FAILED BritScumState SYMTOMS OCCUPIED IRELAND

Demographic pressures, including pressures deriving from centuries of British mentored sectarianism, following a British genocide of the native population, followed by a plantation, which spawned insecure British bigotry, racism and fascism. The pressure from the plantation population's settlement and its alien attributes, enabled the border disputes, ownership and occupancy of land, control of religious worship and historical identity, that fuels the divide and rule bloody tactics of the British today.

Massive movement of refugees and internally displaced Irish persons, with the forced uprooting of large Irish communities, south of the border, as a result British inspired pogroms both of random and targeted violence with repression, causes food shortage, disease, lack of clean water, lack of public housing and violent turmoil, leading to a spiral of larger humanitarian and security misery, as Irish political refugees are forced south.

A legacy of vengeance and Irish grievance based on recent censored British atrocities and war crimes in Ireland, on top of numerous past injustices, and the Holocaust with other British war crimes, dating back eight centuries,  which includes atrocities committed with impunity, against the native local Irish communal groups and specific Irish groups singled out by British scumstate authorities, and their mentored orange dominant groups, for persecution or repression. Centuries of British Institutionalized political exclusion, public scapegoating of Irish groups, who achieve a limited status or power, is still evidenced today, with the emergence of "hate fleggers" , pamphleteering and stereotyping, nationalist political groups.

Chronic and sustained human flight in both the " native brain drain" of professionals, intellectuals, political dissidents and forced emigration of "the middle class" fuels the growth of politicized exile communities, free from British censorship are also part of the equation.

The economic indicators of the failed British ScumState of Occupied Ireland, are the uneven economic development along sectarian lines, which still persists today. Predetermined by group based inequality and residual inequality, in education, jobs, and economic status, the native Irish based poverty levels are growing, while infant mortality rates and education levels are unacceptable as the native Irish are kept on contrived ignorance and misery.

The sharp and severe economic decline in British Occupied Irish society as a whole and the constant failure of state banks, to pay salaries of government employees, their occupation forces and meet other financial obligations to Irish citizens, claimed by the British to be Her Majesty's commoners is another indication of the failed British scumstate.

Political indicators, include the criminalization by the British state, of the Irish language , Irish identity and legitimate political expression, endemic in Orange corruption and profiteering by the fascist ruling Orange Order elites and their resistance to transparency, accountability in political representation. Widespread absence of popular confidence in British state institutions and processes are endemic.

The progressive deterioration of public services, the disappearance of basic state functions, that serve the people, including failure to protect immigrant citizens from Orange fascist terrorism and violence or to provide civilized essential services, such as health, education, sanitation, public transportation are further indicators of the failed ScumState. Using the ScumState's apparatus for agencies that serve the British mentored ruling elites, such as the RUC insecurity forces, British Viceroyal staff, Central bank, royal services and collection agencies for the City of London.

The British ScumState uses widespread violation of human rights in an authoritarian, dictatorial military rule by Britain's Secret Services, in which constitutional, judicial, democratic institutions and processes are manipulated. Outbreaks of politically inspired sectarian violence against innocent Irish civilians are rampant. A rising large number of political prisoners, including traditional Irish republicans who oppose the British Monarchy in Ireland along with political dissidents, who are denied the most basic forms of due process, consistent with international norms and practices including political internment by diplock remand, widespread abuse of legal, political and social rights, including individuals, groups including Irish cultural institutions, harassment of the press, politicization of the judiciary, internal use of military assassination for British political ends, public repression of native Irish political opponents, including religious and cultural persecution, are all part of the British ScumState equation.

The ScumState insecurity apparatus includes a "secret psychopathic state within a state," the emergence of a sadistic elite or a praetorian guard, that operate in absolute secrecy, courtesy of a draconian Official Secret's Act, with total impunity. Mentored British state sponsored and British state-sponsored, private, secret, militias, terrorize political Irish opponents, labelled by the State controlled British media  or demonized as enemies. or Irish civilian spies, seen to be sympathetic to the Irish Cause. Private "armies within the British army" that serve only the interests of their old empire of dominant military and political cliques. They also include the emergence of people militias, guerilla forces in armed struggle and protracted violent campaign, against British state terrorism or counter-terrorism with their insecurity forces.

Intervention by British external state factors in all of the island Ireland is ongoing, primarily through a web of M16 drug wars in the South despite a much touted Peace Process, where military and British sponsored loyalist paramilitaries engage in the internal affairs of Ireland with outside private armies, British state entities terrorizing the native Irish, in the internal balance of power and failing resolution of the Irish conflict.

BRITAIN'S NOXIOUS IMPERIAL WARFARE CONTINUES SCUM STATE IRELAND

A

Britain’s Noxious History of Imperial Warfare

By John Newsinger

June 07, 2014 "ICH" - "Monthly Review" - In his recent widely praised Unfinished Empire: The Global Expansion of Britain, John Darwin, Professor of History at Oxford University, complains that even today there are historians of empire who “feel obliged to proclaim their moral revulsion against it, in case writing about empire might be thought to endorse it.” Apparently, he laments, there are still historians who consider it “de rigueur to insist that for them, empire was evil.” And, even more incredibly, there are some historians who “like to convey the impression that writing against empire is an act of great courage,” as if the supporters of the empire were lying “in wait to exact their revenge.” The mistake these anti-imperialists make is to assume that “empires are abnormal, a monstrous intrusion in the usually empire-free world.”1

It is, of course, difficult to call to mind any particular historian who actually believes that the world has usually been “empire-free,” but there you go. Indeed competition between empires is more generally seen as one of the driving forces of this dreadful history, that in the last century consumed millions of lives. More to the point though, Darwin seems to believe that his new book is responding to some sort of anti-imperialist consensus, that the belief that the British Empire was a criminal enterprise has actually won the day and this has to be challenged.

This will come as something of a surprise to most people who are under the distinct impression that the exact opposite is the case—that there is a pro-imperialist consensus very much in place. The few thousand copies sold of the handful of books arguing an anti-imperialist case are completely swamped by the massive sales of the books of Niall Ferguson and company, some of which have been conveniently accompanied by successful television series. At Westminster senior politicians from both the Conservative Party and the Labour Party happily proclaim that the British Empire was a good thing and the time for apologizing is over. These same politicians are still absolutely addicted to intervening in other people’s countries, with Afghanistan and Iraq now having been joined by Libya and Mali.

Far from an anti-imperialist consensus, what we have actually seen in recent years is a revival in the celebration of empire very much inspired by British participation in U.S. imperial wars. The context for contemporary studies of the British Empire is the fact that, even as I write, British troops are killing and being killed in Afghanistan. It is these wars of occupation in Afghanistan and Iraq and the celebration of empire that has accompanied them that have prompted those few histories attempting to mount the sort of fundamental indictment of the British Empire that Darwin finds so ill-judged. The problem is not that there is too much anti-imperialist history, but that there is not enough. The fact remains that imperial history is still taught, researched, and written about within a comfortable consensus that extends from celebratory apologetics to the supposedly realistic “this is the way the world is” mode of apology. This consensus has to be challenged.

A useful test for any general history of the British Empire is its treatment of the Bengal Famine of 1943–1944. How does Darwin deal with this catastrophe in a book of over 400 pages? On page 346 it is referred to in passing thus: “(the Bengal Famine of 1943 may have killed more than 2 million people).” Hardly adequate! But this is still an improvement on his award-winning The Empire Project: The Rise and Fall of the British World System 1830–1970, which does not mention it at all in over 600 pages of text. And similarly with his earlier Britain and Decolonisation: The Retreat from Empire in the Post-War World. Once again the famine escapes attention.2 To be fair, Darwin is far from alone in this neglect; indeed he is typical. Professor Denis Judd, for example, is the author of Empire, an acclaimed general history of the British Empire. In this volume he does not so much as mention the Bengal Famine. More surprisingly perhaps, he does not mention it in his history of the British Raj, The Lion and the Tiger, but most astonishingly, he does not even mention it in his biography of the Indian nationalist leader Nehru—who described the famine as “the last judgement on British rule.”3 Even the prestigious Oxford History of the British Empire: The Twentieth Century, the summation of Anglo-American scholarship, fails to acknowledge the famine.4 It is worth remembering that this catastrophe was described by Lord Wavell, who took over as viceroy in the middle of the famine, as “one of the greatest disasters that has befallen any people under British rule.” It was, indeed, the worst disaster to inflict the subcontinent in the twentieth century, but one would never know this from any history of the British Empire. Why?

The neglect is neither accidental nor idiosyncratic, because too many good historians are guilty of the same offence. Rather it derives from the sheer enormity of what happened. It is incompatible with any benign interpretation of the British Empire, whether of the “celebratory” or “realist” kind, because to give it the attention it demands inevitably shifts the centre of gravity of any general history in an anti-imperialist direction. Consequently the Bengal Famine is written out of the record. This neglect is no better than the conduct of those Soviet historians who ignored or denied the terrible Ukrainian Famine of the early 1930s, although they at least had the excuse that they were working under the watchful eye of Stalin’s secret police! It seems fair to say that many of the historians who have neglected or ignored the Bengal Famine would not hesitate to condemn as criminal any other twentieth-century regime that presided over the deaths from starvation of so many of the people under its rule. What we confront here obviously goes beyond any notion of individual failings on the part of particular historians. What we are looking at is the systematic repression of one of the British ruling class’s guilty secrets.

This repression can no longer be tolerated. Since the original publication of The Blood Never Dried in 2006 Madhusree Mukerjee has published her Churchill’s Secret War, providing us with a powerful account of the famine and the British response. She argues that the generally accepted death toll of 3.5 million has to be revised upwards to over 5 million people. As she points out, throughout the famine India continued to export food. If this food had been used for famine relief, perhaps 2 million lives could have been saved. And, on top of this, the British did not ship emergency foodstuffs in sufficient quantity to India to alleviate the situation in Bengal. The British priority, she argues, was to ensure that there were no food shortages in Britain and to stockpile food ready for the liberation of Europe. As Churchill put it, Indians were used to starving. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that Churchill’s attitude was informed by “a will to punish” the Indian people for whom he made clear his loathing on numerous occasions. In just about every War Cabinet discussion of India in 1943 Churchill displayed what she describes as an “inchoate rage.”5His attitude seriously alarmed some of his colleagues. Churchill’s role in this catastrophe has, of course, gone unremarked by his many biographers. At the very least, one would have expected Churchill’s Secret War to have provoked debate and controversy, but, at least at the time of writing, one expected in vain.

While historians of the British Empire have so far remained relatively unmoved by any stirrings of anti-imperialism, there have been some significant developments in the history of recent British colonial warfare. The British military failures in Iraq and Afghanistan have led to a major reassessment of British post–1945 counterinsurgency. As recently as 2004 the military historian John Keegan, in his The Iraq War, could claim that counterinsurgency was an area of military activity at which the British were “without equal.” Thirty years of experience in Northern Ireland had apparently given the British “mastery of the methods of urban warfare” and he insisted that what “had worked in Belfast could be made to work also in Basra.” The British had fifty years experience of the battle to win “hearts and minds” and such a battle “was about to begin” in Basra.6 The battle was lost in the most humiliating way, dealing a serious blow to the British army’s reputation for counterinsurgency expertise and for restraint in such operations. The torturing to death of the Iraqi hotel receptionist Baha Mousa was merely the latest episode in a long history of such conduct.7

For many years it was claimed that an essential element of British counterinsurgency operations was that they were waged with minimum force. This was in marked contrast to the French and the Americans and was, it was argued, one of the main reasons why the British were so successful in defeating insurgency. In a special double issue of the academic journalSmall Wars and Insurgencies, devoted to British counterinsurgency and published at the end of 2012, the editor, Matthew Hughes, states quite bluntly that the British “never employed minimum force in their imperial policing and counterinsurgency campaigns.” Indeed, the British use of force “is best viewed from a maximal and not a minimal position.”8 A new study of the suppression of the Kenyan Mau Mau rebellion, Huw Bennett’s Fighting the Mau Mau, similarly argues that whereas the doctrine of minimum force was once seen as underpinning British counterinsurgency operations, such a view is no longer tenable. What he describes as “the triumphalist orthodoxy” failed because of its inability to explain “the difficulties encountered in Basra and Helmand.” The idea that the British used minimum force he dismisses as “little more than romantic self-delusion.” Instead he argues that British counterinsurgency operations were informed by the “notion of exemplary punitive force, characterised by a rapid and harsh response to rebellion which punished the general population.”9

This view has been endorsed by David French, the foremost historian of the twentieth-century British army, in what is likely to become the standard history of British counterinsurgency,The British Way in Counter-Insurgency 1945–1967. According to French, far from “being determined only to use minimum force,” the British “readily committed the maximum possible force they could deploy.” Indeed, he argues that the way British counterinsurgency campaigns have generally been portrayed is “at best ill-informed, and at worst almost the opposite of what actually happened.” He quotes a senior officer in Kenya in early November 1952 insisting that the Kikuyu had to be shown “that the government is much more to be feared than Mau Mau.” There was complete success in achieving that objective. This is all very different from “winning hearts and minds.” Instead the British employed exemplary force that was intended to intimidate the civilian population. The talk of “hearts and minds” was really just “good public relations. It helped disguise the sometimes unpalatable reality from the British public and the wider international community.” This, it seems fair to say, is now the consensus among academics researching and writing in this field.

What about the use of torture? As French points out, there were “no manuals detailing how these techniques should be employed. They were taught at the Intelligence Corps training centre by word of mouth.” He quotes one former soldier remembering his 1949 Intelligence Corps training: “The tortures that were described to us had the advantage of leaving none of the visible traces that might be noticed…beating the prisoner after his body had been wrapped in a wet blanket, filling his body with water, and holding him against a hot stove.”10 Of course, recognizing the realities of British counterinsurgency does not necessarily lead to anti-imperialist conclusions; it can lead to the “realist” conclusion that if that is how an empire has to be ruled then so be it. But this is not something that most people are prepared to countenance, which is why so much effort is put into hiding the evidence and denying the truth.

Certainly the use of torture by the British has a much higher profile today than when The Blood Never Dried was first published. Of crucial importance here are the Mau Mau cases that are the still the subject of ongoing legal action. Four Kenyan victims of torture, Ndiku Mutwiwa Mutua, Paulo Muoka Nzili, Wambugu wa Nyingi, and Jane Muthoni Mara, are suing the British government for what was done to them when they were in detention in the 1950s. Mutua and Nzili were both beaten and castrated; Nyingi was regularly beaten, subjected to water torture, and nearly beaten to death during the Hola Camp massacre (he was thrown on the pile of detainees who had been killed but then found to still be alive); and Jane Mara was regularly beaten and on one occasion raped with a heated bottle that a guard forced into her vagina with his boot. Three other women detainees received the same treatment after her. Their case has led to the “discovery” of the Hanslope Park archive of “mislaid” colonial documents, which included 294 boxes containing 1,500 files of Kenyan materials. According to David Anderson, one of the historians given limited access to the files:

Many of these documents contain discussion of torture and abuse and the legal implications for the British administration in Kenya of the use of coercive force in prisons and detention camps, by so-called “screening teams” and in other interrogations carried out by all members of the security forces…. Many of the documents provide copious detail on the administration of torture and substantive allegations of abuse…our listing of individual notified cases now stands at close to 500 examples…. This included the burning alive of detainees.11

The files have revealed such gems as the letter Eric Griffiths-Jones, the Attorney General in Kenya, wrote to the colony’s governor, Evelyn Baring, in June 1957. He recommended that when Mau Mau suspects were beaten care should be taken that “vulnerable parts of the body should not be struck, particularly the spleen, liver or kidneys,” and that “those who administer violence…should remain collected, balanced and dispassionate.” This remarkable opinion from the colony’s senior law officer was, of course, widely ignored in practice, with prisoners beaten to death by men who were anything but “balanced and dispassionate.” Still, as he sagely warned the governor, “If we are going to sin we must sin quietly.”12

We British, of course, know how to deal with torturers. Take the case of the former Black and Tan and Palestine Police officer, Douglas Duff. In his memoir, Bailing with a Teaspoon, he wrote quite cheerfully of how during the 1920s:

I witnessed…many scores of cases where the “hoist”, or the “water-can” was employed. This latter method had the merit, from the investigators’ viewpoint, of leaving no traces for doctors to detect. The victim was held down, flat on his back, while a thin-spouted coffee pot poured a trickle of water up his nose, while his head was clamped immovably between cushions that left no marks of bruising…. Usually, we British officers remained discreetly in the background, not wishing to have the skirts of our garments soiled….

Not that Duff was without standards. Even he disapproved of a gloating British policeman he met in Nablus early in his career who “produced an old cigarette-tin containing the brains of a man whose skull he had splintered with his rifle-butt.”13 What became of Douglas Duff? He went on to become a minor TV celebrity, appearing as a panelist on the popular BBC quiz showWhat’s My Line?

None of the issues raised here are academic, of purely historical interest. The Blood Never Dried was written very much as a response to British participation in the Iraq war and although British troops have been withdrawn from that country, at the time of writing they remain in Afghanistan. Only recently British aircraft have been employed to bomb Libya, the country that has the dubious honor of being the first country to ever experience aerial bombardment, at the hands of the Italians, in 1911. Indeed, the aerial bombardment of 2011, in which the Italians participated, was an unwitting marking of that anniversary. And there are colonial wars still to come which our rulers will dress up as humanitarian interventions or as reluctant responses to “mortal threats” posed by a variety of “enemies,” yesterday Communists, today Islamists, tomorrow….

But in reality, these will be wars fought for different reasons altogether, for economic and strategic reasons that cannot be admitted in public for fear that popular opinion will rebel. They will, of course, be U.S. wars, waged with British support and participation. Public opinion will be against them, as was the case in both Afghanistan and Iraq, but the politicians will be enthusiastically in favor. This book hopes to contribute to the opposition to these future wars.

John Newsinger is Professor of Modern History at Bath Spa University, and a lifelong trade union and socialist activist. His most recent books are The Blood Never Dried: A People’s History of the British Empire (2013), Jim Larkin and the Great Dublin Lockout (2013), and  Fighting Back: The American Working Class in the 1930s (2012).This is the introduction to the second edition of The Blood Never Dried: A People’s History of the British Empire(London: Bookmarks, 2013), and is reprinted with permission.
© 2014 Monthly Review.

MOVE OVER TWADDELL ROYAL NYUKS SCUM STATE DONATELLA IS CUMMIN

The influence of the Orange Order and the Free Presbyterian Church within the Scum State of British Occupied Ireland's biggest political party can today finally be laid bare.

The Belfast Telegraph begins a series today revealing the details of the most extensive study ever carried out into the DUP.

The Democratic Unionist Party: From Protest To Power will be published by Oxford University Press later this month. Exclusive extracts show that Free Presbyterianism remains the largest faith among both DUP members and elected representatives. The Orange Order is even more dominant.

Orange influence grows, church’s grip slackens

Professor Jonathan Tonge surveyed 75% of the party's members in interviews carried out with the active support of the leadership. His findings reveal that Free Presbyterianism, the tiny denomination founded by Ian Paisley, still remains the largest faith among both DUP members and elected representatives.

The Orange Order is even more dominant, counting the majority of DUP elected representatives and more than a third of party members among its ranks.

According to the research, just under a third of DUP members (30.5%) are Free Presbyterians and slightly more (34.6%) are members of the Orange institution.

To put these figures in context, the 2011 census recorded that there were 10,068 Free Presbyterians in Northern Ireland – just 0.6% of our total population.

Like most political parties, the DUP does not disclose its membership, but it is believed to number around 1,100 people.

Overall, Free Presbyterians are more than 50 times more common in the DUP than they are in the population. Orangemen are 21 times more common in the party.

The prevalence of both bodies increases as you move up the ranks. Almost 40% of the 175 DUP councillors elected in 2011 were Free Presbyterian and more than half (54.2%) were members of the Orange Order. These proportions may have fallen a little in the council elections held last month.

Among the DUP's 38 MLAs over a third are Free Presbyterians and exactly half are Orangemen. The proportion increases further among the party's eight MPs.

Prof Tonge points out that the influence of the Free Presbyterian Church has declined over time, whereas the Orange Order membership appears to have increased.

This is partly due to an influx of new members between the signing of the Belfast, or Good Friday, Agreement in 1998, which it opposed, and 2006 when the DUP signed the St Andrews Agreement on power-sharing with Sinn Fein.

Many of these new recruits were members of the Ulster Unionist Party, which had links with the Orange Order but not with the Free Presbyterian Church.

Dr Tonge found that "prior to the signing of the 1998 Belfast Agreement, 56% of DUP members were Free Presbyterians. During the period of DUP opposition to the 1998 deal, Free Presbyterian membership still ran at one in five of new members (well down on the early days) but decline to a mere 13% after the 2006 St Andrews Agreement".

Other figures show, that particularly in the early days of the DUP, several converted to the Free Presbyterian Church when they joined the party. Some 29.8% of DUP members were born into the Church of Ireland but only 17.7% still belong to that denomination.

An unnamed former DUP mayor of Belfast told researchers that he was asked by a fellow DUP councillor what church he attended. When he replied: "Stormont Presbyterian", he was told: "You haven't found freedom yet."

Assessing the most active members of the party, Dr Tonge found: "It is the Orange contingent not, contrary to popular myth, the Free Presbyterians, who really count as the most active of all."

One gauge of support for the Orange Order was the view of DUP members on parading rights. A clear majority, 58%, think the Order should be able to march wherever it likes, but quite a high number, 31.6%, believe it should only be allowed through nationalist areas "if there is prior agreement with nationalist residents".

The Democratic Unionist Party: From Protest To Power by Jonathan Tonge, Maire Braniff, Thomas Hennessey, James W. McAuley, and Sophie Whiting; Oxford University Press, £55

What they said... voice from inside the party

DUP leader Peter Robinson

“I don’t think that the church should have any influence on it (DUP policy). People’s own faith will guide them in terms of their outlook on life and therefore, from a structural institutional point of view, it (the score) should be a zero, but from a personal point of view, it should be 10. Individuals are what they are because of the beliefs that they hold and nothing will be held more sincerely than whatever their religious beliefs are.”

MLA Paul Girvan

“Some people say religion and politics should never really mix. I am a total disbeliever in that aspect because I believe politics came about through religion. If you use the Ten Commandments, you can formulate almost every law that you need.”

Ballymena non-Free Presbyterian councillor

“On occasions I would be made to feel like an outsider . . . I would like to see a bit more openness in the members, who are there with strong beliefs, to the likes of me. I am not a disease coming in the midst of them.”

A UUP defector, now a North Belfast councillor

“I never got the sense being in the DUP that it is a political wing of the Free Ps . . . there was a disconnect between the two even before St Andrews and those who were Free P and DUP were starting to draw the distinction between the two.” GOD !..... ZOMBIES ARE THICK TWATS......

..and now....for something different.......

• 
  

  
  

Brian Clarke shared his photo.

Yesterday at 2:09am

RESPECT ISLAM http://bitly.com/TWADDELLislam Irish Bloghttp://bitly.com/Irishblog http://twitpic.com/e5gcz5

Brian Clarke

RESPECT ISLAM http://bitly.com/TWADDELLislam Irish Bloghttp://bitly.com/Irishblog http://twitpic.com/e5gcz5

LikeLike ·  · Share

• 2 people like this.
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I will never Respect Islam

  10 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen My friend was gang raped by Muslims And 9/11 my brother is a Nigerian Christian ummmm Dead Christians ummm I have Apostate Friends who have been marked for Death Sharia Law need more??????

  10 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Dude!

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke I live in a Muslim Village and I have been all over the world. Muslims are by far the nicest people I ever met !

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Good for you

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Your a Man Also

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen And not Apostate of course they are nice to You it's part of the Dawa

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Steve Ralph

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Brian Clarke

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I have Apostate friends

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Explain Apostate Murder

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen This has nothing to do with the RA

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Jacob is a Muslim name a lot of people in this village are called Jacob ! Really cool

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Dude

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I don't care

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Explain Apostate Murder

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Sorry I'm busy man !

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Are you Muslim

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Running from the topic I see

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen
  

  الكعبة المشرفة هو كان المعبود محمد نبي كاذب والله هو الشيطان

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Islam In Action
  
  Qur’an 9:29-Fight against Christians and Jews ”until they pay the tribute readily, being brought low.”
  
  Qur’an 4:91- If the unbelievers do not offer you peace, kill them wherever you find them. Against such you are given clear warrant.
  
  . Qur’an 9:7-9-Don’t make treaties with non-Muslims. They are all evildoers and should not be trusted.
  
  Qur’an 9:12-14-Fight the disbelievers! Allah is on your side; he will give you victory.
  
  . Qur’an 9:5 Kill the nonbelievers wherever you find them.
  
  Qur’an 2:191-2-Kill disbelievers wherever you find them. If they attack you, then kill them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.
  
  Qur’an (5:51) - ”O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people.”
  
  Qur’an (2:65-66) Christians and Jews must believe what Allah has revealed to Muhammad or Allah will disfigure their faces or turn them into apes, as he did the Sabbath-breakers.
  
  Qur’an (4:48, 4:116)-Those who ascribe a partner to Allah (like Christians do with Jesus and the Holy Spirit) will not be forgiven. They have “invented a tremendous sin.”
  
  Qur’an (4:51)-Jews and Christians believe in idols and false deities, yet they claim to be more rightly guided than Muslims.
  
  Qur’an (5:51) Don’t take Jews or Christians for friends. If you do, then Allah will consider you to be one of them.
  
  Qur’an (5:80) – “You will see many of them befriending those who disbelieve; certainly evil is that which their souls have sent before for them, that Allah became displeased with them and in chastisement shall they abide.” Those Muslims who befriend unbelievers will abide in hell.
  
  Qur’an (3:85) - ”And whoever desires a religion other than Islam, it shall not be accepted from him, and in the hereafter he shall be one of the 
  losers.”
  
  Quran (8:55) – Surely the vilest of animals in Allah’s sight are those who disbelieve
  
  Quran (48:29) – Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves
  
  Quran (9:30) – And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah… Allah (Himself) fights against them. How perverse are they!
  
  Quran (8:12) – I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them
  
  Quran (9:123) – O you who believe! Fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness
  
  Quran (5:33) – The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement
  
  Sahih Bukhari: Vol 9, Book 84, No 64: – So, wherever you find them [Unbelievers/non-Muslims], kill them, for whoever kills them shall have reward on the Day of Resurrection.

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Coward

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Every time you post Pro-Islam and I see it I shall be there until you Explain apostate laws

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Brain Clarke

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen No Sharia For TWADDELL

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen You want Sharia Law in Ireland your Evil you hate women and want dead Apostates

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Steve Ralph

  9 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen
  

  
  

  

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke rESPECT THE MUSLIMS AT TWADDELL !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen
  

  
  

  

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I will respect the Muslims in Twadell but no Sharia Law

  8 hrs · Edited · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke yoU HAVE AN iSLAMIC NAME !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen It's a Christian/Jewish name

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Muslims Stole it

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke THEY TOLD ME IT IS A MUSLIM NAME AND I BELIEVE THEM, THEY NEVER TELL LIES !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen LOL

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Taqiyya - Saying something that isn't true.
  
  Kitman - Lying by omission. An example would be when Muslim apologists quote only a fragment of verse 5:32 (that if anyone kills "it shall be as if he had killed all mankind") while neglecting to mention that the rest of the verse (and the next) mandate murder in undefined cases of "corruption" and "mischief." 
  
  Though not called Taqiyya by name, Muhammad clearly used deception when he signed a 10-year treaty with the Meccans that allowed him access to their city while he secretly prepared his own forces for a takeover. The unsuspecting residents were conquered in easy fashion after he broke the treaty two years later, and some of the people in the city who had trusted him at his word were executed. 
  
  Another example of lying is when Muhammad used deception to trick his personal enemies into letting down their guard and exposing themselves to slaughter by pretending to seek peace. This happened in the case of Ka'b bin al-Ashraf (as previously noted) and again later against Usayr ibn Zarim, a surviving leader of the Banu Nadir tribe, which had been evicted from their home in Medina by the Muslims.
  
  At the time, Usayr ibn Zarim was attempting to gather an armed force against the Muslims from among a tribe allied with the Quraish (against which Muhammad had already declared war). Muhammad's "emissaries" went to ibn Zarim and persuaded him to leave his safe haven on the pretext of meeting with the prophet of Islam in Medina to discuss peace. Once vulnerable, the leader and his thirty companions were massacred by the Muslims with ease, belying the probability that they were mostly unarmed, having been given a guarantee of safe passage (Ibn Ishaq 981).
  
  Such was the reputation of Muslims for lying and then killing that even those who "accepted Islam" did not feel entirely safe. The fate of the Jadhima is tragic evidence for this. When Muslim "missionaries" approached their tribe one of the members insisted that they would be slaughtered even though they had already "converted" to Islam to avoid just such a demise. However, the others were convinced that they could trust the Muslim leader's promise that they would not be harmed if they simply offered no resistance. (After convincing the skeptic to lay down his arms, the unarmed men of the tribe were quickly tied up and beheaded - Ibn Ishaq 834 & 837).
  
  Today's Muslims often try to justify Muhammad's murder of poets and others who criticized him at Medina by saying that they broke a treaty by their actions. Yet, these same apologists place little value on treaties broken by Muslims. From Muhammad to Saddam Hussein, promises made to non-Muslim are distinctly non-binding in the Muslim mindset.
  
  Leaders in the Arab world routinely say one thing to English-speaking audiences and then something entirely different to their own people in Arabic. Yassir Arafat was famous for telling Western newspapers about his desire for peace with Israel, then turning right around and whipping Palestinians into a hateful and violent frenzy against Jews.
  
  The 9/11 hijackers practiced deception by going into bars and drinking alcohol, thus throwing off potential suspicion that they were fundamentalists plotting jihad. This effort worked so well, in fact, that even weeks after 9/11, John Walsh, the host of a popular American television show, said that their bar trips were evidence of 'hypocrisy.'
  
  The transmission from Flight 93 records the hijackers telling their doomed passengers that there is "a bomb on board" but that everyone will "be safe" as long as "their demands are met." Obviously none of these things were true, but these men, who were so intensely devoted to Islam that they were willing to "slay and be slain for the cause of Allah" (as the Qur'an puts it) saw nothing wrong with employing Taqiyya in order to facilitate their mission of mass murder.
  
  The Islamic Society of North America (ISNA) insists that it "has not now or ever been involved with the Muslim Brotherhood, or supported any covert, illegal, or terrorist activity or organization." In fact, it was created by the Muslim Brotherhood and has bankrolled Hamas. At least nine founders or board members of ISNA have been accused by prosecutors of supporting terrorism.
  
  Prior to engineering several deadly terror plots, such as the Fort Hood massacre and the attempt to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, American cleric Anwar al-Awlaki was regularly sought out by NPR, PBS and even government leaders to expound on the peaceful nature of Islam.
  
  The near absence of Qur'anic verse and reliable Hadith that encourage truthfulness is somewhat surprising, given that many Muslims are convinced that their religion teaches honesty. In fact, it is because of this ingrained belief that many Muslims are quite honest. When lying is addressed in the Qur'an, it is nearly always in reference to the "lies against Allah" - referring to the Jews and Christians who rejected Muhammad's claim to being a prophet.
  
  Finally, the circumstances by which Muhammad allowed a believer to lie to a non-spouse are limited to those that either advance the cause of Islam or enable a Muslim to avoid harm to his well-being (and presumably that of other Muslims as well). Although this should be kept very much in mind when dealing with matters of global security, such as Iran's nuclear intentions, it is not grounds for assuming that the Muslim one might personally encounter on the street or in the workplace is any less honest than anyone else.

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Never lie

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Absolutely !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Pfffff

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Taqqyia

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen And Kitman

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Explain Apostate murder I have Studied islam

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Whats your problem they are after all your cousins !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen My friend was gang raped by Muslims And 9/11 my brother is a Nigerian Christian ummmm Dead Christians ummm I have Apostate Friends who have been marked for Death Sharia Law need more??????

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Not my Cousins

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Apostate = Ex Muslim

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Your a Sheep

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Why can't everyone just get along !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Is Brain Clarke your Real Name????

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Because SHARIA LAW is Wrong

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke You haven't answered any of my questions ?

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Explain Sharia Law to Me

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Yes I have

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen 4 Male Witnesses to Prove Rape Apostate Murder and woman's testimony is worth half that of a Man that is part of Sharia Law

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke A Judge has to judge that !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Jacob was not a Muslim Muhammed was the first Muslim Islam was unheard of before Muhammed

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Yes and Ireland is not a Islamic Country never will be so stop Pushing Sharia Law for Twadell

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Nobody has a monopoly on the truth

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Dude

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Sharia law is oppressive to Women

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke The Twaddell crowd don't like jews !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Jews And Christians

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I ain't Jewish

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen See what I mean

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Islamic women are very sensuous ! I believe they are after my wife the most beautiful sexy women in the world !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Are you Muslim is your Name Brian Clarke

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen This is no Joke

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen No Sharia law for Twadell

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Its nobody's business what I believe !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Stop Pushing it

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen No Caliphate

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Sharai Law should be respected at Twadell !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I am Christian and unashamed to say

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen NO!

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke You mean the Caliphate of Twaddell !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Twadell is IRISH

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Twadell is not a Caliphate

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Muslim Irish right ?

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Irish Muslim are Okay but NO SHARIA LAW

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke BUt at the end of the day you have a MuslimName !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Dude it's not Muslim Jacob was Jewish the Muslims stole it

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Why are you ashamed of you Islamic background ?

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke How can you steal a name !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I am not Muslim

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Why have a Muslim name then ?

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen By stealing names from another Religion and Claiming it as Yours

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I was born with a Jewish/Christian Name

  8 hrs · Edited · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I will say what my Religion is I am not Ashamed you are Ashamed of yours

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen I got no love or time for Sharia in Twadell

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke I think Sharia Law would sort out Twaddell !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Sharia

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Are you Crazy

  8 hrs · Edited · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Sharia Law is Evil

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke The muslims don't allow them in the village ! Is that your wife in the photo ?

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen That's my Aunt and Mother

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen TWADDELL is a Town not a Village

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen And my brother

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Sharia Law is Evil

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen No Sharia Law End of Story

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke You and the Loyalists need to respect Sharia law ! I live very happily in this village with four wives !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Holy Crap stop Playing games

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Be Serious

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Excuse me have some respect ! That is the Sharia law in this village and it certainly would sort out a lot of issues in Twaddell!

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Are you Crazy

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Stoning in the Street

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke You obviously have no respect, I am going to finish talking with you. You are the one who is crazy !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen You want Sharia Law for TWADDELL

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Brian Clarke Absolutely !

  8 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Steve Ralph

  7 hrs · Like
• 

  Jacob Winslow Gardner Allen Anthony Forry I am not the only one who thinks something is Wrong with some one pushing for Sharia Law in Twaddell am I ?????? I can't tag anyone else and Tim Farris is not Online

  7 hrs · Like
•