“The abhorrent EDL has been protected against Islamic terror”

I’m puzzled why the Telegraph would give a soapbox to an asshole like Jake Wallis Simons:

The abhorrent EDL has been protected against Islamic terror. Tricky, but this is British justice at its best

The EDL had it coming and they deserve it because they oppose islamisation:

News that six Islamic extremists plotted a gun and bomb attack on an English Defence League (EDL) rally should come as no surprise, even if the manner in which they were caught should. This was not a triumph of MI5 but the result of a series of blunders on behalf of the would-be terrorists themselves.

Since its inception in 2009, the EDL has won few admirers and even fewer friends. A recent rally in Brighton was reported to attract around 1,000 counter-protesters, ten times the number which turned out for the far-Right group.  (more from the Telegraph)

“Race war fear” after Islamic terrorists target EDL

Since when is Islam a race?

Islamic terrorists could target right wing fanatics British patriots to spark a race war in Britain it was feared last night.

Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons Home Affairs Select Committee, is “appalled”.  MI5 fear the EDL could now become a target for Islamic excremists….

10 years, £10m and he’s still here

They Order This Matter Better In France

From The Telegraph: 29 April 2013 France shows us how to deal with jihadis Why are our Gallic neighbours so much better at deporting terrorist suspects? Abu Qatada: in France, he would have been …Read More…

Related:

 

5 thoughts on ““The abhorrent EDL has been protected against Islamic terror””

  1. I wonder why, too. His articles are absolute rubbish, but dangerous rubbish because when he writes on the Telegraph all the Jew-haters come out of the woodwork. He thinks he’s being “controversial”.

    His bosses must have thought so, too, because they closed the comment facility.

  2. “Nevertheless, it was indeed a major victory for an aspect of British life of which we should be proud: our dogged adherence to judicial impartiality.”

    He imagines he has to reassure people that the cops were acting in the best interests of the puiblic when they DIDN’T allow more, presumably “righteous and entirelyjustified” islamic mass murder in Britain.

    “This is an uncomfortable case. ”

    He sincerely wishes the EDL had been torn to shreds, and so feels uncomfortable with the fact that, as non-aggressors, just *maybe* saving them from cowardly terrorists was, but only in this one, specific case, of course, the right thing to do. Maybe.

    “It proves the notion that high emotions have no place in the law, which must be rational, diligent and fair.”

    In other words, he emotively agrees with the moslems that blasphemy against their prophit should be immediately punished by death.

    Then he compares this swift (but accidental) act of justice with the delays in deporting another known islamic terrorist, Abu Qatada:

    “These two cases paint a vivid picture of the legal challenges facing modern Britain.”

    In the one case, justice was too swift (the cops should have released the moslems so they could have a second, better chance at killing EDL members) and in the other, too slow (Abu Qatada should have been released by now, so he too could have a better chance to kill us all).

    And “those harbouring extremist views that may – or may not – lead to violence is one that is only likely to worsen in years to come. Although Britain sometimes gets it right and often gets it wrong, and although the whole thing is morally elusive” … “by global standards, this is exceptional” in other words,

    “ISLAM ISN’T EVIL BECAUSE WE ALL DO IT TOO! Whee!”

    This prick is clearly a criminal traitor to rationality and civilization.

  3. “Nevertheless, it was indeed a major victory for an aspect of British life of which we should be proud: our dogged adherence to judicial impartiality.”

    He imagines he has to reassure people that the cops really were acting in the best interests of the puiblic when they DIDN’T allow more, presumably “righteous and entirely justified” islamic mass murder in Britain.

    “This is an uncomfortable case. ”

    He sincerely wishes the EDL had been torn to shreds, and so feels uncomfortable with the fact that, as the EDL were the non-aggressors here, just *maybe* saving them from cowardly terrorists was, but only in this one, specific case, of course, the right thing to do. Maybe.

    “It proves the notion that high emotions have no place in the law, which must be rational, diligent and fair.”

    In other words, he emotively agrees with the moslems that blasphemy against their prophit should be immediately punished by death.

    Then he compares this swift (but accidental) act of justice with the delays in deporting another known islamic terrorist, Abu Qatada:

    “These two cases paint a vivid picture of the legal challenges facing modern Britain.”

    In the one case, justice was too swift (the cops should have released the moslems so they could have a second, better chance at killing EDL members) and in the other, too slow (Abu Qatada should have been released by now, so he too could have a better chance to kill us all).

    And “those harbouring extremist views that may – or may not – lead to violence is one that is only likely to worsen in years to come. Although Britain sometimes gets it right and often gets it wrong, and although the whole thing is morally elusive” … “by global standards, this is exceptional” in other words,

    “ISLAM ISN’T EVIL BECAUSE WE ALL DO IT TOO! Whee!”

    This prick is clearly a criminal traitor to rationality and civilization.

    1. “…our dogged adherence to judicial impartiality” will fly out the door as soon as mohammedan pressure increases, either by numbers, or by soldiers of allah in the judiciary, or by judges being blackmailed or bribed. They only need to eliminate one or two, and the others will fall into line.

      Then there is also an increasing number of strategic ‘marriages’, as in the case of Grover Norquist, who fall into the honey trap.

      There are many politicians, judges, media figures (the BBC comes to mind) that have been co-opted for the cause. infiltration is far better planned and advanced than most of us can imagine.

  4. Of course – in the province of Ontario, the guy in charge of vetting prospective Judiciary appoinments (Nanny Hassan) is himself a confirmed and actively proselytizing moslem criminal propagandist and enabler of islam (he isn’t just some innocent non-practising member of the holy mobsters who just happened to have been born into the crime family. His own appoitment wasn’t an accident, either – the liberals did it on purpose.

Comments are closed.