From Sky News, live from court.
Exerpts from the Judge, Mr Justice Haddon-Cave’s, comments You were not prepared for martyrdom. . . wanted to save his own skin.
Satisfied that the offence of attempted murder was an act of terrorism (That’s good – so far)
You were motivated deep seated hatred of this country and desire for revenge against this county and US for the death of your father. No doubt you are a very dangerous and devious individual …using military efficiency while pretending to be a model asylum seeker.
I sentence you to life imprisonment with min term of 34 years. (and then the inevitable)
You will have plenty of time to read the Koran in prison. The Koran is a book of peace. Islam forbids breaking the law of the land. Islam forbids terrorism. You have violated Islam and the Koran by your actions.
The Diversity Division of Judicial Group of the Ministry of Justice was the one that escaped the cull of 2008. They have done their work well. Judge’s may well be of diverse ethnic origins and sexual taste these days, but they are selected and trained according to a conformity of minkthink that even orwell would have thought far-fetched. That educated and intelligent men, women and the fluid continue to lack the independence of conscience to be honest about the nature of Islam and the koran is scandalous. They must be now, some of them at least, be aware of the flaws in that ideology and its unholy manual; I cannot believe otherwise. The longer since my retirement, the more I realise how desperate the government was to get my generation off the scene.
“Islam forbids terrorism”? Then why did Muhammad say, “I have been made victorious with terror”?
This judge has no inkling of what it means to think independently. He’s bought the politically correct mantra completely – hook, line, and sinker.
At least we can be grateful that the sentencing appears to be just even though the judge felt it his duty (right?) to opine on the true teachings of a particular religion. I don’t recollect any judge doing the same for Christianity – perhaps it’s because Christians aren’t known for committing crimes in the name of Christ (I wonder why that is?), so no opportunity for the judge’s learned opinions there.
What the Judge seems not to realize is that the special Islamspeak *definitions* of ‘peace’, ‘terrorism’ and ‘the law of the land’ have to be borne resolutely in mind at all times when dealing with mohammedan spin-doctors and with the Islamic texts. A thorough acquaintance with *all* the main texts and assorted mainstream interpreters soon reveals that for orthodox Muslims ‘peace’ is that state of total submission achieved after the entire planet has been transformed into a global caliphate governed by Muslim despots enforcing the sharia of Islam. ‘Terrorism’ = “any act, thought or speech that is in any way critical of or opposed to Islam/ Muslims/ Islamisation”. And “the law of the land” = Sharia; although the principle of ‘darura’, necessity, may be invoked to allow for a merely temporary accommodation of non-Islamic law IF the circumambient non-Muslims of a Muslim state within which Muslim colonists are living, are deemed to be, for the moment, too strong for a Muslim to get away with flagrant breaches of that non-Islamic law. We really do need some brave underground publisher to produce a samizdat – and comprehensive, and referenced back to Islamic sources – ‘Islamic Dictionary For Infidels”. Writers like Bassam Tibi have written very helpfully and could be drawn upon for some of the key definitions. Assorted apostates from Islam, such as one Abul Kasem, who wrote a brilliant essay entitled “Whe is Islam ‘Oppressed'”, could contribute definitions, with references.