War on Terror or War on Islam? This is the question.

The fundamental question is very real. War on Terror or War on Islam? And it is a question asked from all sides of the divide, by both Muslims and non-Muslims. 

There is a struggle not just in terms of countering the threat of terrorism but also in terms of dealing with social and cultural issues that have a political nature and are undermining our way way of life and putting lives in danger.

The fact that we are having to invest a significant amount of resources keeping in British jails many Muslims involved in terrorism and the fact that we have to spend so much money, time and brainpower to keep terrorism at bay, when we don't have enough resources to invest in other areas that constitute the essence of normal life, indicate that we are at War and that the enemies are Muslim.

We are arming ourselves to the teeth for the event of foreign wars and we are fighting a homeland war that is step by step eroding our civil rights and our freedoms. The conflict is very real and political correctness is a deadly disadvantage because it weakens us and makes us vulnerable.

During World War Two there was something called Internment Camps, where presumed enemies of Britain were detained even when they had done nothing YET. The word YET is very important. There is no such a thing as a peaceful enemy. If somebody is a potential threat, he or she is a threat. 

The fact that members of Muslim Communities haven't done anything yet is not a guarantee that they will not get involved in terrorism or support terrorism in the near future. There are areas of high concentration of dangerous elements that have been arrested or are at present being tracked down.

We must put Political Correctness aside and go for the jugular to make sure that no more lives are lost unnecessarily. 

The idea of Islam being a religion of peace is getting more and more difficult to sell

The idea of Islam being a Religion of Peace is getting more and more difficult to sell as Police officers publicly say that they are arresting Muslims involved in terror activities on a daily basis.

As a religion Islam or might not be a Religion of Peace but what becomes clearer and clearer is that quite a few Muslims - other Muslims at birth or Muslims because of having converted to Islam are not peaceful at all and are plotting on 24/7 basis to commit acts of terrorism on British soil. Coming to the definition of British, the mass media, the political classes, et cetera, talk about British Muslims. Are they? Are they truly British? Are they British first or Muslims first? What is in the minds of those involved in terrorism even when they were born in the United Kingdom? Allegiance to Britain and British customs and way of life? It appears that they have no allegiance to Britain at all and that they are ideological enemies of British customs and way of life.

On the day when a man was convicted and received a twelve weeks sentence accused of broadcasting anti-Muslim messages, we also have to deal with people who plot to destroy our way of life by promoting Islamic messages.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel explicitly and very publicly said: Multikulti ist tot (Multiculturalism is dead). We cannot have societies in which people live apart ruled by different rules according to their faiths. Islam is contrary to the very fundamentals of Democracy.

Western societies have division of powers, one Law for all, and the belief that men and women are equals before the Law and before God. Islam is very much against gender equality and very much supports discrimination. Whatever the mass media say, whatever the political classes say, Islam is inherently discriminatory and non democratic. In Western societies, people are free to believe or not to believe, to have a religious faith or to have none and no one is lawfully persecuted because of his or her religious ideas or lack of religious ideas. Islam condemns those who do not adhere to Islam classifying them as non-believers. In Islam, there is no concept of religious freedom.

SNP = there are two dimensions in every vote

There are two dimensions to every vote for SNP Scottish National Party.

In a desperate effort to get momentum going for a new Referendum on Scottish Independence, Nicola Sturgeon called for a coalition with Labour and Liberal Democrats not realising that such a coalition in a General Election would go against the will of Scottish voters in Scotland that not necessarily support Scottish Independence - for starters - and who profoundly disagree with SNP in Scottish politics.

In Scotland, SNP needs the support of the Green Party and in England the Green Party was looking for a similar coalition arrangement with Labour and Liberal Democrats but regarding Brexit.

In both cases, in kind of 'coalition arrangement' was discarded by both Labour and Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats have been trying to benefit for the Labour Party's internal struggles. So there is love relationship between Labour and Liberal Democrats.

Tony Blair's meddling in British politics have had a detrimental effect on the so called Remain campaign with Remain Conservative Members of Parliament leaving what is called Open Britain because of Open Britain's declared intentions of unseat pro-Brexit Conservative MPs.

This has been a bit like the outcome of Karl Marx's call 'Proletariat of the World unite'. Party political loyalties - like national loyalties proved stronger in World War One - have proven to be stronger than any kind of pretend convenience.

At the end of the day, most people will vote along party political lines and Members of Parliament will not put their own interests aside to promote the illusion of cross-party momentary alliances.

In the Constituency where I live, the electoral success of the incumbent Member of Parliament is guaranteed. Whatever other political parties might or might not do in terms of tactical voting doesn't really matter. When I go and vote on June 8th 2017, I will already know the name of who is going to be Member of Parliament.

Things might be a bit different in other constituencies where the incumbents have smaller majorities - marginal seats - but we are talking about 650 seats and a few changes here and there will not change the final outcome of the Election.

In 2015, SNP got 56 out of 59 seats in the House of Commons. Having reached the top of the mountain, the only way forward is downwards and this is something that Nicola Sturgeon might be very much thinking about. She didn't expect that she would have to deal with a General Election so soon while still having to deal with difficulties in the Scottish Parliament. She knows that losing members in Westminster will also benefit her Scottish opponents in the Scottish Parliament.

June 8, 2017 - UK General Election

UK General Election - June 8, 2017

Every election is a box of surprises and this election couldn't happen at a more dramatic time in the political life of the United Kingdom.

This is an election that will be played at different levels and undoubtedly the outcome could be life changing for the mass media including the BBC and Sky and also for the printed media who have absolutely against the idea of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. But it also going to have a dramatic effect in the political balance in the country as a whole and in each of the component parts of the United Kingdom.

There are some fundamental questions. Will Caroline Lucas manage to survive a General Election? The only Member of Parliament representing Brighton could be on the way out. What could happen to the SNP majority in Scotland? Will local issues play a crucial role meaning the loss of seats in the House of Commons. Will they repeat the feat of 2015 when they got 56 out of 59 seats? Will SNP be able to keep its momentum in Scotland? What will happen in Northern Ireland where at the moment there is local government?

In England, a divided Labour Party that has effectively several leaders (the Official Leader - Jeremy Corbyn) and several unofficial leaders and plotters wishing to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn).

The Liberal Democrats hope that disaffected Labour voters will turn out to support them and allow them to overcome the dismal results of 2015 that left them with less than 10 Members of Parliament.

UKIP needs to find its way. The Conservative Party de-facto represents many of the views of UKIP and in fact called for the implementation of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What can UKIP offer that is not already on offer by the Conservative Party?

The vote today in the House of Commons was remarkable in many ways. It was remarkable because of an overwhelming number of MPs that supported the government's call for a General Election. It was also remarkable because 13 Labour MPs voted against but it must be said that tens of MPs abstained.

Soon after, there was a series of announcements of present Members of Parliament that said that they would not be standing for re-election and it would be fair to say that they don't want to stand because they feel that they have no chance of being re-elected and they want to avoid the embarrassment of not being re-elected.

In any case, this promises to be a very interesting time in the political life of the United Kingdom. 

The Independent classifies Britain First as an example of British voters going against foreign sounding names

I almost fell off my chair with laughter when I saw an article published by The Independent regarding peoples' rejection of candidates with foreign names.

The picture was taken during a recent rally in Central London and clearly shows Britain First's banners and its leader Paul Golding.

I contacted the news desk of The Independent to ask them about their choice of graphics to illustrate the said article posted on The Independent's main website.

Are we saying that British voters choose candidates who have English sounding names because of some hidden xenophobic connotations? Or do they choose candidates who have English sounding names because they do want to vote for people that they see as their own people?

Whatever was the general idea of using a picture of a Britain First rally to head and article about people's electoral preferences, I can say that the choice of picture is a bit of a joke.

Britain First website and twitter accounts hacked by undesirables

Britain First's website and twitter accounts hacked by undesirables. The matter is being investigated by Police.

The hackers posted threats to human life. I hope that they are caught and punished. What the said hackers couldn't possibly foresee is that their attacks can only increase support for movements like Britain First.

Unwarranted attacks against countries we are not at war with are acts of war

On September 1st, 1939, Adolf Hitler ordered the invasion of Poland. Two days later, Britain and France declared war against Germany.

On December 7, 1942, Japan attacked Pearl Harbour and US was at war with Japan.

Now lets look at the rationale. The United States of America has been invading and attacking countries that are not at war with the United States of America and, morever, countries like the United Kingdom have supported such attacks and invasions. We cannot possibly criticise others when we are doing exactly the same. Bombing the Syrian Army is an act of war very much like the invasion of Poland and the attack against Pearl Harbour were acts of war.

Now, Syria has the upper hand and should the Russian Federation start a Nuclear War in retaliation such retaliation will be totally justified. We cannot go on supporting or justifying acts of war like the invasion of Iraq or Libya.

The Organisation of the United Nations created in 1945, by the end of World War Two, was supposed to be the channel to deal with crisis after crisis but the Organisation of the United Nations has not been fit for purpose.

Unilateral actions like the bombing of Syrian military bases are acts of war. Whatever happens in Syria, no country has the right to attack Syria merely because somebody doesn't like what is happening in Syria.

Syria is a sovereign country. Syria is suffering from a civil war aggravated by the actions of Islamic Extremists that have spread across Asia Minor and the Middle East. When the United States via unilateral action destroyed the Iraqi government and generated a state of lawlessness in Iraq, the United States promoted the rise of Islamic Extremists that could act at will since both the Iraqi Army and the Iraqi Police that kept extremists at bay were no longer around.

It is lamentable that the governments of two supposed democratic countries can possibly engage or justify or promote the kind of attack perpetrated by the United States.

Such action was wrong and will be followed by repercussions. When we talk about Islamic State and about the actions that there carrying out not just in the Middle East and Asia Minor but also in Africa, Europe and the USA, undoubtedly their source of inspiration is not the Quran but US Foreign Policy.