Conference in London to Revive the Caliphate

[scribblet]

No doubt this would bring about order, what the heck, if it stops terrorism why not. Sheez, might stop all those shootings in Toronto.... -

http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-centre/p...-in-london.html

Thousands to attend Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 's National Khilafah (Caliphate) Conference in London

London, UK , July 30 2007 –

Thousands of delegates will attend Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain 's national Khilafah (caliphate) conference at Alexandra Palace in London on Saturday 4th August 2007. The conference is part of a month of global activities to revive the Caliphate system of government in the Muslim world.

During the Islamic calendar month of Rajab, Hizb ut-Tahrir is holding activities across the globe to raise awareness for the Caliphate, explore the challenges faced by the Muslim world in the pursuit of unity and present the Caliphate as a solution to the global problems the world faces. These activities will culminate in the largest ever Khilafah conference in history on August 12th 2007 when 100,000 delegates attend a conference at the Gelora Bung Karno Stadium in Jakarta , Indonesia .

Dr Imran Waheed, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, said, "Our message to the Muslim community in Britain is aimed to reinforce the massive popularity for this political institution in the Muslim world, and to illustrate how we, whilst based so far away, can contribute to the debates currently raging about governance in the Muslim world. Islam through the restoration of the Caliphate in the Muslim world, far from being a cause of world chaos, today stands as the one solution that can bring stability and justice to the world."

"Given the current climate of suspicion and fear we feel that now more than ever people need to try to understand these legitimate political aspirations for the Muslim world, rather than simply falling for the reductionist Manichean arguments that paints everyone who seeks Islamic change in the Muslim world as extremists or supporters of terrorism." cont.

[ScottSA]

But I thought all this talk about a Caliphate was just the imaginings of the far far far hard far hard right?

[scribblet]

Yup, it is in our imagination allright, these guys and others really don't want anything like that - they only pretend they do.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/archives/010937.php guess these guys don't want it either, theyare just pulling our chains.

[Moxie]

They won't have much work to do regarding a Caliphate in England, the government is giving the country away. First the left crushed British Culture and then enacted Sharia Law for Muslims , Muslim ONLY swims, having a arrow on prison cell floors so they can pray in the right direction, special meat, special loos lest they offend Allah, the list of pandering and appeasing is endless. The fools believe they can control those they've pandered to, I wonder if anyone from Government noticed the recent Terrorist Attempts by a group of doctors?

[Riverwind]

But I thought all this talk about a Caliphate was just the imaginings of the far far far hard far hard right?

The idea that this 'Caliphate' is anything more than the the rantings of few Muslims _is_ a fantasy created by the loonie right looking for an excuse invade countries.

[Moxie]

Nice try River but when they are openly holding conferences discussing how to Muslimfy us well cough cough your hate propaganda and tin foil deflection isn't working on us non-radical righties anymore. Here's what happens to a country that heralds multicult whilst pandering to a minority done while in a rapture of Socialist Utopia of course.

The Death of Sweden: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2278

Frankly it couldn't happen to a better country, the people allowed a few elitest to take control using the Socialist mantra of Utopia and equality blah blah blah now the left/left are feeling the effects of the socialist Idiology of how stupid are our followers. Dah stupiddddddddddddddddddddd.

[ScottSA]

The idea that this 'Caliphate' is anything more than the the rantings of few Muslims _is_ a fantasy created by the loonie right looking for an excuse invade countries.

You just don't get it, do you? I suppose you thought the Comintern was just the rantings of a few Commies too.

[Riverwind]

You just don't get it, do you? I suppose you thought the Comintern was just the rantings of a few Commies too.

Bad example. Communism collapsed on its own demonstrating that the 'threat' was grossly exaggerated. The 'Muslim' threat will disappear on its own as well. The constant fear mongering and anti-Muslim vitriol is tiresome and counter productive.

I will use an anology from biology as an analogy. The media has made a big deal about the bird flu because it kills healthy people. Fortunately, it does not transmit easily between humans so we don't have much to worry about. Fearmongers in the media constantly speculate about a possible mutation in the virus that causes a pandemic. However, many scientists think there is almost no risk of a deadly pandemic because any mutation that allowed the virus to transmit from human to human would also make it much less deadly.

IOW - the Muslim tribes will not be able to form a 'Caliphate' unless they learn to stop killing each other and co-operate. If they are able to do that then you would find they would be willing to co-operate peacefully with the rest of the world too. They would be no worse than China or Russia today - annoying but hardly something to be afraid of.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

Bad example. Communism collapsed on its own demonstrating that the 'threat' was grossly exaggerated. The 'Muslim' threat will disappear on its own as well. The constant fear mongering and anti-Muslim vitriol is tiresome and counte productive.

Astounding blindness.

[bush_cheney2004]

Bad example. Communism collapsed on its own demonstrating that the 'threat' was grossly exaggerated. The 'Muslim' threat will disappear on its own as well. The constant fear mongering and anti-Muslim vitriol is tiresome and counter productive.

No, the collapse of "communism" in some nations happened because of real external and internal conflict, the same way it was born. It is easy to be so dismissive at the end of the story comfortably living in victory's corner.

[Riverwind]

No, the collapse of "communism" in some nations happened because of real external and internal conflict, the same way it was born. It is easy to be so dismissive at the end of the story comfortably living in victory's corner.

There were an endless number of chicken littles who insisted that communism was a threat to our way of life. That threat has been shown to be largely fictitious (regional conflicts in places like vietnam and korea were NOT a threat to anyone living outside that region).

That is why I don't take anyone seriously who believes that Islam is a threat to our way of life. Muslim cultures will eventually come around to our way of thinking just like the communists. Invading Muslim countries and trying to force our 'values' down their throats will accomplish nothing other than delay the inevitable.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

There were an endless number of chicken littles who insisted that communism was a threat to our way of life. That threat has been shown to be largely fictitious (regional conflicts in places like vietnam and korea were NOT a threat to anyone living outside that region).

That is why I don't take anyone seriously who believes that Islam is a threat to our way of life. Muslim cultures will eventually come around to our way of thinking just like the communists. Invading Muslim countries and trying to force our 'values' down their throats will accomplish nothing other than delay the inevitable.

The chicken littles who thought communism was a threat to us were right. Just like the chicken littles who were scoffed at all the way up to 1938 in England. It's just that we were lucky in both cases to have more resources than the other side. This time the other side is not only over there, but over here too. That's a big difference, and it renders our superior resources irrelevant.

And Muslim countries have had 1500 years to come around to our way of thinking. The trouble is that they respected our way of thinking for most of those years, when our way of thinking involved thrashing them up one side of the holy land and down the other. Unfortunately our way of thinking has changed a bit of late, and they don't respect it anymore. Now they see it as weakness, and they're quite right. You are a case in point.

[bush_cheney2004]

There were an endless number of chicken littles who insisted that communism was a threat to our way of life. That threat has been shown to be largely fictitious (regional conflicts in places like vietnam and korea were NOT a threat to anyone living outside that region).

That is why I don't take anyone seriously who believes that Islam is a threat to our way of life. Muslim cultures will eventually come around to our way of thinking just like the communists. Invading Muslim countries and trying to force our 'values' down their throats will accomplish nothing other than delay the inevitable.

You can can comfortably believe whatever you want now....that is the luxury afforded by those who took things a bit more seriously years ago, whether that be fascism (but they never attacked Canada!), or missiles in Cuba (Fidel liked Canucks!), or those "silly" conflicts resulting from UN membership. Then of course we have those missions for "human rights" and "responsibility to protect" with nary a shot fired at Canuckistan.

[marcinmoka]

There were an endless number of chicken littles who insisted that communism was a threat to our way of life.

As a "chicken little" myself , who with tens of millions of others fled to the safety of Canada and its allies, I am bound to laugh at the absurdity of your doubt(s).

--------------------------------

As per a caliphate. Would it work? Establishing legitimacy is an issue, but I think the French were onto something when they introduced the apparently effective counter-measure of promoting friendly, state-endorsed (or at least well monitored) Imams.

And while a good man and an incredible diplomat, lord knows John Paul II was not chosen on his own merits and character as much as it was the fact he hailed from the "Godless East". And one must admit, that appointment worked wonders in shifting the balance of power. Far more, one might argue, than a single squadron of f-15s.

Influence is a far more powerful than control.

Edited August 7, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Riverwind]

The chicken littles who thought communism was a threat to us were right.

Right. I suppose there was always the possibility of a nuclear war that destroyed everyone, however, it is silly to suggest that the Russians ever had the military and *economic* capabilities that would have allowed them to launch an invasion of North America. They might have been able to achieve some short term victories in western Europe, however, they would have found it quite difficult to maintain an occupation for very long after their cities were reduced to radioactive rubble.

I will agree that people at the time did not understand how weak the Russians really were and that the cold war was justified. However, that hind sight does allow to make more intelligent decisions about similar threats in the future. Our experience with the Russians tells us that this 'Caliphate' is either a fantasy that will never happen or it would quickly collapse under its own weight. What ever happens we have nothing to fear. Economic freedom is the *only* way to create a wealthy society and that economic freedom will always lead to freedoms in other domains.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[bush_cheney2004]

Right. I suppose there was always the possibility of a nuclear war that destroyed everyone, however, it is silly to suggest that the Russians ever had the military and *economic* capabilities that would have allowed them to launch an invasion of North America. They might have been able to achieve some short term victories in western Europe, however, they would have found it quite difficult to maintain an occupation for very long after their cities were reduced to radioactive rubble.

This opinion could only thrive in a geographically sheltered and super-power protected Canada. There is more to the world and "western" interests than just Norte America.

Edited August 6, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[marcinmoka]

I will agree that people at the time did not understand how weak the Russians really were and that the cold war was justified.

The big shame is that you haven't yet learned one mustn't be "rich" to be brutal and oppressive, nor to interfere with our economic well being.

But it goes to show that some useful idiots did buy into the notion of "Uncle Joe" even 50 years after the fact. Granted that could be possible when your family doesn't count amongst the 20 million dead under Stalinist rule, or the hundreds of millions of others visibly affected by a very real, dirty conflict over the course of the past few decades.

----------

Edited August 7, 2007 by marcinmoka

[Riverwind]

This opinion could only thrive in a geographically sheltered and super-power protected Canada. There is more to the world and "western" interests than just North America.

I am talking about the US - not Canada. The US had nothing to fear from the Russians since there is no way the Russians could have ever staged an invasion of US territory. If the US had made it clear that it would not assist Canada in the face of incursions by the Russians then Canada would have built its own nukes so you can hardly argue that Canada needed the US to protect itself. I personally would rather see that Canada have its own nukes but I suspect that, given the choice, the US would rather extend its nuclear umbrella to cover Canada instead of having nukes in North American out of its direct control (IOW - Canada is doing the US a favour by letting it have complete control over all of the nukes used to protect north america).

I see that you are evading my original point - the Russians can and did create serious problems for some societies and helping those people made some sense. My point is Communism *never* represented a real threat to most western societies. The world did not come to an end when the US lost the war in Viet Nam. Similarly this Caliphate is not a real threat to any these countries either. They might make life pretty miserable for the people living in the region but that is a local problem.

Let's put it another way: let's say that Tel Aviv was nuked and Israel was completely wiped off the map. It would be a huge tragedy but it would have zero effect on the daily lives of the majority of people living in North America, Europe and Asia. Preventing that kind of tragedy from happening is important from a humanitarian perspective but such a tragedy would not cause our societies to collapse and it is unlikely that this Caliphate would last very long after Mecca is nuked.

Edited August 6, 2007 by Riverwind

[ScottSA]

Right. I suppose there was always the possibility of a nuclear war that destroyed everyone, however, it is silly to suggest that the Russians ever had the military and *economic* capabilities that would have allowed them to launch an invasion of North America. They might have been able to achieve some short term victories in western Europe, however, they would have found it quite difficult to maintain an occupation for very long after their cities were reduced to radioactive rubble.

I will agree that people at the time did not understand how weak the Russians really were and that the cold war was justified. However, that hind sight does allow to make more intelligent decisions about similar threats in the future. Our experience with the Russians tells us that this 'Caliphate' is either a fantasy that will never happen or it would quickly collapse under its own weight. What ever happens we have nothing to fear. Economic freedom is the *only* way to create a wealthy society and that economic freedom will always lead to freedoms in other domains.

You have, as usual, demonstrated a profound misunderstanding of international relations. No one outside of a few "red dawn" movie makers ever envisioned an an "invasion of North America." That was never an issue. The purpose of MAD was to keep them out of western Europe, and it worked. That doesn't mean the USSR was not a threat...in fact, to say it wasn't is just farcical. It kept alive proxy wars all over the globe, one of which took the lives of almost 60,000 US soldiers, and kept central Africa in a state of ongoing revolutionary turmoil it's still recovering from.

But aside from being utterly wrong about the threat of the USSR, you're completely mischaracterizing this battle too. There is a significant threat from these idiotic terrorists and even the "Islamic countries," at least if they get their hands on WMD, but there is a far worse threat from their so-called "moderate" co-religionists in the west. And hey, guess what? That's where this conference is taking place, and that's the expressed aim of the so-called "moderates" in the west.

And yes, reducing tel aviv to radioactive dust would have far reaching implications all over the globe, even if one completely ignored the humanitarian aspect. If you don't get why, this conversation has gone on long enough.

[scribblet]

I don't believe it's a threat to us yet, there aren't the numbers, maybe not to the U.S. even though they are regularly accommodating more of their demands . However, people in the U.K. are not too happy generally with what is happening, ask the people in France how they feel. We need to take a closer look at the problems in Europe and not let it happen here.

It is not imagination, but various radical groups want it and are working towards it. We do need to at least recognize the threat and make sure we never allow any hint of Sharia to sneak it's way into our laws.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/15642/...ing-to-leave-UK

BRITAIN is facing a mass exodus of people looking to escape the crime and grime of modern living.

The country’s biggest foreign visa consultancy firm has revealed that applications have soared in the last seven months by 80 per cent to almost 4,000 a week. Ten years ago the figure was just 300 a week.

Most people are relocating within the Commonwealth – in Australia, Canada and South Africa. They are almost all young professionals and skilled workers aged 20-40.

And many cite their reason for wanting to quit as immigration to these shores – and the burden it is placing on their communities and local authorities. The dearth of good schools, spiralling house prices, rising crime and tax increases are also driving people away.

[scribblet]

Further to this, Mark Steyn has another good article on the subject.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/mark-ste...7-exposs-column

Sunday, August 5, 2007

Mark Steyn: The vanishing jihad exposés

How will we lose the war against "radical Islam"?

Well, it won't be in a tank battle. Or in the Sunni Triangle or the caves of Bora Bora. It won't be because terrorists fly three jets into the Oval Office, Buckingham Palace and the Basilica of St Peter's on the same Tuesday morning.

The war will be lost incrementally because we are unable to reverse the ongoing radicalization of Muslim populations in South Asia, Indonesia, the Balkans, Western Europe and, yes, North America. And who's behind that radicalization? Who funds the mosques and Islamic centers that in the past 30 years have set up shop on just about every Main Street around the planet?

For the answer, let us turn to a fascinating book called "Alms for Jihad: Charity And Terrorism in the Islamic World," by J. Millard Burr, a former USAID relief coordinator, and the scholar Robert O Collins. Can't find it in your local Barnes & Noble? Never mind, let's go to Amazon. Everything's available there. And sure enough, you'll come through to the "Alms for Jihad" page and find a smattering of approving reviews from respectably torpid publications: "The most comprehensive look at the web of Islamic charities that have financed conflicts all around the world," according to Canada's Globe And Mail, which is like the New York Times but without the jokes.

Unfortunately, if you then try to buy "Alms for Jihad," you discover that the book is "Currently unavailable. We don't know when or if this item will be back in stock." Hang on, it was only published last year. At Amazon, items are either shipped within 24 hours or, if a little more specialized, within four to six weeks, but not many books from 2006 are entirely unavailable with no restock in sight.

-snip-

We've gotten used to one-way multiculturalism: The world accepts that you can't open an Episcopal or Congregational church in Jeddah or Riyadh, but every week the Saudis can open radical mosques and madrassahs and pro-Saudi think-tanks in London and Toronto and Dearborn, Mich., and Falls Church, Va. And their global reach extends a little further day by day, inch by inch, in the lengthening shadows, as the lights go out one by one around the world.

[Riverwind]

And yes, reducing tel aviv to radioactive dust would have far reaching implications all over the globe, even if one completely ignored the humanitarian aspect. If you don't get why, this conversation has gone on long enough.

Implications? Yes. A threat to the way of life for people living outside the region? Not in the least.

I am glad that you also now seem to agree that our 'way of life' was never really threatened by the Russians either. Why should anyone believe that this 'Caliphate' is any greater threat?

[ScottSA]

Implications? Yes. A threat to the way of life for people living outside the region? Not in the least.

There's not much I can say to this startling ignorance of the way the world works except to ask you a couple of almost rhetorical questions.

Did you notice the global "threat to the way of life for people living outside the region" when two planes ran into the WTC? What do you think might be the chain of reactions to tel aviv being reduced to radioactive dust? Do you think that "people living outside the region" will just yawn and go back to reading the paper? What do you think the Dow might do? What do you think might happen to world currency? What about world trade? Do you think Israel might respond? What then? What would the response to the response be? I can't think of anything more calculated to suck the world into a maelstrom than tel aviv being nuked. How silly.

And btw, when did I say the USSR was no danger to us?

[Higgly]

Just what the Muslim world needs. A pope. Would be just about as useful too.

[Riverwind]

Did you notice the global "threat to the way of life for people living outside the region" when two planes ran into the WTC?

WTC attacks had little or no effect on the lives of people living outside of New York City. People were shocked but life continued on as before for the overwhelming majority of people.

What do you think might be the chain of reactions to tel aviv being reduced to radioactive dust? Do you think that "people living outside the region" will just yawn and go back to reading the paper?

Pretty much. That is what happened after 9/11 and that is exactly what would happen after any localized terrorist attack in the future.

What do you think the Dow might do?

Short term shifts in the stock market have no connection to the economy as a whole. There might be some minor economic disruptions but life will be more or less the same for the overwhelming majority of of people on the planet.