We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

A British-Muslim “Insurgency”?

The Independent (or ‘Al-Independent’ as some of us like to call that bastion of Islamo-fascist apologists) has an article predicting nothing less than a full blown domestic Islamic insurgency in Britain.

Whilst clearly we have a problem, I really do not buy The Independent’s scenario as presented, implying that the 100,000 or so “totally militarised” Muslims in Britain from various hotspots are just raring and ready to make large parts of the country into no-go areas. However I guess we will know who is correct soon enough.

48 comments to A British-Muslim “Insurgency”?

  • Yes, well – argueing like that, the Independent should also count in the “totally militarised” Swiss community in London, which is certainly a couple of thousand strong also … and if the FT keeps going against Switzerland like it usually does, we’ll start an insurgence of our own! 😉

  • John Steele

    Assume for the moment that “al Independent” is right, what happens then?

  • I have no difficulty seeing some areas becoming like Belfast, with demands for Sharia law and the symbols of British society removed.

  • Verity

    It depends on the will of the owners of the country.

    I believe self-defence should be in the hands of the citizenry, not a prime minister (and his wife) who clearly loathes Britain. Depending on Tony Blair to defend Britain would be like depending for a ride to safety on the iceberg which struck HMS Titanic.

  • Samsung

    “I have no difficulty seeing some areas becoming like Belfast, with demands for Sharia law and the symbols of British society removed.” – Peter

    Good idea. My sentiments entirely. If such a thing were to happen in the UK it would wake up the British public who for the most part are blind and stupifyingly ignorant to the true face of Islam, in all its medieval, theocratic, intolerant, misogynistic and Jew-hating, dictator loving forms.

    It would put a stop to all this “Islam is a peaceful and tolerant religion” B.S that we get from Tony Blair and those self proclaimed “leaders” of the Muslim communities that keep popping up in the media, and spinning their bloody lies.

    If these dumb fuckers want to go on the Jihad in Dear Old Blighty, then so be it. It’s about time Europe had a wakeup call to the viper in our midst.

    100,000 homegrown Islama-fascists out on the Jihad is tantamount to Civil War.

    And let’s see just how long the Muslim communities last in Britain. Can you say “Interment Camps” anyone?

  • James


    Hate to say this, but if it does come to insurgency, the British are screwed. If there are tens of thousands of Jihadists just waiting to pick up an AK47, they’ll face an unarmed and softened population. The British people just have no understanding of that kind of violence on their very doorsteps.

    Power comes from the barrel of a gun, as Mao Zedong said. Let’s hope they’ve either not got the balls, the notion, or the numbers to give it a try.

    Even if the British Army can stop them, a LOT of unarmed people will have bullet holes in the back of their heads.

    This possibility is the price that may be paid for having an disarmed populace.

  • GCooper

    Almost certainly the Independent (from reality) is over-stating the case – and, no doubt, as ever, for its own ends.

    On the other hand, while, post-Scarman, disaffected West Indians kids were bought-off with free “community” recording studios and the like, I’m not so sure the same beads and mirror stunt will wash with an Asian inchoate youth rebellion nurtured and fuelled by a dinosaur religion which abhors the West.

    The question is whether we have the backbone to ignore those who would prevent us from rooting out this cancer, by whatever means necessary, or whether we would rather go to our graves, smugly satisfied that we ‘did the right thing.’

  • Like Perry, I regard the dire warnings as rather overwrought.

    However, IF such a thing did occur then I expect that the establishment will respond by caving in and making some sort of deal.

  • RAB

    Sorry folks , cant see that happening. We would smother them in a minute. That ever taut string of tolerance will have snapped, and the backlash would be of biblical proportions.
    But it’s not going to happen. No sustainable support structure. Fishes need a sea and there’s only shallows out there. Their own parents have already turned against them. I hate to say this but it’s all a bit like “Hula Hoops” A fad that will pass. Murderous, deadly and indiscriminate as it is, It will pass.

  • Keith

    Samsung, what you said.

    In the long run, it may well be the best possible thing that could happen, leaving the government no wriggle-room whatsoever. They’d have to deal with the problem and deal drastically.
    I don’t buy the “unarmed population” bit either. An angry tide of British people would use whatever came to hand and decimate any attempted insurgency. The muslim poulation have houses, wives and children and a hell of a lot to lose. When the first islamic ghetto is reduced to a smoking ruin, they’ll get the message.
    More likely, though, in the early stages Blair would use the army to stamp out “vigilantes” (ie pissed off Brits) while insisting the government had the problem under control.

  • Jonathan Bailey

    This story makes it clear why it was a huge mistake to disarm the British populace. The average law-abiding Brit has dutifully turned in his guns. Now, if the Jihadis decide to go for it, the citizenry is defenseless. Is it too late to re-arm?

  • Keith

    Jonathan, the gummint is more scared of armed citizens than it is of islamothugs.
    The totalitarian project comes first, always.

  • veryretired

    An extraordinary post at neo-neocon about the relationship between Islamofascists and their apologists. I linked thru Instapundit. The analysis presented was part of a paper delivered in October of 2001, and is amazingly prescient.

  • Keith

    Retired, that post is a bit of a worry. If he’s right–and it certainly looks pretty convincing–then there’s no hope whatsoever that extreme lefties are ever going to get a grip on the reality we face with islam.
    Well, not without mass therapy at least.

  • Robert Alderson

    Firstly, the warnings do seem overwrought. Probably an absolute worst case briefing prepared by the security services – before they ask for more money.

    Some of the Independent’s article suggests to me a classic case of a reactive rather than proactive bureaucracy. The attempted attacks on 21 July seem to have been mounted by an East African cell – so the bureaucracy decides to panic about E Africans. I would expect that most of the people in the UK who have been through training camps in Afghanistan or elsewhere are actually North Africans. On the basis of numbers alone I would guess that Algerians are the biggest threat, especially when you think about the civil war there.

    I know I keep banging on about this but I really think that a good step is to require all citizens, residents and visitors to be required to declare relavent military (terrorist) training received outside the country. At the same time the security services could ask a broad class of people against whom there might be reasons for suspiscion (e.g. anybody who has ever visited Afghanistan) to attend for voluntary interview. The FBI did this in 2001 / 02 and it would appear to have been successful in generating a lot of detailed intelligence. How many people in Britain might have a story to tell something like this:

    “Yeah. Me and my cousin went over to Pakistan to stay with our family and there was this bloke at the mosque there that kept talkin’ to all the lads from Britain about Jihad and how we should do something to help our brothers and that we should go with him to this place where they would train us up and let us fire guns and stuff. We never went coz we had to get back to work in my uncle’s business. But you know what? That same bloke from the mosque in Pakistan, yeah well, my cousin reckons that he saw him the other week coming out of one of the council flats near the station but when he said ‘Hello’ the bloke just blanked him and walked off.”

    The security services aren’t hearing that story because they aren’t asking. We need a twin track approach of active and visible engagement by the security services backed up with the threat of prosecution for failing to disclose relevant military training or knowledge of terrorist planning. This would allow Muslims who want to demonstrate their loyalty to Britain to do so. There are people (especially women) within the Muslim community who are actively hostile to Islamofacism, many from bitter personal experience, in this time of war they can be our most valuable allies.

    Of course, if we want to make the Northen Ireland prediction come true then we should take a lead from history and open up the internment camps…………

  • guy herbert

    Hear, hear, Robert Alderson.

    Moreover, we shouldn’t underestimate the intelligence services’ and the government’s commitment both to their own bureaucratic aims and to spin/disinformation. An alarmist speculative story in the Indy will get more credibility than one in the Mail, and it will hit those more likely to need persuasion of the threat.

  • st trevor francis

    RAB and Keith are right, of course. These would-be Jihadists are needle-dick no-hopers: their mothers don’t love them, their girlfriends don’t fancy them, their communities don’t want them. They should be encouraged to blow themselves up in the middle of a field, preferably on live TV, a la Monty Python. If innocent people weren’t dying their risible fascist stunt would be witheringly, hilariously funny.

    But – if they really want to find out – they could forget the tube and turn their next bombing campaign on one or two Premier League fixtures this coming season. You want to see an anti-insurgency mob fighting with its bare hands? You got it. Let the Pools Panel predict that outcome. (Home Win, is my guess).

  • ThePresentOccupier

    I believe self-defence should be in the hands of the citizenry

    OK, I give up. I’ve previously only touted the right to firearms for sporting purposes; I’m no longer prepared to espouse that one. The right to self defence is not a franchise to be bickered over by politicians; it is an individual right. Inalienable, to borrow someone else’s term. Vermin like Gerry Adams can have handguns for self defence; that that “right” is not universal is inexcusable.

    Unfortunately, I feel that the biggest enemies of society these days are the state – who are definitely not going to allow carry.

  • Julian Morrison

    A bombing campaign is quite likely – a full insurgency is impossible. They haven’t the professionalism, the weapons or the troops. There are no supply lines. There’s nowhere near enough public support in their (scattered and ghettoized) regional bases. They don’t control the police, nor can they count on the community refusing to deal with the police. Basically they’re screwed every way.

    The most that’s plausible is more idiots with MacGuyver Specials in backpacks. And each time, their whole cell will be lost due to the mile-wide forensic trail.

  • Andi Lucas

    This is wish-fulfilment fantasy on the part of the Independent.

  • Alan G

    A full scale insurgency? No – however the analogy with Belfast as alluded above by Peter is not an unlikely scenario IMO although if it does happen, it will be over a long period of time.

    In the 1960’s the catholic minority organised numerous ‘civil right marches’ across Northern Ireland protesting at the second class treatment they felt they were receiving. Those marches (peaceful at first) became flashpoints for violence, culminating in rioting and the appearnce of the paramilitaries on the streets.

    It wouldn’t be too suprising if at some point in the future, Muslims were to organise similar ‘civil rights’ marches. The potential for these to become flashpoints for rioting is quite high in some places. Over a period of time, resentment amongst Muslims could translate into no-go areas with the demand that these be run under Sharia law. Even if they had the means to do it, the extremists wouldn’t want to force a full scale insurgency. There’s no need. Rachet up the terror carefully enough and the dhimmis will explore all kinds of avenues to make it stop.

    As long as they (the Muslims) pay their taxes, the government will be happy to make a deal of some kind.

  • I could see areas that were no-go ala parts of France. I doubt a full scale insurgency will happen as I think that even a hint of that will be subdued immediately. Now rioting by Muslims sounds far more likely especially in their power centres in the North.

    The Indy is over-cooking this for some reason or other.

  • anon

    Al-Indy’s latest is weirdly trying either to stir up the population or encourage those who think an insurgency is viable to come forward.

    Trouble with the insurgency idea is that the “enemy” is identifiable and there are a lot of people itching, perhaps entirely wrongly, to “have a go” at anyone of a certain colour or dress sense. Population unarmed? Not according to a taxi-driver where I live: he routinely finds handguns left in the back of his cab.

    Plus, AK47s take some smuggling in and once wrested from someone’s hand they work just as well for the new owner. The police would fear an armed population naturally but they are stretched as it is.

    Encouragingly for the bombers, that’s what they said themselves after July 7.

    An arms amnesty after several weeks of heavy fighting might do it to bring stability but most people who’d acquired a weapon might like to keep it handy as a trophy or, well, just in case…

    Of course some of the local Mosque lads popped over to Afghanistan to try pot shots at the US soldiers. It was a game and yes, one or two ended up on an extended holiday in Cuba but they could bleat they were innocent, etc. Not sure that makes them angry or able enough to be the foot soldiers of the new IslamoUK.

    There may be, thanks to our startlingly inept government, a cave-in on offer if the caliphate-builders get aggressive enough. I fancy a concession similar to (but not exclusively) that they can have Oldham and Bradford and their own flag etc providing they stay peaceful and pay some taxes or other and, more importantly, have people there to gather in all those postal ballot papers for mass voting for Labour.

    The Muslims have a parliament already so they are well on their way. Trouble is, some Muslims feel pretty murderous towards other groups of Muslims and a war between parts of Lancashire and Yorkshire is not impossible. They are nowhere as near united as they like to portray.

    I also think there are a couple of other non-white groups who are not entirely at ease with the Muslims.

    I have an amusing fantasy where one of these duly approved enclaves launches an attack on a US base in Cambridgeshire and the Americans send tanks up the M1 to hit back. Will play hell with bank holiday traffic.

    The best bet for the enemy-within is of course the odd soft-target bomb and maybe a couple of more riots (isn’t it odd that riots almost always happen in good weather? You’d think that social injustices happen all year round but no one throws petrol bombs in February for some strange reason).

    Our Nu-Labour masters will of course do everything they can to aid the smooth transition from a United Kingdom to a fractured, troublesome set of provinces. Prescott could be in charge and regional parliaments should cover it up quite well.

    But one thing I’d invest in now is street signs. We already have way too many signs for this and that cluttering our urban views but if the Mullahs get their way there will be a whole new demand for bigger road signs in English and whatever language they prefer.

  • Phil

    O/T With the odious Bakri gone, are we still looking after his wife & kids, please tell?

  • Verity

    As long as they (the Muslims) pay their taxes Yes…. those immense revenues that flow in from those who actually have a job.

    I have long wondered why the British have been complicit in the removal of their right to self-defence. I suspect that if they took their case to the dreaded European Court of Human Rights, they would win their case and the government would be found to have acted illegally.

    Meanwhile, I think the Brits should simply go ahead and arm themselves in large numbers. If 10 yr old black kids are coming by guns to take to school with them (which I read recently – one in eight, or some such figure, has carried a gun to school) it should not be beyond the wit of the average white Brit to get himself a firearm and ammunition.

    And some advocacy group, meanwhile, should go ahead and get counsel’s opinion from some European Court law firm (even Matrix, which has a couple of very bright barristers despite the presence of Cher) as to whether disarming citizens was illegal.

  • Verity

    Phil – The odious Bakri’s coming back.

    As he doesn’t have a British passport, one wonders how.

  • Julian Taylor


    I wondered about that one as well – could it be that possession of a Invalidity Benefit Payments/Social Security Benefits book is tantamount to a passport, or maybe waving the keys of his (state paid for) Ford Galaxy does the same trick? Anyway I just bet Mr Bakri got a rude shock in Lebanon when he discovered that the Lebanese government doesn’t pay malingerers money for doing nothing.

  • Verity

    Julian – Yes, this decision carries with it an air of stunned surprise. I suspect he thought he’d be welcomed into an Arab community for his sterling work among the British. Instead, he will have found an ordered society that doesn’t welcome lawbreakers and cheats. I supsect he’s having a problem making ends meet and I suspect there is a chilly lack of hospitality and free rides.

    The DSS should repossess his car and give it to a British person. Anyway, his benefits should be terminated as of the date he left Britain and his “wives” and other dependents shovelled out after him, leaving the air that little big fresher.

  • Toulson Caffrey

    Verity & Julian Taylor,

    I presume he is in possession of one of these Home Office “Travel Documents”.

  • Mary Gunslinger

    What I’m wondering if is there any legal case against the government for allowing tax payers money to be used to fund a war against them. I’m not happy one bit that not only am I paying to subsidise these peoples large families but that they are also actively using my tax money to kill my fellow citizens. Wouldn’t it be fun if everybody started suing the government (or left the country en-masse). Then all these workshy neanderthals would have to actually start to pay their own way…if only!

  • Verity

    Mary Gunslinger – Actually, you might have struck on an actionable point. We need to start using Tone ‘n’ Cher’s Human Rights Act (incorporated into British law without a debate in Parliament) against them. It was so sloppily handled that I am certain it is riddled with holes.

    Love the handle!

  • John K

    I have long wondered why the British have been complicit in the removal of their right to self-defence

    Maybe because they were never asked? The 1920 Firearms Act was never a part of any manifesto. It was a panic measure enacted by a government keen to disarm the working classes because it feared a bolshevik revolution. Once that Act was passed, the game was over, because a citizen no longer had a right to own arms, only the privilege of owning arms he could show a “good reason” for. When in 1968 the Home Office issued a secret memorandum to all police forces instructing them that self-defence could not be accepted as a good reason that was that.

    I’m fairly sure 99% of Britons have no idea they ever had a right to own arms for self-defence, and most would think that if the right were restored we’d “end up like America”. Most Brits think the streets of most US towns run red with blood every Saturday night, and it’s an image that’s too ingrained to argue with. You can talk about Switzerland till you’re blue in the face and you get nowhere I’m afraid.

    I suspect that if they took their case to the dreaded European Court of Human Rights, they would win their case and the government would be found to have acted illegally.

    If only it were so, but I doubt it. I recall that British pistol owners did try something along these lines, but nothing came of it in the end. Why should Euro bureaucrats want an armed citizenry any more than British bureaucrats? Both sets of tax eaters fear that in extremis the guns will be turned on them. The most they will go along with is the lowest possible number of guns held for strictly sporting purposes. Any serious social use of guns is a no-no.

  • Tony

    St Trevor Francis – you’re right, the upcoming matches in the premier league are a certain target for them, what with them being live on Sky and all…

    I think that whatever happens after that is going to be utterly horrendous, guns in the hands of the populace or no.

  • Phil


    Phil – The odious Bakri’s coming back.

    As he doesn’t have a British passport, one wonders how.

    Sorry i missed that on the latest news, Shit!!!!!!!!!

  • Verity

    John K says: most would think that if the right were restored we’d “end up like America”. They should be so lucky.

    On the European Human Rights deal (I won’t call it an Act, as it isn’t one), Parliament governs Briton with the consent of the governed. As they incorporated this foul construct into British law without an Act of Parliament, then I do not see how the British are compelled to go along with the joke. They are governed by Parliament with their consent. They are not governed by anyone else.

    Interesting how they slipped that in the back door so quickly and quietly. Ferdinand and Imelda must have needed to get their hands on some quick cash from Imelda’s company.

  • John K

    As he doesn’t have a British passport, one wonders how.

    I understand he’s obtained a Lebanese passport, possibly because his wife (or one of them) is Lebanese.

    Apparently he flew out of Heathrow without anyone noticing. It’s not as if he’s on a watch list or anything.

  • Verity

    John K – Apparently he flew out of Heathrow without anyone noticing. It’s not as if he’s on a watch list or anything.

    Victor Meldrew moment.

  • guy herbert


    As they incorporated this foul construct into British law without an Act of Parliament […]

    No they didn’t. I opposed the Human Rights Act 1998, but it is a proper Act of Parliament. It is arguable that reception actually happened when the Maastricht Treaty was ratified by the European Union (Accessions) Act 1994, also a proper Act of Parliament. But nobody seems to have noticed. Perhaps nobody read the Treaty.

    In principle I’m still agin, but as a brake on Blairite authoritarianism it does have some practical utility, so I have to say I’m currently quite glad of it. (“When the facts change, I change my mind – what do you do, sir?”)

    The UK did belong to the Convention for four decades beforehand, of course. But it would be hard to maintain it was incorporated into our law in the 1950s.

  • Verity

    I didn’t know that, Guy. Thank you.

    As for being glad of it to curb Blairite authoritarianism, I don’t agree. I would prefer Blair to be unhobbled, so the electorate could see exactly how manic and truly insane Blair really is.

    I think most thinking people would agree by now that Blair has a mental condition. Look at the squalid, senseless mess all of them, with him at the rudder, are making of anti-terrorist legislation. I agree with Perry, quoted from The Times above, speaking in the context of freedom of speech: let us see everything out on the table.

  • Matt O'Halloran

    “I think most thinking people would agree by now that Blair has a mental condition.”

    Yes, yes, of course they would, dear. Now have you been taking those pills regularly?

    The three thoughts of Chairperson Verity, available passim, seriatim et ad nauseam here and in many other places:

    (1) The West is engaged in a life-or-death struggle against Islamism.

    (2) Tony Blair has defied the majority of his own party and people by playing a leading role in this struggle.

    (3) Therefore Blair is a fiend in human form and must go forthwith.

    I know who’s got the ‘mental condition’, honey. Ever tried leaving the net alone for a few days and engaging with the real world?

  • Verity

    Hello, HJHJ.

    Again, Perry de Havilland, who owns this blog, has issued a fatwah on personal insults.

    I was first attracted to this blog about two years ago, when I read a discussion on abortion – perhaps the most incendiary of all topics. There were something like 160 comments, and in the whole 160, not one rude, abusive word; not one personal insult. Feelings on both sides were running high, yet all the commentators remained civil and reasoned. I was most impressed with the quality of the debate and the debaters.

    That’s why I came back, and have been participating ever since. The quality has remained high.

    People like you, capable of rational, articulate and interesting argument sometimes, and completely wild with hatred at others, let this blog down. When a stranger to Samizdata tunes in, what is he/she going to think when they read your foam-flecked comment? They’re going to think Samizdata is like many of the other illiterate blogs that infest the blogosphere – there mainly for people to let of steam and trade insults; ten a penny.

    Stick to your thoughtful, rational postings and get a grip on your lapses into obsessive behaviour, or you will begin to chase people away.

  • dick advocaat

    as a “stranger to samizdata” who finds himself dropping in ever more frequently, may i make an observation?

    sometimes i agree. sometimes i disagree. but always the debate is amusing and intelligent. however, the virulence, belligerence and cock-sureness of the tenor of the arguments means that some people feel moved to come back with personal remarks. understandable. thing is, the regular posters can’t take it. is matt o’halloran’s comment really so hurtful and direct and personal? i think not. verity, you’re one reason i keep coming back – you’re like a parody of yourself, someone we love to hate. sorry. jonathan pearce often shows the same reaction to personal jibes – threatening to ban people (very libertarian of him – he’s done that twice this year to my memory) or accusing them of being trolls. people – get real – this WHOLE BLOG is written by trolls. isn’t it?

    and lighten up. if you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

  • There is nothing un-liberatian about banning people as a way of defending private property from abusive people.

    People are going ad hominem far too quickly these days. I really have no problem with a bit of the rough stuff at times (sometimes an arsehole needs to be called an arsehole) but if it becomes excessive, it is the job of the proprietors (such as me) to ‘send in the bouncers’.

  • Odd! A seconder for an ad hominem so quickly on the heels of the first,not the faithful Bullo and his master,surely?

  • dick advocaat

    no, peter – and that’s another thing i’ve noticed – knee-jerk paranoia. stay calm. plenty of people read the site – they don’t all necessarily agree with you, neither are they a cabal plotting against you.

  • Dick,
    What on earth prompted YOU to respond?
    Please do read up the meaning of paranoia,it involves the self,there is no evidence of that in the post.
    Why are you so sensitive about the Lone Stranger and his faithful companion Bullo?
    I do hope this isn’t the chap with the multiple personalty disorder again.

  • Verity

    Interesting that every time the Lone Rower posts an ad hominem and is called on it, a total stranger, who has never posted here before, is motivated to rush in to support him. The stranger is always presented as the voice of reason who. Like Bullo, the economist, and A Neutral – who hasn’t posted here since.