquered. When Mohammed was waging war against Mecca in the seventh century, Christianity was the dominant religion. It spanned the entire Mediterranean, including the Middle East, where it was born. The Christian world, therefore, was a prime target for the earliest caliphs, and it would remain so for Muslim leaders for the next thousand years and beyond, even up to today.
The warriors of Islam struck out against the Christians shortly after Mohammed’s death. They were extremely successful. Palestine, Syria, and Egypt—once the most heavily Christian areas in the world—quickly succumbed. By the eighth century, Muslim armies had conquered all of Christian North Africa and Spain. In the eleventh century, the Seljuk Turks conquered Asia Minor (modern Turkey), which had been Christian since the time of St. Paul. The Byzantine Empire, was reduced to little more than Greece. In desperation, the emperor in Constantinople sent word to the Christians of western Europe asking them to aid their fellow Christians in the East.
That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the born of an ambitious pope or fanatical knights but as a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be overun by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.
Pope Urban II called upon the Knights of Christendom to push back the Muslims at the Council of Clermont in 1095. The response was tremendous. Many thousands of Christian warriors took the vow of the cross and prepared for war.
Urban II gave the Crusaders two aims which would remain central to the Crusades for centuries. The first was to rescue the Christians of the East. The Crusade was seen as an errand of mercy to right a terrible wrong. As Pope Innocent III wrote to the Knights Templar, "You carry out in deeds the words of the Gospel, ‘Greater love than this hath no man, that he lay down his life for his friends.’"
The second goal was the liberation of Jerusalem and the other places made holy by the life of Christ. Medieval Crusaders saw themselves as pilgrims, performing acts of righteousness on their way to the Holy Sepulcher. The reconquest of Jerusalem was not colonialism but an act of restoration.
It is often assumed that the central goal of the Crusades was forced conversion of the Muslim world. Nothing could be further from the truth. From the perspective of medieval Christians, Muslims were the enemies of Christ and His Church. It was the Crusaders’ task to defeat and defend against them. That was all. Muslims who lived in Crusader-won territories were generally allowed to retain their property and livelihood, and always their religion. Indeed, throughout the history of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, Muslims far outnumbered the Christians. It was not until the 13th century that the Franciscans began conversion efforts among Muslims. But these were mostly unsuccessful and finally abandoned. In any case, such efforts were by peaceful persuasion, not the threat of violence, as characterised by the Muslim occupations.
The Crusades were wars. Like all warfare, the violence was brutal (although not as brutal as modern wars).
By any reckoning, the First Crusade was a long shot. There was no leader, no chain of command, no supply lines, no detailed strategy. It was simply thousands of warriors marching deep into enemy territory, committed to a common cause. Many of them died, either in battle or through disease or starvation. It was a rough campaign, one that seemed always on the brink of disaster. Yet it was miraculously successful. By 1098, the Crusaders had restored Nicaea and Antioch to Christian rule. In July 1099, they conquered Jerusalem and began to build a Christian state in Palestine. The joy in Europe was unbridled. It seemed that the tide of history, which had lifted the Muslims to such heights, was now turning.
But it was not. When we think about the Middle Ages, it is easy to view Europe in light of what it became rather than what it was. The colossus of the medieval world was Islam, not Christendom. The Crusades are interesting largely because they were an attempt to counter that trend. But in five centuries of crusading, it was only the First Crusade that significantly rolled back the military progress of Islam. It was downhill from there.
When Edessa fell to the Muslim Turks and Kurds in 1144AD there was an enormous groundswell of support for a new Crusade in Europe. It was led by Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany. It failed miserably. Most of the Crusaders were killed along the way. Those who made it to Jerusalem only made things worse by attacking Muslim Damascus, which formerly had been a strong ally of the Christians. In the wake of such a disaster, Christians across Europe were forced to accept not only the continuing growth of Muslim power but the belief that God was punishing the West for its sins.
Crusading in the late twelfth century, therefore, became a total war effort. Every person, no matter how weak or poor, was called to help. Warriors were called to risk their lives for the defense of the Christian East. On the home front Christians were called to support the Crusades through prayer, fasting, and alms. Yet still the Muslims grew in strength. Saladin had forged the Muslim East into a single entity, all the while preaching Jihad against the Christians. In 1187AD at the Battle of Hattin, his forces wiped out the combined armies of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and captured the precious relic of the True Cross. Defenseless, the Christian cities began surrendering one by one, culminating in the surrender of Jerusalem on October 2. Only a tiny handful of Christian ports held out.
The response was the Third Crusade. It was led by Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa of the German Empire, King Philip II Augustus of France, and King Richard I Lionheart of England. The aged Frederick drowned while crossing a river on horseback, so his army returned home before reaching the Holy Land. After recapturing Acre, the king of France went home. The Crusade, by default, fell into Richard’s lap. A skilled warrior, gifted leader, and superb tactician, Richard I led the Christian forces to victory after victory, eventually reconquering the entire coast. But Jerusalem was not on the coast, and after two abortive attempts to secure supply lines to the Holy City, Richard at last gave up. Promising to return one day, he struck a truce with Saladin that ensured peace in the region and free access to Jerusalem for unarmed pilgrims. The desire to restore Jerusalem to Christian rule and regain the True Cross remained intense throughout Europe.
The Crusades of the 13th century were larger and better organized. But they too failed, mainly due to political in-fighting. In the Fourth Crusade (1201-1204AD) the Crusaders captured, and sacked Constantinople, the greatest Christian city in the world. Pope Innocent III, who had previously excommunicated the Crusade, denounced the Crusaders. But there was little else he could do.
The remainder of the 13th century’s Crusades did little better. The Fifth Crusade (1217-1221) managed briefly to capture Damietta in Egypt, but the Muslims eventually defeated the army and reoccupied the city. Louis IX of France led two Crusades in his life. The first also captured Damietta, but Louis was forced to abandon the city. Although Louis was in the Holy Land for several years, spending freely on defensive works, he never achieved his fondest wish: to free Jerusalem. He was a much older man in 1270 when he led another Crusade to Tunis, where he died of disease. After Louis’s death, the ruthless Muslim leaders, Baybars and Kalavun, waged a brutal Jihad against the Christians in Palestine. By 1291, the Muslims succeeded in killing or ejecting the last of the Crusaders, thus erasing the Crusader kingdom from the map. Despite numerous attempts and many more plans, Christian forces were never again able to gain a foothold in the region until the 19th century.
One might think that three centuries of Christian defeats would have soured Europeans on the idea of Crusade. No. In one sense, they had little alternative. Muslim kingdoms were becoming more, not less, powerful in the 14th, 15th, and 16th centuries. The Ottoman Turks conquered not only their fellow Muslims, thus further unifying Islam, but also continued to press westward, capturing Constantinople and plunging deep into Europe itself. By the 15th century, the Crusades were no longer errands of mercy for a distant people but desperate attempts of the last remnants of Christendom to survive. Europeans began to ponder the real possibility that Islam would finally achieve its aim of conquering the entire Christian world. That did not happen. But it very nearly did. In 1480, Sultan Mehmed II captured Otranto as a staging point for his invasion of Italy. But the sultan died shortly thereafter, and his plans died with him. In 1529, Suleiman the Magnificent laid siege to Vienna. If not for a run of freak rainstorms that delayed his progress and forced him to leave behind much of his artillery, it is virtually certain that the Turks would have taken the city. Germany would have been at their mercy.
Yet even as these close shaves were taking place, something else was brewing in Europe—something unprecedented in history. The Renaissance. Even while fighting for its life, Europe was preparing to expand on a global scale. The Reformation made Crusades unthinkable for many Europeans. In 1571, a Holy League, which was itself a Crusade, defeated the Ottoman fleet at Lepanto. Yet military victories like that remained rare. The Muslim threat was finally neutralized economically, as Europe grew in wealth and power. The once awesome and sophisticated Turks began to seem backward and pathetic—no longer worthy of a Crusade. The "Sick Man of Europe" limped along until the 20th century, when it finally collapsed, leaving behind the present mess of the modern Middle East.
Both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up. Both are willing to suffer enormous sacrifice, provided that it is in the service of something they hold dear, something greater than themselves. Admire the Crusaders or not, it is fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women, not only survives but flourishes. Without the Crusades, it might well have been pounded into extinction.


Sir Winston Churchill (1874 - 1965)
"Arm yourselves, and be ye men of valour, and be in readiness for the conflict; for it is better for us to perish in battle than to look upon the outrage of our nation and our altar."Churchill in his first broadcast as Prime Minister to the British people on the BBC - May 19, 1940, London.

Heckling of a Sanctimonious Sod

I dont know whether this is a true story, but it sounds about right for Bonio............................


At a U2 concert in Glasgow , Bono asked the audience for some quiet. Then in the silence, he started to slowly clap his hands. Holding the audience in total silence, he said into the microphone, "Every time I clap my hands, a child in Africa dies" A voice from near the front pierced the silence........... "Well, stop f***ing doing it then!"

Sweetness and Light

Halal meat? click the link - theres really nothing more to say. Barbaric and disgusting treatment. Basra or Bradford, the slaughter is the same.
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/the-eid-festival-around-the-world-graphic-photos