Londonistan: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Islam in the U.K. This follows this previous post about the U.K. in world politics. This follows this post about Mexico running dry. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
Please follow me here for continued posts.

A Page on the World

Londonistan: How Britain Is Creating a Terror State Within

Posted on Aug 11, 2006 by John Ross Schroeder 

Add to my study list

Login or Create an Account

With a UCG.org account you will be able to save items to read and study later!

Sign In | Sign Up

×

Melanie Phillips shows that Britain has become a gathering ground for Islamist terror groups, while the British establishment is in denial (2006, ISBN 1594031444).

I would like to begin with the credentials of the author. Melanie Phillips is the leading political and current affairs columnist for the Daily Mail . Her insightful, common-sense assessments of modern political life in Britain are hard to equal in the world of British journalism because they are generally based upon the backdrop of the traditional values that built the United Kingdom.

Her latest book, Londonistan, points out that Britain has become the leading European gathering ground for recruitment and financing of Islamist terror groups. The sheer scale of these activities has earned the area the label “Londonistan” by antiterrorist specialists elsewhere in the world.

Mrs. Phillips addresses the overall problem from a number of different angles. For instance, she shows that radical Islamic demands are being appeased by multiculturalism and by a so-called replacement theology put forward by certain Christian theologians who seriously question the necessity for the state of Israel (Mrs. Phillips is Jewish).

Franklin Littell calls this replacement theology Christian anti-Semitism that “rings with the genocidal note. This is the myth that the mission of the Jewish people was finished with the coming of Jesus Christ, that 'the old Israel' was written off with the appearance of 'the new Israel.' To teach that a people's mission in God's providence is finished, that they have been relegated to the limbo of history, has murderous implications, which the murderers will in time spell out” ( The Crucifixion of the Jews, 1996).

The gravity of the problem

Although she allows that the majority of the Muslim community in Britain is law-abiding, Melanie Phillips does insist that “the evidence suggests that the numbers who do support either the aims or the tactics of the jihad are terrifying. According to British officials, up to sixteen thousand British Muslims either are actively engaged in or support terrorist activity, while up to three thousand are estimated to have passed through Al Qaeda training camps, with several hundred thought to be primed to attack the United Kingdom” (p. 9).

But why would Britain allow such reprehensible activities within its borders? Mrs. Phillips states the obvious when she notes that Britain is a country “where traditional morality has been systematically undermined and replaced by an 'anything goes' culture in which autonomous decisions about codes of behaviour have become unchallengeable rights” (p. 25).

This reminds one of the descriptions of ancient Israel in the days of the judges when “everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6 Judges 17:6In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.
American King James Version×; 21:25).

The author also takes pains to point out that the threat is not just from a few radical extremists who might rarely succeed like they did when suicide bombers wreaked havoc on the London Underground with the loss of many lives. She believes that the British establishment is in denial about how widespread the threat really is.

Too many erroneously pin the blame on the United States, Israel and even on Britain itself instead of the guilty culprit, which she identifies as radical Islamic ideology.

Melanie Phillips concludes that “the West is under threat from an enemy that has shrewdly observed the decadence and disarray in Europe where Western civilization first began” (p. 285). Those weaknesses are now being exploited on many fronts by those determined to bring down Western civilization as we know it and replace it with a worldwide “umma”—a global community of Islamic believers in submission to Allah.

She further points out that Britain has been the cradle of Western liberty, but urgently needs to squarely face this growing problem and counter it with policies based on “absolute consistency and moral integrity, which arise from the strength of belief in the values that are being defended” (p. 273).

This book review highlights a few crucial points, but cannot really do justice to the massive evidence proffered within its pages that identifies the causes of this disturbing trend threatening Britain's—and Western civilization's—stability and way of life.

The recent deadly train bombings in India, plus a fresh outbreak of violence by terrorist groups against Israel (involving Gaza and Lebanon) that prompted a response unprecedented in recent times, underscore the importance of her warnings and the peril our Western democracies face. WNP

A very interesting post from www.jihadwatch.org about Islam's affect on elections in the U.K. This follows this post about Islam's attack on Christianity. This follows this article about American energy independence and preventing money from going to hostile countries. For more, you can read two very interesting books HERE.
Please follow me here.

UK: Labour leader says his government will criminalize “Islamophobia”

 By Robert Spencer 185 Comments

“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime.” The problem is that Islamic supremacists, apparently deliberately, conflate “Islamophobia” meaning attacks on innocent Muslims, which are never justified, with “Islamophobia” meaning honest examination of how Islamic jihadists use the texts and teachings of Islam to justify violence and supremacism, and resistance to Sharia oppression. Miliband’s new law making “Islamophobia” an “aggravated crime” would criminalize and silence all opposition to Islamization, would effectively destroy what remains of the freedom of speech in Britain, and spell the end of Britain as a free society.
And in Shattered Dhimmi Britannia, he is leading the pack to be the next Prime Minister.
“Labour would outlaw Islamophobia, says Miliband in an exclusive interview,” by Hamed Chapman, Muslim News, April 24, 2015 (thanks to Roger Kimball):

A future Labour Government is committed to outlaw the scourge of Islamophobia by changing the law and making it an aggravated crime, according to the Party’s Leader Ed Miliband.
“We are going to make it an aggravated crime. We are going to make sure it is marked on people’s records with the police to make sure they root out Islamophobia as a hate crime,” Miliband told the Editor of The Muslim News, Ahmed J Versi in a wide ranging exclusive interview.
“We are going to change the law on this so we make it absolutely clear of our abhorrence of hate crime and Islamophobia. It will be the first time that the police will record Islamophobic attacks right across the country,” he said.
Labour Party Manifesto pledged to take a “zero-tolerance approach to hate crime” regarding the growth of Islamophobia as well as anti-Semitism. “We will challenge prejudice before it grows, whether in schools, universities or on social media. And we will strengthen the law on disability, homophobic, and transphobic hate crime,” it said.
Despite voting for the new Counter Terrorism Act last month, Labour was also critical of the way the Government has cut funding and narrowed the focus of the controversial Prevent extremism programme, saying that much of the work to “engage Muslim communities has been lost.”
“I want to overhaul Prevent programme,” Miliband told The Muslim News. The Muslim community is as an “incredibly important, incredibly rich, incredible asset to our country” and so it was really important to put on record.
“The reality is that the people I talk to in the Muslim community are absolutely full square with the idea that we’ve got to make sure that we work with our young people to stop them being dragged into this perverted (terrorist) ideology.”
“The way to do it is the Prevent programme working with communities. You got to do the things that once this ideology takes hold you try to disrupt it. For me that is the answer. We want to see how the Prevent programme is community focused.”
Challenged about the way particularly Muslim charities have been targeted by banks and discredited by the media, Miliband said in his wide ranging interview that he was “not in favour of demonising anyone (and) that is the wrong thing to do.”
“What I am in favour is the Charity Commission working without fear or favour. We got to build right across the Muslim community. There is absolutely shared purpose and shared desire to deal with a small minority in our country who get tempted to violent extremism. That is what we got to build on and it is about working with them.”
On the so-called Trojan Horse scandal that failed to find virtually any evidence of extremism or radicalisation, the Labour leader said the reality is that the “root of this problem lies in proper accountability in our schools.”
“We are going to have high standards locally. That will make sure that every school has proper oversight. When there is no proper oversight things can go wrong in schools. The best way to stop that happening is proper oversight in our schools.
“You need proper accountability. The answer to this is not to run thousands of schools from the centre of the Government but to have local accountability in schools.”
With regard to foreign policy, Miliband confirmed that Labour would have supported the recognition of a Palestinian State in last year’s UN vote. His Party’s support was why Parliament backed the principle, he said.
“We would do everything we can to work for a two state solution which is a viable Palestinian state alongside security for Israel,” he added but also pointed out that he personally was “not in favour of sanctions” against Israel.
To find a solution, he argued engagement was needed with both sides but the “reality is that we had a British Government for the last five years who had disengaged from this issue, had washed its hands off this issue.”
“I’m not going to wash my hands off this issue. I will speak out about the settlements. I spoke out about Israel’s incursion into Gaza. Some people didn’t like that I spoke out. I did speak out and I will continue to speak out and engaging with the issue. We have the American Administration who also wants to engage and wants to push forward two-state solution. We are going to partner with them to do that.”
He was dismissive that Labour’s manifesto commitment to arrest and act against those returning from fighting in Syria would be hypocritical by targeting only Muslims as it is happening now. “When I am Prime Minister there will be one law for everybody. Full treatment for everybody,” he insisted.
Likewise Miliband was adamant that Muslims should not face racial and religious discrimination when it comes to employment or suffer the most because of the austerity cuts “It is part of the law that that is prohibited. We are going to have racial equality across the Government. We will enforce it.”
“We will tackle deprivation. We will build homes, get rid of bedroom tax, raise minimum wages, build better jobs for people, have a fairer social security system,” he also insisted….

Three overturns of the Royal Family!

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about the Three Overturns of the Royal Family. This follows this post about parenting. This follows this post about Scotland. his follows this post about the Feast of Trumpets. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

Three overturns

But couldn’t the throne have been transferred elsewhere for a long time before being transferred to the British Isles? The indirect answer from prophecy seems to be no.

In Ezekiel:21:26-27 [26] Thus saith the Lord GOD; Remove the diadem, and take off the crown: this shall not be the same: exalt him that is low, and abase him that is high.
[27] I will overturn, overturn, overturn, it: and it shall be no more, until he come whose right it is; and I will give it him., God declared that Zedekiah was to "remove the diadem and take off the crown: This shall not be the same [a change or transfer was occurring]; exalt him that is low [the Zarhite ruler in Israel] and abase him that is high [Zedekiah of the line of Perez]. I will overturn, overturn, overturn it [the crown, that is, the throne]; and it shall be no more [overturned] until HE come whose right it is; and I will give it HIM [Christ]" (KJV).
Notice that the final "overturned" was added in brackets for the sake of clarity. Some see this verse as a prophecy of the overthrow of the crown—that it would "be no more" (meaning no longer exist) until Christ came to claim it. Yet this cannot be the meaning of this prophecy or God would be breaking His unbreakable promise to David of an unbreakable dynasty. So the overturning must refer to removing the throne from one nation and raising it up in another. And the mentioning of overturn three times would certainly seem to be saying that such overturning would occur three times—that three times the throne would be transferred to another nation and that it wouldn’t be transferred again until Jesus Christ’s coming in power and glory to take it over.
When was the last time another country’s monarchy was transplanted into the throne’s present location in England? The answer is 1603, when King James VI of Scotland became King James I of Great Britain (the one who commissioned the King James Bible). This is obviously the last overturn to have taken place. Because of it, today’s British monarchs are of Scottish royal descent.
Prior to that, was another country’s throne ever transplanted into Scotland? Yes. The throne of the Scoti (as the Irish were anciently called) was moved from Ireland into southwest Scotland in the late fifth century—their kingdom of Dalriada in that area, centered at Iona (a name perhaps related to Ionia of Greece), eventually growing to envelop what is now Scotland. This was clearly the previous overturn—which is why Scotland’s monarchy, which became Britain’s monarchy, was actually Irish.
Now since these were the last two overturns of three, there can only have been one other—the first. And that first overturn had to have been the transfer of the throne from Judah. Thus it should be clear that this transfer must have been from Judah to Ireland. Had the throne been transferred from Judah to some other country before later being reestablished in Ireland, that would add a fourth overturn—when Scripture appears to allow for only three. By simple deduction, the three overturns must have been: 1) Judah to Ireland; 2) Ireland to Scotland; 3) Scotland to England.
It should be mentioned, though, that in the first overturn it is possible that the daughter of Zedekiah married into the Milesian Zerah line in Spain or elsewhere around the time it was in the process of assuming control over Ireland. This would not be adding another overturn from Spain to Ireland, as it would all be part of the same overturn. Whether or not this happened, however, is dependent on exactly when the Milesians from Spain took over Ireland, which is not entirely clear. They may have already become established in Ireland before Jeremiah’s journey—though perhaps still maintaining control over part of Spain when he arrived. Again, however, it is possible that Zedekiah’s daughter and Jeremiah actually accompanied the Milesians in their invasion of Ireland from Spain.

An interesting article from http://www.ucg.org/ about Scotland. This follows this post about Iraq. This follows this post about the Feast of Trumpets. For a free magazine subscription or to get the books recommended for free click HERE! or call 1-888-886- 8632.
I am leaving TWITTER SOON. Please continue to follow me here.

Why the Scottish Vote For Independence Matters

by Darris McNeely

Lost in all the fear and concern over what the United States will do about the growing threat in the Middle East from ISIS is next week’s vote on Scottish independence. This historic vote, set for September 18, is off the radar of most Americans. It’s likely only a few within the Washington policy establishment are watching it with any idea what is at stake. While the growing threat from another terrorist group has grabbed our attention this little watched issue could impact the effectiveness of any response to this new danger.
The United Kingdom, which has for 307 years included Scotland, is in danger of breaking up. Polls show a growing support for a “Yes” vote next week to take Scotland out of the union and on its own. With Scotland out of the Union, Great Britain would definitely be downgraded as a lending nation. The impact of such a step is virtually unknown. Much would change. A new flag would have to designed. Wales and Ireland would no doubt reconsider their status. Would they too desire to leave the Union? Britain left alone would be exposed as a diverse nation, shorn of its last vestige of glory with only grey hairs exposed. It would not be a pretty sight.
At stake is the existing status of Great Britain as an effective power in the world. America and the UK have had a long standing "Special Relationship” that has greatly benefited the world. Eleven years ago as the United States formed a coalition to go into Iraq it was Great Britain who provided key military and political support. Now, as America looks like it will have to ramp up another major military effort in the region, its key ally faces a possible breakup of it’s essential political and cultural basis. Anything that changes or weakens Great Britain’s standing among the nations impacts America. The Special Relationship would indeed be weakened.
Britain’s nuclear capability is stationed on Scottish soil. This nuclear deterrent is part of the key to its viability as a partner in NATO. If Scotland secedes from the union what does England do with its nukes? With a weakened political profile what kind of military power will Great Britain be able to project? Scotland’s men and women have played key historic roles as part of England’s military during this period of unity. Anything that weakens Britain’s military standing weakens America and by extension it weakens NATO. Make no mistake Russia’s Vladimir Putin is carefully watching this vote as he probes the resolve of Western Europe over Ukraine.
All this comes at a critical moment in world events. The Middle East is going through historic changes. The Syria and Iraq border has been redrawn by the emergence of ISIS, a virtual autonomous Islamic state which has proclaimed itself as a resorted Caliphate within the region. Whether this new group will remain in place or be replaced or reduced to a minor role is yet to be seen. Their presence and actions have everyone’s attention. How Europe, America and Asia handle this development is important. No one is served in the long term by a barbaric Islamist terror state within this volatile region.
Add to the mix the crisis in Ukraine. Russian leader Putin has invaded a sovereign nation's lands and violated an international border. No European nation will respond forcefully enough to restore Ukraine’s former borders. Indeed, whether or not Ukraine itself will muster the courage to resist this invasion, clean up its own political house and assert its rights as a nation are yet to be determined. Corrupted leadership exists within these nations and those who will suffer most are the people in the streets.
The Scottish vote next week matters when it is considered against the larger stage of current world events. The world order is being shaped by major events. If Scotland secedes from the United Kingdom and breaks up an important centuries old union then other, unintended things could happen. As small an event as this seems it is not occurring in a vacuum.