British National Party Anti-Jihad News Bulletin w/c January 22, 2007
Subscribe to this and other BNP News Bulletins here http://www.bnp.org.uk/mailing_list.htm
No sign up required, just give your email address, and that's it.

1. BUSH BEING FORCED TO END WAR

The American political system, unlike ours, elects legislators and the chief executive separately. The recent Congressional election, focussing on the war, put the Democratic party in power in the House of Representatives and the Senate, and they are politely but inexorably using their newly-acquired power to choke off Pres. Bush's war in Iraq. Nobody wants bruising Vietnam-era hysterics in Washington, but their Constitution does, when push comes to shove, enable the Congress to close down a war -- at last resort, by refusing to fund it. So no matter how many last throws of the dice Mr. Bush begs for, his time has run out. With the collapse of the American effort in Iraq will come, whether admitted in public or not, the collapse of the idea that the USA (and any hangers-on) can impose by force benign democratic governments. From this, it inescapably follows that whatever strategy we adopt, towards dealing with the Middle East, must be based on accepting the basic reality that these nations are what they are, and are not blobs of political plasticine for us to reshape to what we would prefer them to be. We can't make them stop believing in Islam, or in jihad against us. We must accept the reality of their hostility for the foreseeable future, and get serious about defending ourselves against their threat -- not dreaming about reconstructing the threat out of existence.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-warvote25jan25,1,1727261.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

A Senate committee approved a toughly worded resolution Wednesday to oppose a troop buildup in Iraq, moving Congress a step closer to an official repudiation of President Bush's leadership of the increasingly violent 4-year-old war. In a sign of how partisan the debate over Iraq remains, only one Republican joined Democrats on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to support the nonbinding resolution, which bluntly declares: "It is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq." But the vote - which came the day after Bush asked Congress to give his proposal "a chance to work" - followed hours of criticism of the new Iraq policy by Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Not a single committee member endorsed the White House plan. With that resolution headed to the Senate floor for debate as soon as next week, momentum continued to build Wednesday behind a second, more bipartisan resolution opposing the Bush Iraq plan. Both resolutions are nonbinding and stop well short of the limits Congress has put on spending to scale back other unpopular military operations, including the Vietnam War. But they mark a sharp departure from the largely deferential posture the Republican-led Congress assumed after Bush sought and won approval for the Iraq invasion in 2002.

And as support grows for some legislative action, it appears increasingly likely that Bush could face the equivalent of a no-confidence vote. Asked in a CNN interview how the administration would react if the Senate passed a resolution against the president's Iraq plan, Vice President Dick Cheney said: "It won't stop us, and it would be, I think, detrimental from the standpoint of the troops." The foreign relations panel's resolution, passed 12 to 9, is sponsored by Sens. Joseph R. Biden Jr. (D-Del.), Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.). The second resolution - championed by veteran Republican Sen. John W. Warner of Virginia - has attracted four GOP co-sponsors and six Democratic. And several Republican senators who voted against Biden's resolution in committee expressed interest in Warner's measure. One of Warner's co-sponsors, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), said Wednesday evening that the measure's authors were talking with more lawmakers about joining on to the resolution. Warner's stature as a former chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a onetime Navy secretary has helped draw Republican support. His proposal also is not complicated by presidential politics. Both Biden and Hagel have expressed interest in running for the White House.

The Warner resolution "disagrees" with Bush's plan to send 17,500 additional troops to Baghdad, citing rising sectarian violence in the capital and a poor record of Iraqi cooperation with U.S. initiatives. But it also includes deferential language recognizing the president's authority as commander in chief and accepts the possibility that the 4,000 additional troops Bush wants in Al Anbar province may be needed. The Biden measure is broadly similar, although it does not distinguish between Baghdad and Al Anbar, a hotbed of the Sunni Arab insurgency. Nearly all the Democrats on the foreign relations committee, including Sen. Barbara Boxer of California, said they hoped the resolution would be only the first step in a congressional drive to start bringing the war to an end. "Kids are dying over there," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.), another presidential hopeful and vocal war opponent. "We need to do something meaningful." Dodd offered two amendments to Biden's resolution that would have capped the number of troops in Iraq and forced the president to seek congressional authorization for further increases. The amendments failed. But Biden, the committee chairman, assured senators that he was also interested in legislation to force the president to start withdrawing troops.

"We should be drawing down forces," Biden said. "We need a radical change in course." Hagel, a Vietnam veteran and longtime Iraq war opponent, chided his Republican colleagues for their hesitation. "The Congress has stood in the shadows . for four years," he said. "I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? . If you want a safe job, go sell shoes." The harangue did not move any of the nine other GOP lawmakers on the committee, many of whom are uncomfortable with the tone of the Democratic opposition to Bush's Iraq plans. Nor were any minds changed by the removal of the word "escalating" from the resolution, a nod to Republicans who consider the term a politically loaded reference to Vietnam. Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), a widely respected moderate who previously led the committee, said he did not believe any resolution opposing the president's policy would be productive. "It is the wrong tool for this stage in the Iraq debate," Lugar said, warning that it would be divisive and unlikely to affect the president's thinking. Other Republican senators expressed concern that it might send the wrong message to American troops and that it failed to spell out any alternative to Bush's plan.

"We all have a right to be against a plan. I also think we all have a responsibility to be for a plan. This resolution is clearly not a plan," said Sen. David Vitter (R-La.), who has called for specific benchmarks to measure progress in Iraq. The Republican opposition to the resolution did not stop GOP lawmakers from criticizing Bush's plans, however. "I'm more skeptical about what we're doing than I ever have been before," said Sen. George V. Voinovich (R-Ohio), who noted that the more he had learned from Bush administration officials about the buildup, the more concerned he had become. After Wednesday's committee vote, aides to Sens. John E. Sununu (R-N.H.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), both of whom voted against the Biden resolution, said the lawmakers were more comfortable with the language in the Warner resolution. Biden and his co-sponsors, as well as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), have expressed a desire to work with Warner on a compromise that could also go to the Senate floor next week. Hagel, who has had several lengthy discussions with Warner, said he anticipated more. "We'll be doing a lot of talking," he said.

2. A WARNING TO OVERLY-SENTIMENTAL CHRISTIANS

Christianity, whether one actually believes in it or not, is part of the civilisational identity that we are defending. However, some liberal 'Christians', as in the Church of England, would like to twist various Christian teachings, like Jesus's command to 'turn the other cheek' and 'resist not evil', into the idea that we should fail to defend ourselves. Below is a salutary warning, from a reader of our website, against this tendency. Christians must remember that Jesus also said, 'Render unto Caesar, the things that are Caesar's, and unto God, the things that are God's', meaning that good Christians should respect the necessities of the secular state, which include things like the armed defence of the nation. Healthy Christianity must remember that Christendom only exists because it was successfully defended in the past by great heroes like Richard the Lionheart.

http://www.bnp.org.uk/reg_showarticle.php?contentID=1797

I do not attend church as often as I should, I nonetheless consider myself a Christian and regard Jesus Christ as my sole saviour and redeemer and I strive to live my life in accord with His teachings. To that end I turn the other cheek, I love my neighbour and I treat others, as I would like to be treated. But, it must also be recognised that we live in an imperfect world and there have to be limits to just how many times a cheek can be turned, for instance. Unfortunately I have learned this life experience the hard way, as they say, and although this may make me less of a Christian in some eyes I certainly don’t feel any less Christian as a consequence. Being a Christian does not require me to play the fool, at least not in my opinion. By that I mean serving Christ does not mean that I should recklessly entertain those who wish to do me and my kind harm. This brings me to the subject of Islam. As a Christian the Lord teaches me to love my neighbour, a message brought to congregations in a thousand sermons, in a thousand churches, by those who, in the main, derive their experience of life not from the streets and workplaces – but from book theology and the relatively closeted and inward looking world of the Church itself. Should I love the neighbour who sets out to do me harm, should “love thy neighbour” be taken as an absolute commandment? I don’t think so although, admittedly, some do. I believe to do so would be folly and demonstrable folly at that.

This does not mean that you should hate such a neighbour, far from it. It means, in my opinion, you should recognise there are limitations to love and that such limitations are necessarily determined by commonsense exercised within the guiding context of our Christian teachings. Should one offer unlimited love on all occasions to the neighbour who seeks your destruction? Surely not! This is not the Biblical message as far as I am concerned. Yet this is precisely what the Church is doing by embracing Islam. It is holding to its naked bosom the viper that has reaffirmed its dedication, down the centuries, to the total destruction of our Christian Church. Its mission of oblivion for our Church, first formulated on the sands of Arabia and reaffirmed a million times since – even up until the present day – has not been moderated or even modified, far less rescinded at any time since! The fact that the viper hasn’t bitten on the first occasion, or the second or, indeed, the hundredth is no guarantee of reciprocated brotherly love, anymore than it is a safeguard against that fatal bite – which will inevitably be struck - if that religion is to be true unto itself. For the Church to embrace Islam, even in its “moderate” form – which is, after all, merely the reverse of the same coin struck bearing its founding image of fundamentalism and intolerance - is to embrace its own destruction and constitutes folly, may I say, of biblical proportions. The devil takes shapes in many ways to deceive those who believe in God.

3. SERBIA, CANARY IN THE COAL MINE

Serbia, a nation unlucky enough to be on the front line geographically against Islam, faces having its province of Kosovo -- historic cradle of Serb nationhood -- ripped from it by the United Nations, and turned over to the jihadist crime syndicate known as the Kosovo Liberation Army.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/01/20/wserb20.xml

Nada Todorovic keeps a much cherished chunk of rock in her sitting room in Belgrade. "It is my own piece of Kosovo," the 69-year-old artist said mournfully, remembering how she carried the lump home after a trip to Serbia's border with the disputed territory. "Kosovo is part of the soul of Serbia. If foreign powers take it away it will be a great crime." As Serbia votes in presidential elections tomorrow, the one thing both hard-line nationalists and moderate reformists all warn is that if Kosovo is granted independence in coming weeks, as the United Nations hopes, the Balkans could be plunged into turmoil again eight years after Nato forced Serb forces out of the territory. advertisement The UN is planning to set Kosovo on the path to independence with a final status declaration for the territory as soon as next month.

The announcement, originally due last December, was delayed out of concern that it could provoke an ultra-nationalist swing in Serbia. Even if more moderate reformists emerge dominant in tomorrow's tightly-contested vote, they too have made clear that they will not support the UN's decision. Serbs regard the region, which is replete with medieval art and monasteries, as the font of their Orthodox civilisation. Vojislav Kostunica, the prime minister, recently described the move as the "most dangerous and destructive idea in Europe". A constitutional lawyer, he passed a new constitution in October that enshrined Kosovo as part of Serbia, so making independence illegal. Even the Democrat Party, the only major party to accept that Kosovan sovereignty is probably a fait accompli, has warned of Balkan instability for years. "It would present several regional problems, but also present problems for the West," said Milan Markovic, a member of the party's executive. "It would establish an international precedent of people who were a minority not long ago using terrorism to achieve political goals, and would encourage others to do the same." Kosovo has been administered by the UN since the 1999 Nato bombing campaign to expel Serb forces committing atrocities against civilians. The previous year a rebellion was launched against Slobodan Milosevic's revocation of the territory's autonomy.

But tension has simmered ever since and there is growing fear in international community of a return to violence now either as Serbs protest against the UN decision or by Kosovo Albanians frustrated by delays in reaching their long sought after goal. EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana this week urged the people of Kosovo to be patient. "It is very important that everybody behaves properly if we want the last part of the journey to have a nice, soft landing," he said. A century ago ethnic Serbs were in the majority in Kosovo, but there is now a 90 per cent ethnic Albanian Muslim majority, in part because of a high birth rate, Serb migration after the Second World War and, Serbs say, intimidation. Serbia is still recovering from 16 years of war and sanctions and is not expected to launch military retaliation against the new nation, which is likely to be granted a form of supervised independence. Mr Kostunica has said Kosovo will be the single most important issue as his party aims to forge a ruling coalition after tomorrow's vote. His stance has raised fears that he could ally with the uncompromisingly nationalist Radical Party.

4. ISLAM EXPOSED IN TV DOCUMENTARY

The TV programme dispatches recently did an excellent expose of what Moslems in the UK are really up to. Among other things, you can watch the headmaster of an Islamic school call for the legalisation of pedophilia, stoning of homosexuals, and the overthrow of democracy. The program is cut into six sections.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFQWuk4nuo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuCLC8kjWCI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x5t5EqWX92k

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMztM0Z7BYE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4Zv3BUmwqs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KvjvNScmTQA

5. TORIES BACK WAR AGAINST IRAN

Iran has openly threatened nuclear strikes on Israel, so Israel has the right of pre-emption (not the same thing as saying it would work), and what America does there, is America's business (though the World Policemen hasn't exactly had a stellar record of late.) But for Britain to participate in a pre-emptive war against Iran would be madness. Nevertheless, the Tories are determined to show that they have only one foreign policy idea: 'do a pale imitation of whatever the USA does.'

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article2140280.ece

Liam Fox, the shadow Defence Secretary, has backed hawks in the White House by calling for "nothing to be ruled out" to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. Mr Fox gave the clearest signal yet that the Conservatives would support military action, including the use of nuclear strikes by the US or Israel, to halt the alleged production of a nuclear weapon by Iran. "I am a hawk on Iran," said Mr Fox. "We should rule absolutely nothing out when it comes to Iran. They are notoriously good poker players and it is a very high stakes game they are playing." His remarks follow reports in the US that Israel is ready to use nuclear "bunker buster" bombs to knock out the Iranian nuclear plants. Israeli officials denied the reports but there is a widespread belief at Westminster that Israel and America will not stand by while Iran develops nuclear weapons, although Iran has denied it is doing so. The issue has caused rifts in Tony Blair's Government. Jack Straw said military action against Iran was "inconceivable" when he was foreign secretary. Mr Blair has insisted that military action was not on the agenda, but refused to go as far as Mr Straw in ruling it out.

6. MI-6 CHALLENGES BLAIR CLAIM ABOUT CORRUTION INQUIRY

So let's get this straight: the government of Saudi Arabia funds the export of Islamism, and then has the nerve to threaten to cut off cooperation against Islamic terrorists -- unless we give them the right to violate our anti-corruption laws! A single arms deal is not worth the cost (including the economic cost) of destroying the credibility of Britain's legal system and our reputation as an honest mart of the world's trade.

http://www.mathaba.net/news/?x=548709

Britain's secret intelligence service, MI6, has challenged the government's claim that a major corruption inquiry into Saudi Arabian arms deals was threatening national security. The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, told parliament before Christmas that the intelligence agencies "agreed with the assessment" of Tony Blair that national security was in jeopardy because the Saudis intended to pull out of intelligence cooperation with Britain. But John Scarlett, the head of MI6, has now refused to sign up to a government dossier which says MI6 endorses this view. Whitehall sources have told the Guardian that the statement to the Lords was incorrect. MI6 and MI5 possessed no intelligence that the Saudis intended to sever security links. The intelligence agencies had been merely asked whether it would be damaging to UK national security if such a breach did happen.

They replied that naturally it would. The issue has now come to a head because ministers are under pressure at an international meeting today to justify why they terminated an important corruption investigation into the arms company BAE Systems. In a controversial move last month, Tony Blair ordered the Serious Fraud Office inquiry to be halted, and said he took the responsibility for doing so, after BAE lobbied him that it might otherwise lose a lucrative Saudi order for more arms sales. The decision was condemned by MPs and anti-corruption campaigners, and is now the subject of an inquiry by the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), which is responsible for rooting out corruption around the world. Britain signed up to its anti-bribery convention which made the payment of bribes a specific criminal offence under UK law in 2002. The OECD has demanded an explanation of the government's decision to abruptly close down an inquiry which was investigating secret payments made to Saudi royals. Whitehall officials will be questioned by 35 other governments at the Paris meeting, which can "name and shame" Britain if it finds against them. As part of the government's preparations to provide a justification to the OECD, MI6 was asked to sign up to a dossier which made the claim that MI6 "endorsed" Mr Blair's national security claim, according to those who have seen it. When it was sent to MI6 headquarters last week, Mr Scarlett, refused. Officials made it clear there were "differences" between the intelligence agencies and the government over the language used by Lord Goldsmith.

A source said that Lord Goldsmith's claims to parliament in December "contained quite a degree of conjecture". One official said there was "nothing to suggest" that the Saudis had actually warned "if you continue with this inquiry, we will cut off intelligence". Asked if the security and intelligence agencies objected to claims that they endorsed the attorney general's statement, an official replied: "Exactly." The language has now been changed. The dispute echoes the intelligence row about "sexing-up" the Iraq arms dossier, when Mr Scarlett, then head of the Joint Intelligence Committee, was persuaded to endorse false government claims that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Sources close to the intelligence agencies say Mr Scarlett was unwilling to again provide cover for ministers by endorsing another set of controversial government claims. Yesterday, Elfyn Llwyd, Plaid Cymru parliamentary leader, said: "I am glad that the security services have stuck to their guns and told the truth. This government is getting less and less credible every day". Lord Goldsmith's version of events has also caused a breach with the SFO. Its director, Robert Wardle, says his team found significant evidence in the Saudi arms inquiry and was hoping to find more from Swiss banks. Lord Goldsmith attempted to persuade MPs that the SFO had found no evidence to justify prosecutions and never would.