What occupation are you angry about? Constantinople?

Who left a hand-grenade outside the home of Kenny Dalglish?

Sometimes known as Dr Azzam (Kaboom!) Tamimi due to his love of suicide bombing!

And kill them wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (2:191)

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, (5:33)

And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is all for Allah. (8:39)

Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued. (9:29)

Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom. (47:4)

And as for those who d not offer peace, it was peace on Mohammed's terms.....dhimmitude.

That was the view of Gandhi, incidentally.

"Mussalmans have an ordeal to pass through. There can be no doubt that they are too free with the knife and the pistol. The sword is an emblem of Islam. But Islam was born in an environment where the sword was, and still remains, the supreme law. The message of Jesus has proved ineffective because the environment was unready to receive it. So with the message of the Prophet. The sword is yet too much in evidence among the Mussalmans. It must be sheathed if Islam is to be what it means - peace."

Taraq Ramadan has mastered the art of pretending to be a moderate Muslim.

But do you know……..
Western intelligence agencies such as MI5 are convinced he is the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Europe.
Among other things, this would mean that he is almost certainly linked to groups that massacred about 70,000 civilians in Algeria in the 1990s.
He was a personal friend of the mullah who organised the 1993 attempt to blow up the WTC.
An Eygptian secret-serviceman assigned by the Mubarak Government to keep an eye on him in Geneva was murdered in very mysterious circumstances. The murder was never solved but who is the finger of blame pointing to? Well Ramadan certainly had the motivation.
Tariq Ramadan is linked to “The Project,” The well-known Muslim Brotherhood plan for taking over the West by immigration and infiltration. The author of “The Project” is thought to be Said Ramadan, his close relative.
Although he claims to be ”westernized” he has made return trips to Egypt, where it is thought he has held meetings with members of the Muslim Brotherhood.
Read this excellent article here-
http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/00...

It reveals
“Tariq Ramadan has had links with at least six convicted terrorists or terrorist designated entities.”

When Muslims chose the moon as a symbol of Islam the created a metaphor which unwittingly revealed the true meaning of Islam.
Muslims tell you that Islam sheds a spiritual light yet the ultimate source of light from the moon is, of course, the sun.
G.K. Chesterton said that Islam was basically an imitation of Christianity which shows he grasped this point too.

There is another metaphor which basically reveals the true meaning of Islam.
The Islamic scriptures say that Mohammed cut the moon in half.
Any light shed by Islam doesn’t last. It reverts into a violent, nihilistic cult, simply a force for darkness.

Another liberal Jew gets mugged by reality.

I do wonder if this could have been avoided if Britain had a written constitution rather than the mess of an unwritten constitution it has, based largely on 17th Century precedents.

A written constitution would enshrine, in law, the belief that there was only source of law, Parliament.

Incidentally, a written constitution should also enshrine the idea that the Government cannot transfer powers to a supra-national entity such as the EU without the explicit consent of the British People i.e. a referendum.
This mechanism applies in Ireland incidentally.

It amazes me that the many Euro-sceptics in the Conservative Party did not foresee that a long period of Labour Government would almost certainly see a haemorrhaging of powers from Westminster to Brussels and try to draw up constitutional safeguards to prevent this.

Another point.

Ireland is gearing up for a second referendum on the Lisbon treaty.

Its is said that various opt-out guarantees will given to the Irish people.
Danish politician Jens-Peter Bonde, has said that the guarantees given to
Denmark when Denmark was forced to vote again on the Maastricht
treaty have been broken.

Surely a huge deception is being practised on the Irish people?

If the treaty is passed, surely the outcome will be the strengthening of the dhimmi EU Parliament?

Would anyone like to comment on the Danish experience of the EU and their guarantees?