‘Muslim Patrol’ as provocation strategy?

Many of our UK-based readers will be familiar with the so-called Muslim Patrol videos posted online earlier this month. The videos feature some young Londoners, presumably Muslim, approaching and intimidating passers-by for drinking alcohol or dressing the wrong way in what they claim are ‘Muslim areas’. The videos are filmed in Whitechapel, east London, whose population is 40% Bangladeshi, and have made an immediate splash not just in London but further afield. Understandably, many of those watching the videos have expressed outrage. Far more problematically, some also perceive this harassment campaign as the latest evidence of Europe’s gradual take-over by ‘non-Europeans’ and nasty foreigners.

This raises the question of what the producers of these videos were trying to achieve. Maybe the young men in the videos earnestly believed that they were helping to create ‘Muslim zones’ or maybe they just wanted to harass a few locals — but why videotape this effort and post it to Youtube? Now, many idiots post videos of their crimes online – why is something of an eternal mystery – but I suspect there may be something deeper at play here. There is little evidence to support this hypothesis, but is it possible that these videos were meant as the opening gambit of the age-old provocation strategy, a tried and tested insurgent method to polarize societies and gain popular support?

In its traditional context, the provocation strategy involves the use of violence by aspiring insurgents to goad state authorities into an overreaction. That overreaction adversely affects relevant populations (targeted because they are thought to sympathize with or shelter the likely perpetrators). Attacked by the state, this population becomes increasingly alienated and starts to look for alternate sources of protection, power and legitimacy. The insurgents then step in, with an empowering message whose anti-state tenor and call to action will now begin to resonate.

In this case, the violence is limited to harassment and intimidation, but the vied-for effect is still polarization and popular support. Most viewers of these videos will feel affronted and share with the victims the sense of being under attack. Among those already resentful of Islam, immigrants or integration, the videos will trigger a more pernicious reaction. The narrative here is of Western governments bending over backwards to appease those who – quite clearly (as the videos would seem to show) – want to subvert ‘our’ country and civilization. Within this narrative, the state cannot be relied upon to defend Western values: it is consumed by political correctness and cowardice. We are under attack and we – the people – must respond.

Returning to the provocation strategy, some of those who react this way play the role traditionally assumed by ‘the state’. They are affronted by the threat to their order, their values, and react. Much like a state has difficulties locating the perpetrators of an insurgent attack, the respondents in this case will also struggle to discriminate – to target only the individuals responsible. Instead, one can well imagine the larger community taking the brunt, due to preconceived opinions about its complicity and the problems it represents. The response might take the form of graffiti on a nearby mosque, racist abuse or intimidation. Under attack, some of the community will look for new sources of protection and strength, at which point the radicals step in with an appealing frame and narrative. Suddenly the need for ‘Muslim spaces’ may not seem so ridiculous after all. Polarization has been achieved.

If that was indeed the intent (and it very well may not have been), how did it play out in practice? It is really too early to tell, but it would seem as if the London authorities and the Islamic community reacted in exactly the correct manner. The authorities have taken steps to arrest the people featured in the videos, which acts as a deterrent and provides catharsis for those – victims and viewers – who felt threatened or affronted. The Muslim community immediately denounced the videos and made it clear there is no space for this type of behaviour in its midst.

But undoubtedly, there are also those who will eagerly use this as another anecdote of social disintegration and weaponize it to meet racist or xenophobic ends. Youtube has pulled the original videos, but they are still being circulated – now by users and accounts with anti-immigration, anti-Muslim agendas. Some right-wing rabble-rouser in the United States calls the Muslim Patrol video ‘the most important political video of the year’ and calls for ‘an end to all immigration from Muslim nations, including North Africa’ to save ‘our Western civilization’. One of the Youtube accounts with the most views for the video in question declares itself as  ‘opposed to the systemic genocide of our people through massive non-European immigration and integration.’ Les extrêmes se touchent, as they say, and in this case as in many others they even work in close symbiosis – much as they do in their mutual promotion of the Clash of Civilizations.

The whole episode points to the need to respond discriminately, appropriately and carefully to deliberate provocations by fringe elements. Caution does not equal accommodation, but allows for an assessment of the threat before blindly walking into the trap being set. Although this post may very give too much credit to those who spawned the Muslim Patrol videos, it is also necessary not to take this type of provocation at face value – to condemn it, yes, but also to ask why it is taking place and what it seeks to achieve.

Three interesting post-scripts to this tale:

  1. Whereas it may in fact be the white population of Whitehall that feels under threat by a growing Muslim population, the Bangladeshi population has declined over the last ten years from 51 to 40 per cent. That’s not to say that this trend is spread more widely.
  2. Anyone attempting to draw conclusions for the United States from this or other European episodes should first consider the recent report by the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security. Its findings, that Muslim terrorism in the U.S. was “practically nil” in 2012, provide sorely needed context to the US discussion of radicalization, Islam and homegrown terrorism. No doubt one can quibble with the methodology but really, no matter how you slice it, reports such as these should help defuse some of the ungrounded paranoia and fear that surrounds the discussion of Islam in America.
  3. Finally, in a sense, the above analysis resonates with a previous post of mine of the Muhammad cartoons. Again, who is provoking whom and what are the dangers of confusing our audiences?

32 thoughts on “‘Muslim Patrol’ as provocation strategy?

  1. davidbfpo says:

    Such Muslim street patrolling has happened before, the big difference is that the ‘Patrol’ filmed themselves and then disseminated it.

    There is a Swedish academic paper which refers to such similar active challenging behaviour in a Swedish inner-city suburb, IIRC in Gothenburg and mainly aimed at women.

    In the West Midlands a few anecdotes indicate there have been incidents of challenging behaviour, not an organised street patrol. The one I recall now a a few years ago was a mixed faith couple who when shopping in B’ham city centre found themselves challenged and harassed by those who frequented a few street stalls. No report was made to the police and they stopped going together into the city centre.

  2. Cyrus says:

    This is baseless supposition. At least all of those oh-so-awful right-wingers have some evidence – i.e. the video, and its removal – to back up their claims.

    Looking at this as a provocation strikes me as needlessly over-complicating matters. This sort of “social enforcement” behaviour by Muslim men is not unknown, as davidbfpo points out.

  3. Mikael says:

    Many of us here in America watch with astonishment as muslim-only, sharia-governed, no-go zones continue to spring up and grow in European cities. Sovereign governments and local police turn a blind eye to foreign populations which settle there and reject their host country’s laws and customs. And then these videos to document the intimidation. “In your face!” they seem to say. Provocation strategy? Very likely. And why not? They’re succeeding in their efforts to gain control over segments of their host countries and they want to spread the word. A combination of multicultural political correctness by the host, intimidation by the perpetrators (anyone published any Muhammad cartoons lately?), and a fearful indigenous populace is a prime breeding ground for muslims to further their agenda of subjugating the West to islam. Should it be any surprise that these young muslim men get cocky?

    • Mikael, I think you may be in danger of mischaracterizing the problem.
      1) Who are “they”? A worldwide Muslim conspiracy?
      2) Many Muslims in Britain are not in a “host-nation” country but at home – they are British.
      3) Also, I haven’t lived in London or Europe for a while but I think you may be over-stating the degree to which it is being taken over by “muslim-only, sharia-governed, no-go zones”.

      I don’t imagine you’ll agree with me but I did manage to capture your narrative pretty well in the post, wouldn’t you say?

    • Mikael says:

      Thank you for your comments, David. A few thoughts off the top of my head:

      1) Who are “they”? A worldwide Muslim conspiracy?
      [Let’s not confuse the religion of peace with the totalitarian political system of militant islam. “They” are a relatively small but potent percentage of muslims who are militant Islamists which, yes, are operating worldwide. From Mali to Indonesia to Afghanistan to Europe to the US to Iran to Latin America and in every arab country. Is it a conspiracy? Is there a central authority which guides and controls their motives and actions? Yes, it is called the koran and it guides those who act on the Jew-hating, Christian-hating, violent intolerance taught within the koran. Is it a conspiracy of silence if the rest of the muslims, those peaceful muslims, do not speak out because they are afraid of the militants?

      2) Many Muslims in Britain are not in a “host-nation” country but at home – they are British. [I was in the UK in May 2010 during the elections. It was my impression that a growing number of British subjects have lost patience with the ‘asians,’ which my taxi driver helpfully explained to me is a euphemism for muslims since they can no longer say muslim out loud without sparking a riot. If someone has fallen under the sway of militant islam, does it matter whether they are a British subject or not?

      3) Also, I haven’t lived in London or Europe for a while but I think you may be over-stating the degree to which it is being taken over by “muslim-only, sharia-governed, no-go zones”.

      [I am only going by what I read in the papers but it is my understanding that in France, for instance, which now has a population that has reached 10% muslim, the French Interior Ministry has designated Priority Security Zones (zones de sécurité prioritaires, or ZSP) which are predominantly muslim, are crime-ridden, and are a threat to national security. Non-muslim French are afraid to go into these areas and are rapidly moving out. Tourists are advised not to enter these areas. The French authorities do not like this trend and so they are increasing police operations in the ZSPs with the objective of reasserting state control and reducing lawlessness.

      The initial 15 ZSP are: Seine-Saint-Denis (Saint-Denis, Saint-Ouen), Paris (Paris XVIIIe), les Yvelines (Mantes-la-Jolie, Mantes-la-Ville), l’Essonne (Corbeil-Essonne), la Somme (Amiens), le Nord (Lille), l’Oise (Méru et Chambly), la Moselle (Fameck et Uckange), le Bas-Rhin (Strasbourg), le Rhône (Lyon IXe), les Bouches-du-Rhône (Gardanne et Bouc-Bel-aire), Marseille (Marseille IIIe, XIIIe, XIVe, XVe et XVIe), le Gard (Vauvert et Saint-Gilles), l’Hérault (Lunel et Mauguio) et la Guyane (Cayenne, Matoury, Remire-Montjoly).

      Call me one of those crazy Americans who sees militant islam as a worldwide problem. I also lament the passing of Old Europe as a result of the failed experiment of multiculturalism which has led to rampant appeasment of muslim immigrants who just keep arriving each day throughout Europe. Many of us on this side of the pond are very concerned that we’re next.

    • 1) Explanations that base themselves on the Koran are often guilty of essentialism. If the Koran had this effect, why are not all Muslims (or even the vast majority of Muslims) behaving in the manner you describe? Every holy book has its crazy ideas – I don’t think the Koran in any way exceptional. Much as with identity or ethnicity, much comes down to mobilization, which quickly gets us away from monolithic threat perceptions.

      2) Being ‘sick of the Asians’ in the UK is like being ‘sick of the blacks’ in the U.S. It is your typical issues of poor integration and racism, based on history and socio-economic cleavages. Also, militant Islam does not equal “Asian”, even though your point sort of treats the two as interchangeable. Going further, “Asian” was never a PC-policed euphemism for “Muslim” – in all likelihood the term arose because most Asians in the UK are from the sub-continent. It also applies to non-Muslims. … Tip for the future: treat what London cabbies tell you with a pinch of salt.

      3) France has ZSPs; the U.S. has the projects. But just as the U.S. or the world isn’t being taken over by a monolithic black ideology of hate, nor is France being taken over by the inhabitants of the ZSP. The issues relate to religion, sure, but they are far more variegated – and typically far more socio-economic in nature – than your comment suggests.

      The generalizations and fear-mongering in your comment are, to me, self-fulfilling. So what if France’s Muslim population is now 10% of the population? The United States’ Latino population reached 17% as of the latest census. Does this matter to you? Rather than treat entire populations like a risk factor, identify the issue at hand and deal with it on its merits. Don’t let the Islamists speak for all Muslims — you are just doing them a favour.

    • Mikael says:

      David, thank you again for your considered thoughts. You make interesting points and we could go on like this all night. Luckily, while we sit comfortably in our arm chairs, intel and special ops pros from your country and mine, as well as assorted others, are busy tonight and every night taking out the islamist bad guys who incidentally do not have names like Jose or Pedro but instead have names like Abdul and Mohamad. It will be a long struggle but I sleep better knowing our guys are on the job. Very best regards to all the professionals at Kings College Dept of War Studies.

    • “Being ‘sick of the Asians’ in the UK is like being ‘sick of the blacks’ in the U.S.”

      If by Asians you mean Muslims. Then no,just flat out no,Muslim is not a race,so dont try to point it all at being racist(typical). Afroamericans intergrate,they are part of the community and accept the countries laws without trying to dictate them according to their own beliefs,they will not frown upon you for drinking alcohol in your own country that has done so for hundreds of years and not want to change it for their own ends even if they dont accept it,and they do not hide their identities from the public under veils(refer to intergration) by saying “its my custom so get used to it”,no,they fit in and are true Americans and look so without even having to make an effort. When you are in America people look American or “American in their own way”,when you go to Britain some areas look like the far East and nothing else,that is not intergration,that is imposing your own culture onto a host country. Debate that however you like,its the truth.
      Do not bring race into what is clearly a conflict of “beliefs”,people always pull the race card when their back is to the ropes and it is pathetic and a weasly way of getting pity for their side of the story.

      Also,are you trying to lead us to believe that the black community is nonexistant in Britain? The reason the black race is not under the microscope and the Muslims are in these articles is because in Britain the black community is PART of the country,rather than being the odd one out in their customs and traits of the countrys history and rights.

      “Many Muslims in Britain are not in a “host-nation” country but at home – they are British.”

      Being born in Britain does not give you the right to change is history,laws,customs or traits to your parents ones as if it were a true patriot making such decisions. You were born there and all that changes is a word on your passport,you are still of whatever decent you were originally. If your ideals are of another country,return to that country and live there,do not change the country you live in to the one of your familys origin,because the natives will not take kindly to it(and they should not have to,it was THEIR country first before you family immigrated for a better life…and to try to mold it to your own ends apparantly).

      “I am Muslim and I am Muslim whereever I go” That is fine,just go be Muslim in a predominantly Muslim country then where alcohol is illegal and everything is halal,if not,then be Muslim but RESPECT the host countrys laws and the ORIGINAL customs of said country without demanding they change them because you are present on its grounds,otherwise what you are really saying is “I am Muslim,and whereever I go you must change the residents customs and characters to that of my own”…religion of peace my ass,hostile takeover more like it. Sorry about that last comment but it enrages me so much when people cant accept a country for what it is,Britain is not racist towards Muslims,they just become very annoyed that Muslims refuse to accept that they live in BRITAIN and not their parents original place of birth whereever that may be. You dont go to Spain,have your kids born in Spain so they are legally Spanish and then demand they stop bullfighting because YOU disagree with it,yes its cruel and a bloodsport,but its their history and heritage,what you DO do is stop foxhunting in your OWN country where you have THE RIGHT to do so as its your own linage and blood doing such actions.

    • Person says:

      That’s an impressive number of strawmen, “Truth”. Your Spanish example is wrong because in a democracy, eligible voters (and activists) get to say what they prefer. If that is a change to how thing “have always been done”, then so be it.

      What you didn’t address is “the rules of the game”: there IS a problem that the tiny minority among British Muslims who are nutters do not want the rule of law, or the protection of all (especially women and non-Muslims). It is Ok to play the democracy game even with wishes that different from tradition. It is not Ok to seek to end democracy.

    • Daniel F. says:

      Well “Person”, democracy is fine, but the vote with most weight and importance should be cast by the original shareholder, not the newcomers who have just bought into the company and are in it for their own biased ends insted of keeping the company true to its roots and interests. I agree with “Truth” for the most part, maybe not the bullfighting though, its cruel and should not be allowed, but certainly yes: the ones to do away with it should be the Spanish for themselves, not outsiders imposing their views onto them.

    • I’m sorry to break this to you, but a citizen is a citizen is a citizen. Unless you’ve committed a crime and there is reason for denaturalization, there is not much to parse “original shareholders” from “newcomers”.

      But I agree with you that bull-fighting is indeed cruel. But this notion of a ‘violent take-over’ is pure fiction. As I put it in a previous comment, don’t let the few extreme cases speak for an entire community – it is precisely what they want but wholly inaccurate.

  4. Olaf says:

    I have lived 12 years in Berlin Kreuzberg SO-36 (at the time) when the proportion of Muslim Turks was at about 25 percents of the population. They haven’t taken over anything.

    I lived in London Bangla town (well, actually to the South just across Commercial Road) where even the street signs are given in English and Bengali. The only ones who have taken over parts of East London was the international community of bankers when they flooded the Isle of Dogs – no clue about their religious affiliation.

    I’ve lived in Libreville, where now about 30 percents of the population are mostly illegal Muslim immigrants from West Africa. They haven’t taken over anything. (The defunct President Omar Bongo converted to Islam because an Arab Sultan paid for the Gabonese railway, hence, its good tone to treat Muslims well in this predominantly Christian society).

    Now I live in Spain, and my Island is being flooded by Chinese hard working immigrants. They take over nothing, they just work seven days a week.


    • Thanks for your comment Olaf and for bringing some much-needed levelheadedness to the discussion. As a former resident of SO36 (then the far less catchy 10997) and of Tower Hamlets and Bethnal Green and Hackney and all the rest, I agree with what you have to say.

  5. A hussain says:

    Gud article, as a muslim, this is just what goes through my mind. Every negative muslim story polarizes the community. The sane muslim majority is stuck in the middle between a rock and a hard place. no community can control its fringe elements, especially one that numbers one billion muslims. Punish those fringe elements, severely, but dont stigmatize the full community. These extremist that people write about are number a few, but they get all the attention. Far right, far left and islamist are branches of the same tree. All paranoid and delusional, that worlds going to end , other side will attack us, we better attack them first. If only these people would go out and see the world, people everywhere havnt got time to plot a conspiracy, most are living day to day trying to make ends meet

  6. Seth says:


    I thought this a generally insightful article, but I have a bone to pick with you regarding your third post-script. It strikes me as inappropriate to liken the harassment depicted in the videos to the publication of material deemed “offensive” by many in the Muslim community. This is not to say that there are not plenty of instances of anti-Muslim hate speech, many of which may be threatening in a very personal way. You are right to encourage people to stigmatize such speech, but the problem is that there is too little differentiation between criticism of Islam and attacks on the Muslim population of the world. Large groups of so-called “moderate” Muslims join their more extremist brethren in calling for a right of “freedom from offense” to supersede “freedom of speech”. I suspect you find this as ridiculous as I do.

    I am anti-religion. This does not mean I am anti-religious people. I will happily debate the merits of any and all religions, the devotees of which almost never approve of such efforts. Still, many individuals are able to recognize that this is not an attack on them, but their ideas. The practice of debating ideas is treasured in every other area of life – why should religion be any different? This seems to be a particular logical blind spot for many Muslims; again, this is not to say that they are alone in this, but the responses of many of their number are uniquely violent.

    I realize I am rambling at this point, so let me just sum up my point thusly: cartoons criticizing the religion of Islam, regardless of intent, are in no way, shape, or form equivalent to harassing individuals.

    • Thanks for your comment. The blog post was long enough so I didn’t develop the link between it and the previous post on the cartoons. Had I, I would have likened the (here hypothetical) backlash to the Muslim Patrol to the cartoons published by Charlie Hebdo. Both are provoked and at once provocative. There is no clear congruence here, but resonance. So, to be clear, I agree with your last point.

      Let me add, however, that there is a difference between cartoons making a political point (even in an irreverent way) and those that are merely meant to shock (in a very kindergarten way). The ones in Charlie Hebdo – with their depiction of Muhammad on his fours with his genitals showing – fall squarely in the second category. Hence my reaction.

  7. David Betz says:

    I do not regard this latest instance of provocation as particularly provocative. It is par for the course in Britain, neither abnormal or infrequent. Your point that provocation is a central plank of insurgent technique is broadly well-known and extremely well-integrated in the thinking of our Government. Do not over-react. This is wise, to a point. British governments, now having comprised between the previous and current ones every major party, have gone quite a bit further than that point. They are under-reactive to a fault. What sensible government would tolerate its own de-legitimation (the other classic insurgent technique) on its own sovereign territory? This scene took place 7 years ago:


    British governments have come down on such instances like a ton of marshmallows. That is not smart. They are not in control of events. They are hostage to events. It is pathetic and unedifying.

    • Thanks for your comment, David. The opposite of over-reacting should not be to under-react – quite right. The response should be to react precisely and effectively, without producing the alienation that allows for further de-legitimization. In this case, the tracking down and arrest of those individuals responsible was exactly the right thing to do. Very measured, very effective and fairly well publicized.

    • David Betz says:

      Well, we’ll see. It’s too early to judge how effective it might have been. I am not hopeful, however, that this government is about to reveal masses of competence in this area at this time.

    • Mikael says:

      To David Betz, thank you for sharing the video showing typical muslim intimidation tactics which are employed daily throughout the West. Helpful for those who have not witnessed muslim bullies first-hand. There are only several hundred, perhaps thousands, more similar videos on youtube. I would suggest that the ‘security’ fellows in the red shirts of that video symbolize the timid, uncertain reaction of the governments and law enforcement agencies of the UK, the Netherlands, Sweden, and many other western European countries. Let’s not upset the shouting muslim man. Marshmallows indeed.

  8. Thank you for including the response of the Muslim community and the excellent video response by a mainstream scholar, Shaykh Shams of Ebrahim College.

    A prank by misguided youth should not have been taken any further, and thankfully in this case, it has not.

    Just as a checkpoint, I would like to highlight the elaborate public Christmas celebrations by Christians in Muslim-majority countries (except Saudia) and the full support of authorities in congratulating them and in providing security and assistance. Even in conservative Muslim countries like Pakistan and Oman, alcohol is allowed for Christians. That does lead to some abuse of course by the Muslims!

    • Mikael says:

      Akber, “…I would like to highlight the elaborate public Christmas celebrations by Christians in Muslim-majority countries (except Saudia) and the full support of authorities in congratulating them and in providing security and assistance.”

      You may want to check the monthly report found here:


      which documents global Muslim-on-Christian violence for the month of December 2012. It includes Denmark, Indonesia, Libya, Nigeria, Algeria, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan, Somalia, Sudan, Sweden, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, and of course Saudi Arabia where the Grand Mufti recently called for the distruction of all churches.

      To take one example, here is the report from Nigeria:
      “Christmas was another occasion for Muslims to slaughter church-attending Christians. First, in two separate attacks, Islamic gunmen shot and killed 12 Christian worshippers, including the pastor, who had gathered for Christmas Eve church services. In the words of a resident: “A group of gunmen came into the village at midnight and went straight to the church … they opened fire on them, killing the pastor and five worshippers. They then set fire to the church.” Six days later, on Sunday, December 30, Muslims attacked another church during service, slaughtering 15 more worshippers; several had their throats slit. At least four more churches were torched and 10 Christians murdered when, according to the report, “the Islamic group members went on rampage [sic] and burned 20 houses and a church in the area,” as well as three more churches, all to cries of “Allahu Akbar!” [“Allah is Greater!”]. After the Islamic invaders torched the churches, they used guns and machetes to slaughter their victims.”

      At this writing, there is no indication as to whether alcohol was involved.

    • Mikael, the Gatestone report is problematic as it does not indicate whether the actions committed are done in the name of a religion, as part of a tit-and-tat rivalry between different communities (where both have some degree of blame), etc. The European cases are also in some cases distorted to make the point – i.e. the Danish one, which as far as I can tell has nothing to do with religion, at least not Islam, despite it being a church that was targeted.

      As for the imminent threat of an Islamist take-over of the West, bear in mind that the 2012 EU Terrorism Situation and Trend (TE-SAT) report (compiled by Europol) found not one religiously-motivated attack (foiled, failed or completed) among the 174 attacks recorded in 2011. In the U.S., as per the Triangle Center on Terrorism and Homeland Security in North Carolina, “there were nine terrorist plots involving American Muslims in 2012. Only one of them, the attempted bombing of a Social Security office in Arizona, actually led to any violence”. See link.

      All of this provides sobering context to the doomsday scenarios of clashing civilizations and Western submission.

  9. Mikael says:

    David, since we do not have names and religious affiliations of the perpetrators of the 174 attacks, we have to tease out some conclusions based on clues presented. A lazier approach is for the report to declare that not one attack was religiously motivated. In at least one example, we learn that the perpetrator of an “attack against the Danish newspaper “Morgenavisen Jyllandsposten” by means of a homemade explosive device, was found guilty of attempted terrorism and illegal possession of a firearm. He was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment, with a permanent ban from entering Denmark after serving the sentence.”

    This individual was in fact a muslim acting under a fatwa to punish the newspaper for defiling mohamad and islam. It would be disingenuous to describe this attack as not religiously motivated.

    In any event, you are to be commended for moderating this discussion with dignity and aplumb. We are left to agree to disagree. I do not trust the muslims as far as I can throw a Twin Tower. Until I see the trend of muslim encroachment on Europe and the US reversed, and until militant islamists from Mali to Afghanistan are destroyed or rendered impotent, that will continue to be my position. As politically incorrect as I know this would be, Kings College might consider inviting Geert Wilders to speak some time. That is, if your government would let him in to the country.

    • “I do not trust the muslims as far as I can throw a Twin Tower”

      That is just outrageous… best stop the conversation there lest I lose my ‘dignity and aplomb’. Off to teach a classroom full of Muslims before I catch up with some Muslim friends for the weekend.

  10. bensolomon says:

    I saw the video on Al-Jazera, the stream. The Indian Muslim ( British Citizen) has accused Ms Kelly of being racist, while kelly says she is not racist but disagrees with islamic ideology. Well let me remind the Indian Muslim British citizen, that in India, Hindus have many problems with Radical Indian Muslims. Remenber the demolition of the Babri Mosque in India and the riots against Muslims in Gujerat India. The point i am making is Kelly is right, its not a racist problem but a problem with Islam. Asians who are Christians/Hindus/Buddhist dont have a “value”problem living in Britain. Now my second point is the Bearded Man says he will not condemm the Muslim Patrol because they are his Muslim Brothers. I beleive deep in the hearts of true Muslims, they will not condemn the Muslim Patrol just as they wont condemm Osama bin Laden. Every devout Muslim beleive that Shariah Law is divine law given by Allah and the Muslims have a moral responsibility to bring it into reality. ( Western viewvers should know that the Koran encourages Muslims to deceive Infidels in order to acheive the objectives of Islam)
    The Final point I like to make is that a minority Fanatical Muslims can even destroy a whole country or the whole planet when they get the right weopons. The problem of Muslim Extremism must be nipped in the bud. Remenber that Osama and his small group of people were able to carry out large scale violence so the argument that “its just a small group” is not valid when dealing with people who have a deep desire to use violence to achieve their goals.

  11. Pingback: UPDATED: Major Exposé Coming /Major exposé here! Progressive Congressmen Gather to Plot Agenda: Alinsky Invoked! / Top Communist Backs Obama “Gun Grab” Plan! Marxist Musical Chairs in Massachusetts! The DSA / Red (real red, as in commie red) Reps in

  12. Gert says:

    @bensolomon,nice to read some common sense,islam is not a race or a community that can be integrated,it is a suprematist ideology which is political…

  13. Pingback: The Council Has Spoken!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *