Governments immigration policy = no change

The coalition governments announced it's new immigration policy two weeks ago, which they claim is intended to significantly reduce immigration.

However if you look closely at the details it's simply lip service and gestures designed to reassure the public who are concerned about the present immigration situation.

The government says it's committed to getting immigration down to "tens of thousands" instead of "hundreds of thousands".

This will basically mean no change at all.

Immigration was only "hundreds of thousands" due to Labour's uncontrolled immigration surge from Eastern Europe, which should of never of been permitted in the first place. Prior to that, it was at the tens of thousands level. So effectively all the government is doing is returning immigration back to normal levels.

The level of immigrants in the UK is currently far too high, and has resulted in no-go towns dominated by Muslim and black immigrants.

No party has any policy to address this, except the BNP. We should be completely halting immigration from outside Europe, not maintaining previous levels.

The government also makes no mention at all of the one million illegal immigrants here. They have no plans or policies to deal with this or to tighten border controls to prevent further illegal immigrants entering the country.

In London alone, over 5,000 illegal immigrants are arrested every year, and 12,000 every year attempt to enter via the border with France. Very few of these illegal immigrants are held or deported, even after being arrested. Many end up working illegally and not paying tax or national insurance, or worse engaging in criminal activities.

Bishop speaks out against Radical Islam

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali: "Radical Islam is filling void left by collapse of Christianity in UK"

The decline of Christian values is destroying Britishness and has created a "moral vacuum" which radical Islam is filling, one of the Church of England's leading bishops has warned.

Pakistani born Dr Nazir-Ali faced death threats in 2008 after he said some parts of Britain had become "no-go areas" for non-Muslims. The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, claimed the "social and sexual" revolution of the 1960s had led to a steep decline in the influence of Christianity over society which church leaders had failed to resist. He said that in its place, Britain had become gripped by the doctrine of "endless self-indulgence" which had led to the destruction of family life, rising levels of drug abuse and drunkenness and mindless violence on the streets.

The bishop warns that the modern politicians' catchphrases of respect and tolerance will not be strong enough to prevent this collapse of traditional virtues, and said radical Islam is now moving in to fill the void created by the decline of Christianity.

His claims, in an article published in the new political magazine Standpoint, come just days after he accused the Church of England of failing in its duty to convert British Muslims to Christianity.

Dr Nazir-Ali claims in the new article that Britain, previously a "rabble of mutually hostile tribes", would never have become a global empire without the arrival of Christianity.

But he said the Church's influence began to wane during the 1960s, and quotes an academic who blames the loss of "faith and piety among women" for the steep decline in Christian worship.

He says Marxist students encouraged a "social and sexual revolution" to which liberal theologians and Church leaders "all but capitulated".

"It is this situation that has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we now find ourselves. While the Christian consensus was dissolved, nothing else, except perhaps endless self-indulgence, was put in its place."

The bishop, who faced death threats earlier this year when he said some parts of Britain had become "no-go areas" for non-Muslims, said Marxism has been exposed as a nonsense but went on: "We are now confronted by another equally serious ideology, that of radical Islamism, which also claims to be comprehensive in scope."

Asking what weapons are available to fight this new "ideological battle", the bishop said the values trumpeted by modern politicians such as "respect, tolerance and good behaviour" are "hardly adequate for the task before us".

"The consequences of the loss of this discourse are there for all to see: the destruction of the family because of the alleged parity of different forms of life together; the loss of a father figure, especially for boys, because the role of fathers is deemed otiose; the abuse of substances (including alcohol); the loss of respect for the human person leading to horrendous and mindless attacks on people."

The bishop added that Christian hospitality has been replaced by the "newfangled and insecurely founded" doctrine of multiculturalism, which has led to immigrants creating "segregated communities and parallel lives".

He said many values respected by society, such as the dignity of human life, equality and freedom, are based on Christian ones. But he warned that without their Christian backbone they cannot exist for ever, and that new belief systems may be based on different values.

"Radical Islamism, for example, will emphasise the solidarity of the umma (worldwide community of the Muslim faithful) against the freedom of the individual.

"Instead of the Christian virtues of humility, service and sacrifice, there may be honour, piety and the importance of 'saving face'."

In an implicit criticism of the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent claim that the adoption of some parts of Islamic law is unavoidable, Dr Nazir-Ali said: "Recognising its jurisdiction in terms of public law is fraught with difficulties precisely because it arises from a different set of assumptions from the tradition of law here."

He said that the Church of England must retain its importance in public life even if it does not remain privileged as the established church.

"It is necessary to understand where we have come from, to guide us to where we are going, and to bring us back when we wander too far from the path of national destiny."

Source: Telegraph

Britain's underworld belongs to Muslims

In traditional Islamic headgear, Asian ex-gang member Amir poses with his sword and issues the stark warning: "Britain's underworld belongs to the Muslims."


"Muslims took over the British underworld the day the twin towers fell..other gangs are terrified we're Al-Qaeda"

The 21-year-old, whose organisation turned over thousands of pounds a day from drug-dealing and credit card scams, claims a post-9/11 fear of terrorism has allowed Muslims to develop a stranglehold on our criminal community.

Through Islam, he says, they have numbers which cannot be matched, and rival gangs are being forced out by ruthless Islamic criminals who only deal with each other.

They recruit black and white members in Britain's jails, tempting them to convert to Islam in exchange for a cushier life inside.

Once released, the converted cons have access to an entirely new network of Muslim criminal contacts - and are trusted because they pray to Allah.

Amir claims that Britain's underworld will soon be completely dominated by Islamic gangs - and he says the West's paranoia over terrorism is to blame. "People don't f*** with us because they think we're all in al-Qaeda," he explains.

"Our status in the criminal hierarchy changed literally the day the Twin Towers went down.

"From then, Asians have been associated with terrorism. People, including other criminals, think if you're Asian you'll blow up a Tube train or bomb an aeroplane.

"In the past 20 years we've capitalised on that. If we're going to be thought of as extremists, why not use that fear?

"The reality is that Asian gangs don't give much of toss about religion, but with Islam comes fear, and with fear comes power.

Strangehold ... Amir poses with sword as he tells of power of Asian gangs on British underworld

"Religion is important to us only as a way of defining who we can trust and who we can work with."

Amir adds: "Young Muslim gangs aren't worried about what Allah makes of their criminal ways - they don't believe in it to that extent.

"Through religion we speak the same language, live in the same areas, go to the same schools and can even use mosques as a safe place away from the police or other gangs. If you f*** with a Muslim gang you'd better be able to run fast or hide well, because they will come back at you in numbers."

You do not have to look far to find an example of this.

In 2007 white schoolboy Henry Webster was beaten with a hammer by a huge gang of Asian pupils calling themselves the Asian Invasion. The 15-year-old pupil at the Ridgeway School in Wroughton, Wilts, was left brain-damaged.

Since then, it has been said in court that the school was the scene of numerous violent incidents involving Asian youths who were "radicalised and hostile" since the 2005 London bombings.

And in March last year, Judge Giles Forrester warned that London's streets are becoming "increasingly dangerous places" as he jailed an Asian gang for stabbing to death rival black gang member Jevon Henry, 18, in north London. Jevon Henry and a pal had been trying to extort money from drug dealer Muhid Abdul, 25.

The pair were ambushed on the Lisson Green estate by Abdul and four accomplices. Abdul stabbed Henry, while pal Toufajul Miah, 19, hit him with a hammer. Amir claims another motive for his own choice of weapon. He says: "We carry swords for protection. I've had to use mine more than once.

"Problem is, these days nobody fights on their own. You'll get attacked by a whole gang, so you have to have something like this to stop people messing.

"Some people do carry guns, but very rarely. The police constantly stop and search young Asians in London and I'd rather get caught with this than a gun because the punishment is less."

The Sun discovered that most of Britain's prisons are dominated by Muslim gangs. We spoke to a former prisoner we will refer to only as Steven, who was repeatedly approached by prison imams - Muslim priests - and asked to convert. Steven, who is British-born and white, rejected the approaches.

He says: "When I went inside the Muslims offered me help from top lawyers on the outside who would fight to get my sentence changed, if I joined them. "I always resisted, but you have to understand how tempting it is to convert. First, you have their protection. You're totally alone in prison when you get there, and if you can't look after yourself life is hell. You're beaten, robbed and bullied.

"Second, every Friday Muslims are allowed prayer meetings. This is free time away from the guards, so they can plot, make new contacts and often discuss anti-West ideology.

"Muslims also get better food. They have money sent in for their kitchens from the Muslim community outside, and they get special Halal dishes stipulated by Islam.

"Then, when a converted prisoner finishes his time, he leaves as an even bigger criminal with an entirely new contact book of Muslim criminals to do business with."

'To avoid a life of hell you join a gang' ... Amir says recruitment to Asian criminal groups starts early. Steven, who has spent time in eight prisons, adds: "Where the Muslim gangs come into their own is shifting drugs. If a white gang from London buys a kilo of coke, they then have to sell it.

"You can only sell your gear if you have contacts. The white gang will only know a few people in their area and won't trust or be trusted by other gangs. They won't deal with Eastern European, black or Asian gangs.

"But the Muslim network is vast and stretches up and down the UK, so they can shift drugs extremely quickly. That makes the money-making potential of a Muslim gang a hundred times that of a British or European gang."

Drug-dealing and credit card fraud are the areas in which London-based Asian gangs are most active. In fact, some dealers get so busy that even their mobile phone SIM cards become a commodity.

Steven says: "A drug gang's number can be worth hundreds of thousands. Say they have 100 punters phoning that number every day asking for a fix - that means thousands of pounds of business.

"The SIM card of that phone can be sold to another gang because the junkies who phone don't give a s**t who is dropping off their crack or smack, they'll just keep calling.
"I've heard of SIM cards selling for up to £250,000."

According to Amir, Asian gangs start early. He says: "If you go to school in an ethnic area you either join a gang or end up bullied, in some cases to the point of being killed.

"So to avoid a life of hell a kid joins a gang. Once you're in, life is easy - no more beatings, people to talk to, stuff to do.

"After school you graduate into more serious gang activity. You've got no qualifications because you've spent your school years resisting authority, and suddenly you need to make money.

"A boss can make up to £8,000 a day running a gang of 40 workers drug-dealing or scamming credit cards, and a worker can make £1,000.

"With the police getting more intelligent and busting people more, money is getting harder to make.

"Ten years ago, Asian gangs would go to war with Yardies and white gangs. But now, we've got London all sewn up, so the only people we end up warring with is each other.

"We have no one to compete with other than our own people, so Muslim gangs are starting to fight.

"Muslims have this country under control. Nobody can touch us."


Source: The Sun

Undercover policeman infiltrated UAF

For four years, a policeman lived a secret life among anti-racist activists as they fought brutal battles with the police and the BNP. Here he tells of the terrifying life he led, the psychological burden it placed on him and his growing fears that the work of his unit could threaten legitimate protest.

An officer from a secretive unit of the Metropolitan police has given a chilling account of how he spent years working undercover among anti-racist groups in Britain, during which he routinely engaged in violence against members of the public and uniformed police officers to maintain his cover.

During his tour of duty, the man – known only as Officer A – also had sexual relations with at least two of his female targets as a way of obtaining intelligence. So convincing was he in his covert role that he quickly rose to become branch secretary of a leading anti-racist organisation that was believed to be a front for Labour's Militant tendency.

"My role was to provide intelligence about protests and demonstrations, particularly those that had the potential to become violent," he said. "In doing so, the campaigns I was associated with lost much of their effectiveness, a factor that ultimately hastened their demise."

His deployment, which lasted from 1993 to 1997, ended amid fears that his presence and role within groups protesting about black deaths in police custody and bungled investigations into racist murders would be revealed during the public inquiry by Sir William Macpherson into the death of south London teenager Stephen Lawrence.

His decision to tell his story to the Observer provides the most detailed account of the shadowy and controversial police unit that has provided intelligence from within political and protest movements for more than four decades. He believes the public should be able to make an informed decision about whether such covert activities are necessary, given their potential to curtail legitimate protest movements.

Officer A – with a long ponytail, angry persona and willingness to be educated in the finer points of Trotskyist ideology – was never suspected by those he befriended of being a member of the Special Demonstration Squad (SDS), a secret unit within Special Branch, whose job is to prevent violent public disorder on the streets of the capital. Known as the "hairies" due to the fact that its members do not have to abide by usual police regulations about their appearance, the unit consists of 10 full-time undercover operatives who are given new identities, and provided with flats, vehicles and "cover" jobs while working in the field for up to five years at a time.

The unit has been credited with preventing bloodshed on numerous occasions by using intelligence to pre-empt potentially violent situations. Unlike regular undercover officers, members of the SDS do not have to gather evidence with a view to prosecuting their targets. This enables them to witness and even engage in criminal activity without fear of disciplinary action or compromising a subsequent court case.

Officer A joined the SDS in 1993 after two years in Special Branch. It was a time of heightened tension between the extreme left and right and almost every weekend saw clashes between the likes of the Anti-Nazi League, Youth Against Racism, the British National party and the National Front. The SDS is believed to have infiltrated all such organisations.

During Officer A's time undercover, all 10 covert SDS operatives would meet to share intelligence about forthcoming demonstrations. The information was used to plan police responses to counter the threat of the demonstration getting out of control.

A key success for Officer A came just two weeks into his deployment during a demonstration against the BNP-run bookshop in Welling, south-east London. His intelligence revealed that the protest was to be far larger than thought and that a particularly violent faction was planning to storm the bookshop and set fire to it.

As a result of intelligence provided by Officer A, police leave was cancelled for that weekend and, despite violent clashes, the operation was deemed to be a success for the Met. The then commissioner, Sir Paul Condon, met the members of the SDS to thank them.

Source: Guardian

Lionheart - Paul Ray's Story

I have been reading with interest over the last few days the blog of Paul Ray, aka Lionheart. For those who are not familiar with Lionheart, he was one of the founders and key figures in the English Defence League (EDL), a movement which started just over a year ago, and has attracted a significant amount of media attention for it's high profile demonstrations against the Islamization of English towns.

Lionheart's story is one of incredible bravery as he spoke out about the shocking realities of life in "multicultural" Britain today. Drug dealing, specifically heroin from Afghanistan, by an highly organised allegedly Muslim criminal network operating in his home-town of Luton with links all over the UK. The grooming of white school girls and prostitution. Links to terrorism and Al Qaeda. According to Lionheart, all this was happening on his doorstep in Luton. Incidentally, Luton was also at the centre of the 7/7 Al Qaeda terrorist plot carried out on London which claimed the lives of 52 people and injured over 700.

Lionheart revealed from his own first hand observations and experiences how all this was going on in his own town. Despite making this information known to the police, no significant action was taken. Alleged Muslim's linked to Al Qaeda learned his identity and issued a death threat on him, and distributed posters calling for Muslims to kill him if they saw him. He took this threat very seriously, and so did the police who issued him with an Osman warning (an official warning from the police that his life was in danger). He decided to close down his business and move elsewhere for his own protection.

Lionheart began writing down everything he knew in his online blog to make people aware of what was happening and encouraging them to take action. The authorities did not take kindly to this and the police decided to arrest Lionheart under the "racial incitement" law. They claimed his blog was stirring up racial tension and would incite people to commit acts of violence.

Lionheart was in America when he learned that the police had issued a warrant for his arrest back home because of his blog. He got in contact with the police who requested that he surrender himself into custody on his return to Britain. He knew from speaking to his solicitor that causing incitement carries a prison sentence of up to 7 years. Faced with this, he began to give serious thought to requesting political asylum from the British government in America. Lionheart was concerned that as he been a police informer in the past and had helped put Muslim drug dealers behind bars, he might find himself remanded in custody or imprisoned with the very same people.

It's crazy that in our so-called "free society" which claims to champion human rights and freedom of speech, a person who writes an internet blog can be charged and sentenced to prison just for expressing their own thoughts. This really brings home the reality of the "thought police" and the politically correct straight-jacketed society we now find ourselves living in.

Lionheart did return to England and surrendered himself to police custody and was promptly arrested and interrogated in 2008. He was released on bail pending further investigation and was not charged. He faced an agonising long 18-months wait to see what further action the police would be taking against him. During this time he also had to comply with his bail conditions and report to the police regularly. All this with a death threat hanging over him from the alleged Muslim representatives of Al Qaeda operating in his own town.

Over 20% babies born in Britain non-white

More than 20 per cent of babies in Britain are born to immigrant mothers, figures revealed yesterday.

In London, over half of children are born to mothers who hail from abroad. The breakdown from the Government's Office for National Statistics showed that the proportion of children born to immigrant families has shot up over the past few years.



More than 20 per cent of babies born in the UK are born to immigrant parents. In the late 1990s, when the immigration boom ushered in by Tony Blair's election was just beginning, around 13 per cent of all babies in Britain were born to mothers who came from abroad.

The percentage rose rapidly after 1998 and passed the 20 per cent level in 2005. According to the latest count, based on 2006 birth returns, 21 per cent of babies in the UK have mothers who were born abroad.

In England the level is close to a quarter, at 23 per cent. But in London 53 per cent of children have mothers from abroad.

A report by the ONS said: "This is the highest proportion since the collection of the parents' country of birth at birth registration was introduced in 1969.

"The increase continues the marked rise over the last decade: the proportion of births to mothers from outside the UK has risen from 13 per cent in 1996."

The report also said that among births where details of fathers were included on the registration form, 15 per cent showed that both parents had been born abroad. This suggests that around a third of foreign-born mothers who have children have a husband or partner who is British-born, the ONS said.

It added that the greatest increase in babies born to mothers from abroad had come among mothers in their late 20s and early 30s. Among babies born to mothers aged between 25 and 30, more than a quarter, 26 per cent, are born to mothers born in foreign countries.

The figures tally with information on immigration which suggest the majority of new arrivals in the country are in their 20s.

The Government's critics on migration warned yesterday that the figures show there is a growing risk to good integration in towns and cities.

Sir Andrew Green of the Migrationwatch think-tank said: "This is quite incontrovertible evidence of the massive impact of unlimited immigration on the whole nature of our society. It is absolutely essential that strict limits are placed on immigration if public confidence is to be restored."

The new figures also show that 44 per cent of babies are now born outside marriage. Across large areas of the country, the majority of babies are born to unmarried mothers: 55 per cent in the North East, 53 per cent in Wales and 50 per cent in the North West.

However in London, where most babies are now born to foreign-born mothers, only just over a third - 36 per cent - of babies are born outside marriage.

The low number of babies born outside marriage in the capital suggests that new immigrants cleave to traditional ideas of family life and do not scorn the advantages of legal marriage.

In some London boroughs the proportion of babies with foreign-born mothers is more than two thirds. Recent figures show that in the East London borough of Newham, 71 per cent of new mothers were born abroad. This was followed by Tower Hamlets (69 per cent) and Brent (68).

Outside London, Slough in Berkshire had the second highest rate of births to foreign-born mothers, at 48 per cent. It was followed by Luton, with 44 per cent.

Leicester and Birmingham, fourth and sixth respectively on the list, have been tipped to become the first cities in the country with a non-white majority.

The ONS said that the 44 per cent overall level of births outside marriage compares with 36 per cent of babies born to unmarried mothers in 1996.


Source: Daily Mail

Are the BNP racists?

One of the main criticisms often thrown at the BNP is that it is a "racist party" and is "racist" towards non-white people. Many opponents of the BNP use the "racist" argument to attack the BNP's opposition towards immigrants and mass immigration

Firstly let me start by saying I hate using the term "racist". In fact I try to avoid using it whenever possible. Simply because it has very little meaning. It is a term that is misused, abused and misunderstood by many people who use it. The term is of course the adjective of the word "race", but what does "race" actually mean? According to a growing consensus of scientists, it is a word which has no scientific basis. There are no distinctly separate human "races", and hence why the term is no longer used in any scientific context, and why it's use is discouraged.

Nevertheless the word is still widely used in the English language to refer to people of different nationalities and ethnicities. Therefore I will use the term here, in inverted commas.

Putting the accuracy or relevance of the term aside, I will demonstrate that "racist" need not be negative, and that being "racist" is not only unavoidable, but necessary for anyone of the nationalist political persuasion.

So let's start by looking at what the term "racist" actually means. Here is the standard definition from the Oxford Dictionary:

"the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief."

This presents us with a dilemma because as you can see, there are two distinct meanings offered here. The first is ambiguous, it is not negative or positive, it is merely a belief that "races" are unique and possess distinctiveness. It may not necessarily have to taken on a superiority or inferiority nature, but rather, simply a preference for one's own ethnicity and people.

The meaning of the second definition at first glance appears negative, however again, it is also ambiguous as it depends on the reasoning and context. Coming back to the first example, if one favours one's own ethnicity and people in preference to others, that must, therefore, make one prejudicial to a certain degree towards people of a different "race" or ethnicity. One may be critical of people from a different ethnicity or "race", based on cultural, religious, political or other grounds. However we cannot automatically assume that any such prejudice has to be discriminatory, antagonistic, or promoting of hatred.

So as we can see, the term "racist" is ambiguous and can have different connotations in different contexts. However, as we see in our politically correct society, "racist" has become an overwhelmingly negative term. Particularly so in any criticism of anti-immigration or anti-multiculturalism proponents, and against nationalists and nationalism politics in general.

Nationalism, and nationalist politics by their very nature must have an ethnic or "racial" dimension. People who share a common or closely linked ancestry, heritage and culture are a distinctive and unique people, from which arises the nation state. From a nationalist point of view then (one who supports the nation state), it could be argued that the mass influx foreign peoples and cultures is detrimental to the social, cultural and political integrity of the nation state.

Afghanistan: The Unwinnable War

Nine years has passed since the British forces launched their attack on the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Taliban had become the de facto government in large areas of Afghanistan and had introduced extremist Islamic laws and religious teachings. They were also linked to Al Qaeda training bases in Afghanistan, and according to the United States, were also linked directly to the 911 attacks.

This is what formed the basis of the perceived threat to world security, and from the tenuous prospective of the British government, the security of the United Kingdom.

The initial objective was to rid Afghanistan of the Taliban and install a democratic government. This objective was quickly achieved and the Taliban were pushed out and into the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Afghanistan's towns and villages were brought under the control and protection of the Allies. Democracy was installed, and the process of developing Afghanistan and establishing it's own army began.

The only problem was the Taliban never went away. They resurfaced even more radicalised and militarised. What followed has seen some of the heaviest losses ever inflicted on the British army, and the longest and most costly military engagement Britain has seen since world war two.

Just why is the Afghanistan war dragging on so long? The answer is simple. It's because it's an unwinnable war. It's a war without any clear military objective. It's a war where the enemy is not an army, but rather a religious ideology of fantatics who are opposed to democracy, Western values and everything we stand for.

As each area is secured by the Allies, it is quickly recaptured by the Taliban as soon as the Allies are drawn out of that area to fight the Taliban elsewhere. Round and round they go, with areas passing between the Allies and the Taliban like a bizarre game of pass the parcel.

Wherever the Allies begin investment and constructing schools, police stations and other infrastructure, the Taliban are able to burn them down or blow them up using suicide bombers. Many such buildings have been rebuilt several times by the Allies after successive attacks by the Taliban. Afghanistan is becoming a bottomless pit into which British tax payers money disappears into.

Whilst the British army has vastly superior weaponary, fire-power, military expertise and technology, it's largely useless in Afghanistan. The Taliban always has the upper-hand when it comes to strategy and fighting tactics. The Taliban choose to fight from within populated civilian areas, severely restricting the British army's and Air Force's ability to fight from a position of superiority, and thus, evening the odds. The Taliban army are virtually indistinguishable from civilians, and are able to move in and out of civilian areas with ease, using the local population as human shields.

The Taliban are also able to place mines and other improvised explosives along roadsides to inflict continual collateral damage on British personnel and transport vehicles. This low-tech tactic doesn't cost the Taliban very much at all. It is low risk to them and high cost to the Allies, proving a highly successful tactic. This is why such incidents of roadside bombs have not only accelerated rapidly in the last few years, but have become ever more daring with bombs and explosives placed right outside British military bases.

The Taliban may be massively inferior to the Allied occupying forces in terms of their technology and resources, but they what they do have is an unlimited supply of keen and eager radicalised volunteer fighters flowing into Afghanistan across the border from Pakistan. Many Muslim fighters arrive in Pakistan from all over the world, including the UK. They are willing to die for what they see as a fight for Islam, a holy-war. Whilst our soldiers and the relatives mourn the loss of the mounting casualties of this war, the Muslim's celebrate there's as martyrs doing Allah's work.

British involvement in the Afghanistan war was yet again at the behest of the United States. Britain yet again finds itself fighting America's ridiculous "war on terror" in conflicts that have nothing to do with Britain or British interests. This war must be brought to an end, and soon. For everybody's sake.