BNP ANTI-JIHAD BULLETIN
JANUARY 22, 2007

British National Party
www.bnp.org.uk


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-warvote25jan25,1,17
27261.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.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]