The Government’s ‘Save ISIS Foundation’

  • 2
    Shares

There is a huge difference between being tolerant, and tolerating intolerance. – Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Imagine yourself, if you will, enjoying a late brunch one Sunday afternoon. You have enjoyed the bacon and the warm weather, it’s not too muggy today. You heard everyone’s favourite muppet Jez Corbyn on the wireless earlier this morning. He made a speech blaming Islamic terror attacks in the UK on our foreign policy, the invasion of Iraq specifically. All very amusing. You’re just sitting down with a coffee, when there’s a sharp rapping at the door. You answer, and to your great surprise you see two women, and a young man between them whom you can’t help but notice is a dwarf. You probably feel your heart sink at this point. “Bloody Jehovah’s Witnesses…” you mutter under your breath. But something catches your eye, you notice that they are each wearing rosettes. One in blue, she is obviously campaigning for the Conservative Party. The other in red, clearly a Labour campaigner. The dwarf man is sporting a rather tattered, forlorn looking yellow rosette. Apparently a serf for the Liberal Democrats. You probably find yourself feeling involuntarily sorry for him. But out of politeness, you ask whether you can be of assistance to this disparate gaggle.

Woman: Good afternoon, sir. We’re from the Save ISIS Foundation, we’re wondering if you might be able to spare a few moments to sign up and support our campaign.

You: I’m sorry?

Woman: The Save ISIS Foundation, sir. We provide vital aid to Islamist groups, those in violent jihad and political subterfuge alike, turning a blind eye to warning signs and Qur’an based atrocities, providing desperately needed funds to domestic pressure groups and international terror groups, and in time we hope to be able to pool our funds together and pay the jizyah, in a bid to repay some of the debt we owe for all the misery we’ve done unto them over the years.

Naturally, this is purely a satirical hypothetical… The two and a half main parties are never quite so crass as to declare openly that they are unwilling to tackle extremism or that they almost invariably seem to support it. They’re fully aware that even the tribal electorate isn’t quite as stupid as to still vote for them on top of a policy like that. But as we’ve seen of late, while this policy isn’t quite so set in stone as Ed Milibands’ Labour Manifesto, it may as well be so.

We all know that Theresa May and Amber Rudd are absolutely incapable of bringing themselves so low as to address the problem, or even to call it by its name. Maajid Nawaz jokingly refers to this as the ‘Voldemort Syndrome.’ The #NothingToDoWithIslam trend that has been drilled into us all over the last decade or so by the political elite and Islamist apologists. We are still reeling from the aftermath of the recent Islamic terror attacks in Manchester, by Salman Abedi at an Ariana Grande concert, killing Georgina Callander, Saffie Rose Roussos, John Atkinson, Olivia Campbell, Alison Howe, Lisa Lees, Angelika, and Marcin Klis, Martyn Hett, Kelly Brewster, Jane Tweedle-Taylor, Nell Jones, Michelle Kiss, Sorrell Leczkowski, Liam Curry, Chloe Rutherford, Elain McIver, Wendy Fawell, Elidh MacLeod, Courtney Boyle and Philip Tron, and that on London Bridge and Westminster by Khalid Masood, killing Aysha Frade, Kurt Cochran, Leslie Rhodes and Keith Palmer. And what did we learn? Both of the killers, Abedi, and Masood had been reported to the authorities on more than one occasion by members of their own community, and nothing had been done to prevent these attacks. One can only assume that suspicion is far too insensitive.

Anyone who pays even peripheral attention to journalist and former EDL leader Tommy Robinson ought to be aware of his recent antics, they have certainly received enough publicity. Both he and his camera crew were assaulted and had their vehicles run off the road by gangs of Muslim youths in Rotherham, while visiting the town with the intention of demanding the resignation of Muslim Labour councillor Aftab Hussein, after he provided positive character references for at least one member of the now infamous child grooming gangs. Gangs whom, I might add, were identified by the mainstream media as ‘Asian’, while they were almost exclusively Pakistani Muslim men. Which, of course, would be heretical reporting. And much like Abedi and Masood, a number of these abusers had been reported to local authorities by the victims, social services and medical professionals, only for it all to be brushed under the carpet for years, in the name of political correctness and fear of racist accusations, naturally.

And then of course, we come to our favourite chirpy chappy.

Long an outspoken advocate for gender equality, marriage equality, anti-racist sentiment and cultural cohesion, Jeremy Corbyn, leader of HM’s opposition is uncomfortably chummy with numerous Islamist groups who ironically oppose all of these things, and has been embroiled in controversy regarding his reluctance or his inability to tackle internal anti-Semitism within his party.

In 2013, he attended a demonstration consisting of several Islamist activists carrying banners in support of notorious Islamist terror groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Hezbollah, a shi’ite Islamist group based in Lebanon, whose leader Hassan Nasrallah said in an interview with the New York Times in 2004 “If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” And was quoted by the New Yorker two years previously as saying;

If we searched the entire world for a person more cowardly, despicable, weak, and feeble in psyche, mind, ideology, and religion, we would not find anyone like the Jew. Notice, I do not say the Israeli

I’m not sure that Morrissey and Marr would have thought much of this charming man. But never mind, Jez. I’m sure we can find someone else to blame.

Corbyn has on numerous occasions stated his support for ‘dialogue’ and ‘peaceful negotiations’ with the Islamic State and on live Iranian television he described the death of Osama Bin Laden as a ‘tragedy.’

In October 2014, less than 24 hours after the video footage of the beheading of Salford taxi driver and aid worker Alan Henning by infamous Mohammed Emwazi, or ‘Jihadi John’, was released online, Jezza attended a ‘Stop The War’ rally, announcing he was “Pleased that we started with a period of silence for Mr Henning… because we have to remember that the price of war, the price of intervention, the price of jingoism, is somebody else’s son and somebody else’s daughter being killed.” Well, on the subject of sticking one’s nose into other countries business, I wonder, does he at all regret laying a wreath at the graves of Islamist terrorists who butchered sportsmen at the Munich Olympics?

Of course, his links with IRA supporters and members have also come to light again of late. Throughout the 1980’s and 1990’s his support for Sinn Fein and IRA officials such as Gerry Adams was notorious, and according to former IRA member turned informer, Sean O’Callaghan;

IRA men and women, many young and hopelessly politically naive, derived great encouragement from the solidarity openly displayed by Corbyn, McDonnell, and their associates. I know, I witnessed the effect … They might not have pulled a trigger or planted a bomb, but they certainly made it easier for those who did.

These points may seem minor or even irrelevant, but they are not.

Both he and the vast majority of regressive left wingers are quite literally falling over themselves to demonstrate how culturally sensitive they are by getting cushy with Islamist theocracies and outspoken Islamists, failing to differentiate between Islamists and the garden variety Muslim, such as they are.

Not only does this run counter to the values of moderate, secular Muslims in Britain, it is a direct betrayal of everything they purport to stand for and of their charge of their party members and the minorities they have vowed to defend.

This is an issue that concerns us all, even if only peripherally or indirectly. For instance, examine the way the current migrant crisis in Europe is addressed by both politicians, commentators, and normal people like you and I. We are talking about a massive influx of Muslim males of fighting age from extremist countries, from which terror groups have vowed to flood Europe with fighters, alongside innocent women and children who are fleeing a bloody civil war and a totalitarian, autocratic movement that rapes, maims, and kills dissenters. How do we manage this and how do we differentiate? This is a question surrounded by controversy. But the biggest problem I can see is the way the regressive leftists seem to go out of their way with self-righteous gusto to silence and censor dissent in the most dictatorial manner, and each time perfectly reasonable and genuine concerns are raised, honest people are thrown into the same basket as nationalists, white supremacists and neo-Nazis. How on earth can this help anything? This such attitude toward anyone who elects to dissent from the narrative perpetuated by the politicians, the media bubble and their common purpose, is just as great a threat to the ordinary electorate as the dangerous religions that they are all falling over each other to appease and apologise for.

For instance, there has been a lot of chatter lately regarding the influence of UK foreign policy on terrorism, more so even than usual. How Islamists are allegedly enraged and motivated by imperialism, specifically regarding the war in Iraq. This lie has been peddled by the mainstream media for years, and is now one of Jezza’s most recent faux pas. I am delighted to be afforded the chance at a rebuttal.

Well, as your starter for ten, the Iraq war was totally necessary, in my own, humble opinion. The idiotic media likes to pretend that Saddam did not in fact possess WMD’s, however we know this to be untrue. We know this because he used them repeatedly on his own soil and on his own people. The nuclear program was protected by a state department for concealment, specifically set up to keep it under wraps. I recommend that you research a Swedish socialist named Rolf Ekeus, who aided UN weapons inspectors. I would also recommend a book called ‘The Bomb In My Garden’ written by Mahdi Obeidi, one of the scientists who worked on Iraq’s nuclear programme. And who, under orders from Uday Hussein, Saddam’s even more sadistic son, buried the plans and schematics for the aforementioned weapons in the bottom of his garden, waiting for the dogs of war to dig them back up again.

The fact that the campaign was placed, for the best part, in the hands of George W’s incompetent friends and the opportunistic Tony Blair, is the reason it was a monumental screw up. With no carefully considered plan of action, little to no understanding of the religions, traditions, fickle attitudes and sectarian divides of the region, and little to no interest in what the hell they planned on doing post-’mission accomplished.’ Hence, why it was very quickly exploited – along with a great many Iraqis, and became about little more than money and resources.

But Saddam was in the process of purchasing Uranium from West Africa and ballistic missiles from North Korea, this is an established fact. If you would also like to look up Saddam’s two sons, both of whom made him look like a pacifist and a model citizen – well if we had not intervened, they would have succeeded him, would they not? These despotic regimes are often hereditary. Uday, in particular. I cannot recommend highly enough that you research them, and indeed everything else I say, yourself. Never take it all as gospel.

I will link here, video footage of the moment when Saddam Hussein seized power in 1979, when calls a special meeting of high ranking Ba’ath Party members, where he announces that he uncovered a conspiracy against him. He presents a broken man who, in exchange for his life, reads aloud a presumably manufactured list of the co-conspirators, sixty six in total, who are taken outside. Then, roughly half of the remaining members are also taken outside, to execute their colleagues and friends. This was one of his very first acts. Before one could be very slowly tortured to death for owning a mobile phone while one’s family were forced at gunpoint to applaud. Before the annexation of Kurdistan. Before the war with Iran. Before the burning of Kuwaiti oil fields and pollution and destruction of the oldest marshlands in the gulf and it’s inhabitants, the smoke from which could be seen from orbit. Before he broke both the genocide convention and the non-proliferation treaty, both of which, when breached, we are required by international law to act on. As we haven’t in Sudan and North Korea, but bloody well ought to. 

The crux of the matter is that it not a matter of geo-politics, it is a matter of ideology. Islamism, or Islam at large, as it seems to be becoming, is to blame. This has been going on for centuries, from the Umayyads and the Abbasids, the Ottomans and beyond, there have been massive Caliphs and Islamic empires, these crackpot Islamists want to return to those days. I would recommend ‘Destiny Disrupted: A History Of The World Through Islamic Eyes’ by Tamim Ansanry for further reading. It is not our politics they hate, it is our way of life, Qutb based some of his writings following his visit to America, and this has influenced the revivalists since the 1960’s. All set on reviving the caliphate that was abolished in 1924, less than a century ago, and making it a global superpower, at the very least. One can see this demonstrated simply by the name of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. Born on the 28th of July 1971 as Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badri, he adopted Abu Bakr after the leader of the first caliphate, Abu Bakr, who acted as a deputy of sorts to the prophet Muhammad during times of illness, according to the Sunni tradition.

It is vital to remember that this is the goal of all Islamists, regardless of sect. Most today assume incorrectly that it is purely the dream of revivalist Salafi/Wahhabi, Sunni extremists, because they are undeniably the most violent at the present moment. But Islamism is neither specific to any sect nor always violent. Oh, certainly. Saudi Arabia funds most of our own little primitives, who get their money from us in the first place by oil and arms deals. They also keep the cash flow to ISIS, as they did when it was just ISI under Abu Masab al-Zarqawi, and al-Qaeda, under Ayman al-Zawahiri.

So, yes, our business with them is little more than a rod for our own back. But it is not purely Sunni fundamentalists to be wary of. Islamism is Islamism. Even when our politicians can bring themselves to speak of it, in their usual evasive fashion, they still contort themselves into mentioning only the most well known ‘brands’ of Islamism, sticking to buzzwords and slogans, as politicians invariably do. Thinking is hard.

Iran’s influence has been overshadowed of late by the resurgence of Salafi/Wahhabi, ‘purist’ Islamism, no doubt. But I think it would be remiss to discount the Shia influence altogether. A fair chunk of Ba’athists were Shia. And think back to the Rushdie affair – more recent than we like to think.

It was groups like the Iranian backed Muslim Institute here in Britain, organising rallies calling for his death. With the connivance of Labour MP’s like Keith Vaz, naturally. Labour. The ‘Islamist Party’.

Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, then the director of the aforementioned Muslim Institute, funded by the Ayatollah’s banana republic, allegedly shouted at a meeting;

I would like every Muslim to raise his hand in agreement with the death sentence on Salman Rushdie.

A great many non-religious figures also saw fit to involve themselves in a spectacular act of self-flagellating grandiloquence to demonstrate their ‘tolerance’.

Far from universal condemnation of this murderous expression of fanaticism, they instead took the safe bet and like a mob of craven little dhimmis, they did not only content themselves by nodding in smug, sanctimonious approval at the fatwa and the hysterical reaction from the religious population, but used their positions to peripherally encourage violence.

Eminent historian Lord Dacre announced with self-righteous gusto;

I would not shed a tear if some British Muslims, deploring Mr Rushdie’s manners, were to waylay him in a dark street and seek to improve them.

So how would the apologists like to explain this one away? The ‘Save The Islamist Dictatorship Foundation’, perhaps?

Hezbollah is Shia dominated, to the best of my knowledge. Islamists based in Lebanon, as I previously stated. Not Wahabbi Sunnis, oddly enough. They also provide backing to the al-Assad family in Damascus, as they and the banana republic of Iran also backed hardline sectarian policies in Baghdad, in place by Nouri Kamil Mohammed Hasan al-Maliki, also known as Abu Esraa.

As we see, Shia states typically support Shia groups, Sunni states often support Sunni groups, much like our own Catholic and Protestants in British and European history.

However, it is also Sunni against Sunni, in many cases. For instance, when al-Qaeda, under the command of al-Zawahiri, disowned and condemned ISIS in 2014, al-Baghdadi had his Syrian envoy bombed, and began a minor sectarian war with al-Qaeda and the Front for Protection of the Levant, who backed them. All Sunni. I would recommend The Management Of Savagery for further reading as to how they wage these wars against one another and larger governments and military forces.

This violence might not directly affect us, but it demonstrates that the concerns of these people are almost entirely tribal and theological. Only days into Ramadan this year, a car bomb in Baghdad killed thirteen people, mostly children, in an ice cream parlour. I find myself wondering, which international intervention were they protesting here, Mr Corbyn?

Regardless of whether or not one feels that the Iraq war was justified (I suspect many of you don’t, with UKIP’s general stance on the war. But frankly, I could give a shit about party politics) one cannot possibly connect the behaviour, the deluded religious conviction of these groups and their absolute determination to restore the caliphate, to Western interventions. Islamism has persisted perfectly well for 1,400 years without us. Yes, the incompetence of our leaders has poured kerosene onto the fire and our ‘it’s complicated‘ love affair with the Saudi’s helps to fund the worst of them, but they would do exactly the same without our involvement. Just nowhere near as efficiently. I would recommend reading an article called ‘Why We Hate You And Why We Fight You’ from an ISIS recruitment magazine called Dabiq. In this article, found in Issue fifteen of the magazine, entitled ‘Breaking The Cross’, on page thirty, there is a very telling paragraph which I shall recite for you;

Many Westerners (sic) are already aware that claiming the attacks of the mujahidin to be senseless and questioning incessantly as to why we hate the West and why we fight them is nothing more than a political act and a propaganda tool. The politicians will say it regardless of how much it stands in opposition to facts and common sense just to garner as many votes as they can for the next election cycle. The analysts and journalists will say it in order to keep themselves from becoming a target for saying something that the masses deem to be “politically incorrect.” The apostate “imams” in the West will adhere to the same tired cliché in order to avoid a backlash from the disbelieving societies in which they’ve chosen to reside. The point is, people know that it’s foolish, but they keep repeating it regardless because they’re afraid of the consequences of deviating from the script

Rather telling, isn’t it? That even these barbarians are capable of observing our weakness, and finding it laughable. And how right they are.

The article lists six reasons, as to ‘why they hate us and why they fight us.’

  1. We hate you, first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not – by making partners for Him in worship, you blaspheme against Him, claiming that He has a son, you fabricate lies against His prophets and messengers, and you indulge in all manner of devilish practices. It is for this reason that we were commanded to openly declare our hatred for you and our enmity towards you.
  2. We hate you because your secular, liberal societies permit the very things that Allah has prohibited while banning many of the things He has permitted, a matter that doesn’t concern you because you Christian disbelief and paganism separate between religion and state, thereby granting supreme authority to your whims and desires via the legislators you vote into power. In doing so, you desire to rob Allah of His right to be obeyed and you wish to usurp that right for yourselves.
  3. In the case of the atheist fringe, we hate you and wage war against you because you disbelieve in the existence of your Lord and Creator.
  4. We hate you for your crimes against Islam and wage war against you to punish you for your transgressions against our religion. As long as your subjects continue to mock our faith, insult the prophets of Allah – including Noah, Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Muhammad – burn the Qur’an, and openly vilify the laws of the Shari’ah, we will continue to retaliate, not with slogans and placards, but with bullets and knives.
  5. We hate you for your crimes against the Muslims; your drones and fighter jets bomb, kill, and maim our people around the world, and your puppets in the usurped lands of the Muslims oppress, torture, and wage war against anyone who calls to the truth.
  6. We hate you for invading our lands and fight you to repel you and drive you out. As long as there is an inch of territory left for us to reclaim, jihad will continue to be a personal obligation on every single Muslim.

For those who will point out numbers five and six, as examples of retaliation to western foreign policy, I would urge you to first consider that these are two reasons out of six, the others being almost entirely theological. Secondly, the article goes on. With the paragraph immediately following point six reading;

What’s important to understand here is that although some might argue that your foreign policies are the extent of what drives our hatred, this particular reason for hating you is secondary, hence the reason we addressed it at the end of the above list. The fact is, even if you were to stop bombing us, imprisoning us, torturing us, vilifying us, and usurping our lands, we would continue to hate you because our primary reason for hating you will not cease to exist until you embrace Islam. Even if you were to pay Jizyah and live under the authority of Islam in humiliation, we would continue to hate you. No doubt, we would stop fighting you then as we would stop fighting any disbelievers who enter into a covenant with us, but we would not stop hating you.

It seems, does it not, that the ‘let’s not annoy them and they will leave us alone’ plan won’t be so effective after all? We are not dealing with a nest of bees. We are dealing with a toxic ideology, rigid and unalterable, even in the eyes of many moderates. This is not to say that all Muslims feel this way, this is certainly not the case. Many moderates seek reform, even if they have not yet broken free of the scriptural and clerical spells that almost every other major religion did some time ago. The danger is how willing our journalists and our politicians are to avoid the problem, and seek to superimpose false motivations upon it and excuse it. How can they possibly miss it?

These insane people rant and rave day and night, ad nauseam, telling us all in no uncertain terms, exactly why they do what they do. Theology. Not geo-politics. Why are we disinclined to believe them? Why are we so determined to shift the blame to ourselves?

Islamists tell us both their agenda and their reasons constantly, ad nauseam, without any ambiguity. So, why do we in the west feel the neurotic need to instead question or second guess their explanations? There is no logical path to this. Take, for arguments sake, a sample of medical students. You ask them their reasons for studying medicine. Perhaps there is some amount of variation, but buy ‘n’ large, they all give reasonably similar answers. They have an interest in science, perhaps they have family in the profession, or they want to have a successful career, or maybe they just like the idea of helping people. Upon hearing these explanations, time after time, would you, even for a moment, feel some neurotic, intuitive need second guess their explanations? Would you find yourself thinking “Hmm, I’m not sure about this. I suspect that young lady really had her heart set on improving foreign policy, but wasn’t quite charismatic enough for politics, so she instead she’s studying to become an oncologist.” Of course you wouldn’t. So why do we insist on doing the same with Islamism? And more importantly, why do our elected representatives?

Why do they insist on lying to us? Facilitating the Islamist agenda? Making ridiculous apologies and concessions that no other religious group would ever even dream of asking for?

Is it fear of violent reprisal? Perhaps they see the growing Muslim demographic and hope to gain their votes? Do they see the vast fortunes coming in from Saudi and Qatar in oil revenues and arms embargos and want to sink their teeth in – or fear losing the opportunity? Or is it just the ever reliable cognitive dissonance? ‘Yes we know Islamism is the single biggest threat to humanity, but Islam is a religion of peace, so it can’t be, so it isn’t, so shut up you racist.’ Alas, my crystal ball is in the shop at the moment, so I fear I’m not in a position to comment on their motivations.

It is however, absolutely clear that all of the main political parties except for UKIP have elected to sell out both themselves and their constituents like the craven little dhimmis-in-waiting that they are, regardless of whether or not they are welcome to do so. They have become, along with many other governments both on the continent and elsewhere, something of a collective ‘Save ISIS Foundation’. It would be amusing if it weren’t such an enormous and immediate threat.

I would never assume to instruct anyone how to cast their votes, however if you value your freedoms and find that the idea of living under sharia and paying a Jizyah isn’t quite to your taste, then I think you all know who you at least ought not to vote for…

Support Kipper Central

Kipper Central is here to spread the real news with the British and global public, without political correctness and without lies.
However, we are an extremely small team each putting in several hours a day, despite none of us having full-time jobs.
We, therefore, rely on the kind support of our readers to keep reporting on the stories that nobody else will and to keep promoting what is truly happening in Britain and across the world.


  • 2
    Shares
  • 2
    Shares

John Gilday

Lab technician in my early twenties. I despise politics, but often end up writing about it. Pro-Brexit. No particular political affiliations but have always been a peripheral UKIP supporter.

You may also like...