Londonistan
- Thread starter American_Jihad
- Start date
Moonglow
Diamond Member
Where I live, had that happened here they'd be stringin' Muslims up in trees for Halloween decorations, they would be skeletons by October.
Moonglow
Diamond Member
I am sure they are less violent.
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
What a shocking piece of garbage this article is.If your going to survive you have to crush the left and do a lot of deportations...
RUN, HIDE AND DENY IN LONDON
Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, “This is for Islam.”
June 5, 2017
Daniel Greenfield
As Muslim terrorists rampaged around London, Met police debuted the new “Run, Hide and Tell” program. But instead some Londoners chose to stand and fight. They fought with pint glasses and barstools as the Muslim killers shouting, “This is for Allah” stabbed women in trendy eateries.
Some drivers tried to ram the killers. An unarmed police officer attacked the terrorists with a baton. An off-duty police officer tackled one of the Muslim terrorists. Both men were severely wounded.
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
Met counter-terrorism chief Mark Rowley sympathetically noted that, "If someone acts on instinct and perhaps decides to fight because they have no choice, we would never criticise them for that.”
It was kind of him not to criticize those Londoners who reacted with their base instincts and tried to fight the Muslim killers instead of running, hiding and telling, then reemerging for a vigil or a concert.
...
Run, Hide and Deny in London
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
There is no proof that this happened and its a disgusting slur an a group of brave men.
What it actually consists of is - fake news. A sly little dig in support of a nutty pro gun agenda. Makes me want to vomit.
Mindful
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #146
What a shocking piece of garbage this article is.If your going to survive you have to crush the left and do a lot of deportations...
RUN, HIDE AND DENY IN LONDON
Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, “This is for Islam.”
June 5, 2017
Daniel Greenfield
As Muslim terrorists rampaged around London, Met police debuted the new “Run, Hide and Tell” program. But instead some Londoners chose to stand and fight. They fought with pint glasses and barstools as the Muslim killers shouting, “This is for Allah” stabbed women in trendy eateries.
Some drivers tried to ram the killers. An unarmed police officer attacked the terrorists with a baton. An off-duty police officer tackled one of the Muslim terrorists. Both men were severely wounded.
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
Met counter-terrorism chief Mark Rowley sympathetically noted that, "If someone acts on instinct and perhaps decides to fight because they have no choice, we would never criticise them for that.”
It was kind of him not to criticize those Londoners who reacted with their base instincts and tried to fight the Muslim killers instead of running, hiding and telling, then reemerging for a vigil or a concert.
...
Run, Hide and Deny in London
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
There is no proof that this happened and its a disgusting slur an a group of brave men.
What it actually consists of is - fake news. A sly little dig in support of a nutty pro gun agenda. Makes me want to vomit.
Maybe this is why Jihadis attack soft targets. Unarmed police and general population.
You post these articles without comment. Are we meant to laugh or cry ?The Facebook Wrath of Khan
Trying to discuss Sadiq Khan's victory within 1984 conversational guidelines.
May 12, 2016
Danusha V. Goska
On May 5, 2016, London elected Sadiq Khan its new mayor. Khan is a Muslim and the son of Pakistani immigrants. The anthropologist in me sought a thorough understanding of how this seismic shift was being received by England's Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I wanted to know what demographics supported Khan, who opposed him, and who took his victory as a serious blow. I wanted to know what significant statements Khan had made about his own history-making place in society.
I turned to NPR. In lieu of news, I heard a blast from a confetti cannon. NPR journalists are nothing if not expert at using every feature of their voice to instruct the listener in the correct response. Pauses, high pitch, sighs, monosyllables snippily clipped, all conduct the listener's progress as deftly and firmly as your tour guide at a super-max prison. This day the NPR announcer was giddy. Surely Khan's election was as worthy of unalloyed celebration as the rescue of a kitten from a well. It was as if Mayor Khan had saved Britain from a long, dark night in which only – ew, yuck – Christians had held office. Khan's election lifted some medieval curse.
I mentioned my frustration on Facebook: "Cairo, Egypt surprised the world today by electing a Christian Englishman as mayor. Next on NPR, we explore how this will impact the world's most populous Arab nation."
In that imaginary scenario, journalists would do the real work of exploring how millions of Muslim Arabs felt about being governed by a Christian Englishman. These Muslims would not be pressured to smile and announce their multiculturalism. They would not be shamed if they expressed anxiety. Reporters would merely take it down if their Muslim informants invoked the Crusades, colonialism, white supremacy, or Islamic sanctions against Muslims being ruled by Christians.
Demographers would astutely analyze population shifts, culture shifts, and the social anxiety that inevitably follow – as documented by Harvard's Robert Putnam and other social scientists. The information would be treated as a neutral commodity. There would be no badge of virtue in celebrating this English, Christian Cairo mayor, and no stigma or exclusion in questioning what his election means.
I'd like to hear a reporter calmly ask Khan, "How do you, a devout Muslim, understand qisas and diyya? This system attributes a sliding scale of value to human beings, with Muslim males on the top and Pagan females at the bottom. How do you understand the Koran's command that Muslims not take Jews or Christians as friends? How, as mayor, will you navigate Islam's prohibitions surrounding men talking to women?"
I'm Polish, American, and Catholic. I get asked tougher questions regularly. Wake me up in the middle of the night, shine a light in my face, and ask me to give my position on the priest sex abuse crisis, the Inquisition, or Vietnam. I respect people's concerns about these issues and I've done research to respond responsibly – that's what the Bible tells me to do in 1 Peter 3:15; it's what Thomas Jefferson said Americans must do in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. I wasn't asking any more of Khan than others have asked of me.
I posted my frustration that Khan's election was being treated as a litmus test for righteousness. "Marek," a Facebook friend who lives in England, chided me. "Religion plays far less of a role in British political life than in America," Marek tut-tutted. He argued that Khan's religion was not worthy of discussion, and that Khan is a model multiculturalist. Marek posted a photo of Khan standing next to a Christian cleric, and he reported that Khan voted for "marriage equality." Marek closed with, "I will forebear from commenting in depth on the irony of an American pontificating on racial tensions."
Khan-boosting like Marek's can be found all over the web. Again, like Marek, there is the competitive factor: Khan's election is an ornament showing that the English, unlike Americans, are not mired in racial strife. The single most disturbing factoid used to quash any serious discussion of Khan's historic win: Khan attended the UK's Holocaust memorial ceremony; therefore, he must be a really good guy.
Let's get serious. Ken Livingstone is the former mayor of London. He is a leader of the Labour Party. Last month Livingstone said that Hitler was a Zionist. He said this after Naz Shah, another Labour pol, was revealed to have posted on Facebook in 2014 that Jews should be expelled from the Middle East. The Labour Party, Khan's party, faces charges of being anti-Semitic.
What freshly-elected public official, especially under these circumstances, wouldn't attend the UK's official Holocaust memorial ceremony? Khan did something that is as necessary, normal, and tactically beneficial for a politician as kissing babies and eating rubber chicken. In any case, Khan's visit "unleashed an anti-Semitic twitter barrage," according to Haaretz. (The Forward mostly likes Khan.)
Marek's comments praising Khan and pooh-poohing my desire for a deeper discussion of his election felt, to me, like the heavy hand of thought control. The official narrative: there is no tension between Muslims and non-Muslims in England. Anyone who even asks how Khan's religion affects the worldview of various demographic groups in the UK is race-baiting. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
I disagreed with Marek. I stated my disagreement in a series of photos. I posted a photo of Anjem Choudary. I posted a photo of Lee Rigby, in his scarlet uniform, holding his son, Jack. I posted a meme of mug shots of four of the Rotherham rapists. I posted a link to an article about an increase in attacks on Jews in London.
On April 11, 2016, ICM released the survey "What Muslims Really Think." One subsequent headline: "Jail Gays, Introduce Shariah."
...
The Facebook Wrath of Khan
You do what you want; something you lefties don't understand!!
Greg
What a shocking piece of garbage this article is.If your going to survive you have to crush the left and do a lot of deportations...
RUN, HIDE AND DENY IN LONDON
Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, “This is for Islam.”
June 5, 2017
Daniel Greenfield
As Muslim terrorists rampaged around London, Met police debuted the new “Run, Hide and Tell” program. But instead some Londoners chose to stand and fight. They fought with pint glasses and barstools as the Muslim killers shouting, “This is for Allah” stabbed women in trendy eateries.
Some drivers tried to ram the killers. An unarmed police officer attacked the terrorists with a baton. An off-duty police officer tackled one of the Muslim terrorists. Both men were severely wounded.
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
Met counter-terrorism chief Mark Rowley sympathetically noted that, "If someone acts on instinct and perhaps decides to fight because they have no choice, we would never criticise them for that.”
It was kind of him not to criticize those Londoners who reacted with their base instincts and tried to fight the Muslim killers instead of running, hiding and telling, then reemerging for a vigil or a concert.
...
Run, Hide and Deny in London
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
There is no proof that this happened and its a disgusting slur an a group of brave men.
What it actually consists of is - fake news. A sly little dig in support of a nutty pro gun agenda. Makes me want to vomit.
London Bridge Jihad Attacks: "Police were running away" - Geller Report
Seems the Guardian is the source of the news...or A source.
Greg
That seems fair, Israel is ugly and violent.
/---- There are no haters like Jew haters like you
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
British police run to trouble. Not away from it.What a shocking piece of garbage this article is.If your going to survive you have to crush the left and do a lot of deportations...
RUN, HIDE AND DENY IN LONDON
Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, “This is for Islam.”
June 5, 2017
Daniel Greenfield
As Muslim terrorists rampaged around London, Met police debuted the new “Run, Hide and Tell” program. But instead some Londoners chose to stand and fight. They fought with pint glasses and barstools as the Muslim killers shouting, “This is for Allah” stabbed women in trendy eateries.
Some drivers tried to ram the killers. An unarmed police officer attacked the terrorists with a baton. An off-duty police officer tackled one of the Muslim terrorists. Both men were severely wounded.
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
Met counter-terrorism chief Mark Rowley sympathetically noted that, "If someone acts on instinct and perhaps decides to fight because they have no choice, we would never criticise them for that.”
It was kind of him not to criticize those Londoners who reacted with their base instincts and tried to fight the Muslim killers instead of running, hiding and telling, then reemerging for a vigil or a concert.
...
Run, Hide and Deny in London
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
There is no proof that this happened and its a disgusting slur an a group of brave men.
What it actually consists of is - fake news. A sly little dig in support of a nutty pro gun agenda. Makes me want to vomit.
London Bridge Jihad Attacks: "Police were running away" - Geller Report
Seems the Guardian is the source of the news...or A source.
Greg
Sent from my Nexus 6P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Moonglow
Diamond Member
Solid GOP...
007
Charter Member
And only 10% of them have a gun.British police run to trouble. Not away from it.What a shocking piece of garbage this article is.If your going to survive you have to crush the left and do a lot of deportations...
RUN, HIDE AND DENY IN LONDON
Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, “This is for Islam.”
June 5, 2017
Daniel Greenfield
As Muslim terrorists rampaged around London, Met police debuted the new “Run, Hide and Tell” program. But instead some Londoners chose to stand and fight. They fought with pint glasses and barstools as the Muslim killers shouting, “This is for Allah” stabbed women in trendy eateries.
Some drivers tried to ram the killers. An unarmed police officer attacked the terrorists with a baton. An off-duty police officer tackled one of the Muslim terrorists. Both men were severely wounded.
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
Met counter-terrorism chief Mark Rowley sympathetically noted that, "If someone acts on instinct and perhaps decides to fight because they have no choice, we would never criticise them for that.”
It was kind of him not to criticize those Londoners who reacted with their base instincts and tried to fight the Muslim killers instead of running, hiding and telling, then reemerging for a vigil or a concert.
...
Run, Hide and Deny in London
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
There is no proof that this happened and its a disgusting slur an a group of brave men.
What it actually consists of is - fake news. A sly little dig in support of a nutty pro gun agenda. Makes me want to vomit.
London Bridge Jihad Attacks: "Police were running away" - Geller Report
Seems the Guardian is the source of the news...or A source.
Greg
Sent from my Nexus 6P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Guarantee they're on the way to changing that.
Guarantee the UK people are more and more wanting their guns back too.
Mindful
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #154
And only 10% of them have a gun.British police run to trouble. Not away from it.What a shocking piece of garbage this article is.If your going to survive you have to crush the left and do a lot of deportations...
RUN, HIDE AND DENY IN LONDON
Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, “This is for Islam.”
June 5, 2017
Daniel Greenfield
As Muslim terrorists rampaged around London, Met police debuted the new “Run, Hide and Tell” program. But instead some Londoners chose to stand and fight. They fought with pint glasses and barstools as the Muslim killers shouting, “This is for Allah” stabbed women in trendy eateries.
Some drivers tried to ram the killers. An unarmed police officer attacked the terrorists with a baton. An off-duty police officer tackled one of the Muslim terrorists. Both men were severely wounded.
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
Met counter-terrorism chief Mark Rowley sympathetically noted that, "If someone acts on instinct and perhaps decides to fight because they have no choice, we would never criticise them for that.”
It was kind of him not to criticize those Londoners who reacted with their base instincts and tried to fight the Muslim killers instead of running, hiding and telling, then reemerging for a vigil or a concert.
...
Run, Hide and Deny in London
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
There is no proof that this happened and its a disgusting slur an a group of brave men.
What it actually consists of is - fake news. A sly little dig in support of a nutty pro gun agenda. Makes me want to vomit.
London Bridge Jihad Attacks: "Police were running away" - Geller Report
Seems the Guardian is the source of the news...or A source.
Greg
Sent from my Nexus 6P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Guarantee they're on the way to changing that.
Guarantee the UK people are more and more wanting their guns back too.
The British won't want that.
Though I do think the police should be armed. We're living in different times now.
/----- Interesting article on the British gun ban after WWI and at the start of WW2And only 10% of them have a gun.British police run to trouble. Not away from it.What a shocking piece of garbage this article is.If your going to survive you have to crush the left and do a lot of deportations...
RUN, HIDE AND DENY IN LONDON
Islamic terrorism has no religion even when it’s shouting, “This is for Islam.”
June 5, 2017
Daniel Greenfield
As Muslim terrorists rampaged around London, Met police debuted the new “Run, Hide and Tell” program. But instead some Londoners chose to stand and fight. They fought with pint glasses and barstools as the Muslim killers shouting, “This is for Allah” stabbed women in trendy eateries.
Some drivers tried to ram the killers. An unarmed police officer attacked the terrorists with a baton. An off-duty police officer tackled one of the Muslim terrorists. Both men were severely wounded.
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
Met counter-terrorism chief Mark Rowley sympathetically noted that, "If someone acts on instinct and perhaps decides to fight because they have no choice, we would never criticise them for that.”
It was kind of him not to criticize those Londoners who reacted with their base instincts and tried to fight the Muslim killers instead of running, hiding and telling, then reemerging for a vigil or a concert.
...
Run, Hide and Deny in London
Other unarmed police officers ran away.
There is no proof that this happened and its a disgusting slur an a group of brave men.
What it actually consists of is - fake news. A sly little dig in support of a nutty pro gun agenda. Makes me want to vomit.
London Bridge Jihad Attacks: "Police were running away" - Geller Report
Seems the Guardian is the source of the news...or A source.
Greg
Sent from my Nexus 6P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app
Guarantee they're on the way to changing that.
Guarantee the UK people are more and more wanting their guns back too.
In the dark days following the British Expeditionary Force's evacuation from Dunkirk in 1940, Great Britain was a nation virtually disarmed. And not just by the need to abandon equipment on France's beaches to save British "Tommies" to fight another day, but by the policies of its own government. The days of devotion to civilian markmanship, "volunteer rifle clubs" and the idea that there should be "a rifle in every cottage," as proposed by the Prime Minister Marquis of Salisbury in 1900, had given way to restrictive gun control laws that required subjects to demonstrate "good reason" to merely obtain a handgun or rifle. So with Hitler's legions poised to cross the English Channel, the British people were defended by an ill-equipped and defeated army and a "Home Guard" armed with little more than sporting shotguns and pikes.
Help for the beleaguered nation came from both the American government and from the American people, the latter through the "American Committee for Defense of British Homes." In late 1940, the committee sent an urgent appeal -- which, of course, appeared in American Rifleman -- for Americans to send "Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars" because "British civilians, faced with the threat of invasion, desperately need arms for the defense of their homes." Thousands of arms were collected and sent to England, one of which was a .30-'06 Model 1903 target rifle owned by Major John W. Hession. Hession was one of the pre-eminent highpower rifle target shooters of his day, and he used that rifle to win Olympic gold at Bisley Camp in England in 1908. The rifle, unlike the majority sent, was returned and can now be viewed int he national Firearms Museum.
The U.S. Government responded to Britain's peril as well with passage of the Lend-Lease Act in March 1941. Almost immediately, quantities of "U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1" were on their way across the Atlantic, and those guns are the subject of an article by noted M1 Garand historian Scott Duff starting on p. 42. The "British Garands" have an interesting history but the importance of arming the British at that time is made clear by the fact that the rapidly growing U.S. Army itself did not have sufficient numbers of the then-new M1 Garands. Winston Churchill wrote in Their Finest Hour: "When the ships from America approached our shores with their priceless arms, special trains were waiting in all ports to receive their cargoes. The Home Guard in every county, in every village, sat up through the night to receive them. ... By the end of July we were an armed nation ... ."
Now, sadly, Britain is again a disarmed nation, where even Olympic athletes wanting to represent their country cannot own a handgun and where an act of self-defense can land a subject in jail. As with virtually all rifles and handguns, those likely few remaining guns sent to England in its time of desperate need have been confiscated and destroyed. Despite the very near enslavement of England being so close a mere six decades ago, the lesson of the false promises of gun control and personal disarmament were not learned.
Sincerely, ... Mark A Keefe, IV -- Editor
Send A Gun To Defend A British Home ... Pistols - Rifles - Revolvers - Shotguns - Binoculars
Mindful
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #156
The third issue of the Islamic State’s propaganda magazine Rumiyah attacks as traitors to Islam the Muslim Brotherhood and Turkey. The issue includes a written message by ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and detailed instructions about the best way to carry out a terrorist attack with a truck.
Rumiyah continues with an obituary for a dead fighter and exhortations to monotheism and obedience to the Islamic State. They also chronicle the career of the medieval Iranian monarch Sultan Mahmud al-Ghaznawi, praising him for his invasions of Hindu India.
Rumiyah continues with an obituary for a dead fighter and exhortations to monotheism and obedience to the Islamic State. They also chronicle the career of the medieval Iranian monarch Sultan Mahmud al-Ghaznawi, praising him for his invasions of Hindu India.
I googled to find out if the good "sultan Mahumud" was a shiite since I thought it odd that ISIS
would write nicely about a Shiite----------it turns out that MAHMUD was a fairy (in the sense of being
a gay sultan) He was a SUNNI-------a GAY SUNNI SULTAN I wonder if al baghdaddy knows
I
American_Jihad
Flaming Libs/Koranimals
- Thread starter
- #158
You don't need me to lead you by the nose do yeah...You post these articles without comment. Are we meant to laugh or cry ?The Facebook Wrath of Khan
Trying to discuss Sadiq Khan's victory within 1984 conversational guidelines.
May 12, 2016
Danusha V. Goska
On May 5, 2016, London elected Sadiq Khan its new mayor. Khan is a Muslim and the son of Pakistani immigrants. The anthropologist in me sought a thorough understanding of how this seismic shift was being received by England's Muslims and non-Muslims alike. I wanted to know what demographics supported Khan, who opposed him, and who took his victory as a serious blow. I wanted to know what significant statements Khan had made about his own history-making place in society.
I turned to NPR. In lieu of news, I heard a blast from a confetti cannon. NPR journalists are nothing if not expert at using every feature of their voice to instruct the listener in the correct response. Pauses, high pitch, sighs, monosyllables snippily clipped, all conduct the listener's progress as deftly and firmly as your tour guide at a super-max prison. This day the NPR announcer was giddy. Surely Khan's election was as worthy of unalloyed celebration as the rescue of a kitten from a well. It was as if Mayor Khan had saved Britain from a long, dark night in which only – ew, yuck – Christians had held office. Khan's election lifted some medieval curse.
I mentioned my frustration on Facebook: "Cairo, Egypt surprised the world today by electing a Christian Englishman as mayor. Next on NPR, we explore how this will impact the world's most populous Arab nation."
In that imaginary scenario, journalists would do the real work of exploring how millions of Muslim Arabs felt about being governed by a Christian Englishman. These Muslims would not be pressured to smile and announce their multiculturalism. They would not be shamed if they expressed anxiety. Reporters would merely take it down if their Muslim informants invoked the Crusades, colonialism, white supremacy, or Islamic sanctions against Muslims being ruled by Christians.
Demographers would astutely analyze population shifts, culture shifts, and the social anxiety that inevitably follow – as documented by Harvard's Robert Putnam and other social scientists. The information would be treated as a neutral commodity. There would be no badge of virtue in celebrating this English, Christian Cairo mayor, and no stigma or exclusion in questioning what his election means.
I'd like to hear a reporter calmly ask Khan, "How do you, a devout Muslim, understand qisas and diyya? This system attributes a sliding scale of value to human beings, with Muslim males on the top and Pagan females at the bottom. How do you understand the Koran's command that Muslims not take Jews or Christians as friends? How, as mayor, will you navigate Islam's prohibitions surrounding men talking to women?"
I'm Polish, American, and Catholic. I get asked tougher questions regularly. Wake me up in the middle of the night, shine a light in my face, and ask me to give my position on the priest sex abuse crisis, the Inquisition, or Vietnam. I respect people's concerns about these issues and I've done research to respond responsibly – that's what the Bible tells me to do in 1 Peter 3:15; it's what Thomas Jefferson said Americans must do in the first sentence of the Declaration of Independence. I wasn't asking any more of Khan than others have asked of me.
I posted my frustration that Khan's election was being treated as a litmus test for righteousness. "Marek," a Facebook friend who lives in England, chided me. "Religion plays far less of a role in British political life than in America," Marek tut-tutted. He argued that Khan's religion was not worthy of discussion, and that Khan is a model multiculturalist. Marek posted a photo of Khan standing next to a Christian cleric, and he reported that Khan voted for "marriage equality." Marek closed with, "I will forebear from commenting in depth on the irony of an American pontificating on racial tensions."
Khan-boosting like Marek's can be found all over the web. Again, like Marek, there is the competitive factor: Khan's election is an ornament showing that the English, unlike Americans, are not mired in racial strife. The single most disturbing factoid used to quash any serious discussion of Khan's historic win: Khan attended the UK's Holocaust memorial ceremony; therefore, he must be a really good guy.
Let's get serious. Ken Livingstone is the former mayor of London. He is a leader of the Labour Party. Last month Livingstone said that Hitler was a Zionist. He said this after Naz Shah, another Labour pol, was revealed to have posted on Facebook in 2014 that Jews should be expelled from the Middle East. The Labour Party, Khan's party, faces charges of being anti-Semitic.
What freshly-elected public official, especially under these circumstances, wouldn't attend the UK's official Holocaust memorial ceremony? Khan did something that is as necessary, normal, and tactically beneficial for a politician as kissing babies and eating rubber chicken. In any case, Khan's visit "unleashed an anti-Semitic twitter barrage," according to Haaretz. (The Forward mostly likes Khan.)
Marek's comments praising Khan and pooh-poohing my desire for a deeper discussion of his election felt, to me, like the heavy hand of thought control. The official narrative: there is no tension between Muslims and non-Muslims in England. Anyone who even asks how Khan's religion affects the worldview of various demographic groups in the UK is race-baiting. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
I disagreed with Marek. I stated my disagreement in a series of photos. I posted a photo of Anjem Choudary. I posted a photo of Lee Rigby, in his scarlet uniform, holding his son, Jack. I posted a meme of mug shots of four of the Rotherham rapists. I posted a link to an article about an increase in attacks on Jews in London.
On April 11, 2016, ICM released the survey "What Muslims Really Think." One subsequent headline: "Jail Gays, Introduce Shariah."
...
The Facebook Wrath of Khan
American_Jihad
Flaming Libs/Koranimals
- Thread starter
- #159
Like MS13...
Moonglow
Diamond Member
Let's get rid of Sicilians while we are at it also.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Falling for pallyWeid: Hanlmas manipulation who prevent Gazans' aid & fabricate stories- Started by Pastelli
- Replies: 0
-
-
Cuts to Medicare, and Food Stamps, big mistake. Current Budget will cause many poor people to suffer.?
- Started by 52ndStreet
- Replies: 10
-
-
