Exposing The English Defence League

Before the press

1 note


The EDL, NF, BNP, NWI, BF and the whole rogues’ gallery of far-right acronyms have all descended upon Rotherham, for a patriotic dick-swinging contest to see who can exploit hundreds of sexually abused children the most. 


 Any excuse is good when it comes to a spot of “Paki-bashing”, especially when it’s the thought of white kids being sexually abused by swarthy, brown-skinned men. Of course they are only assuming the children were all a) white and b) girls. If it was white men doing this or they didn’t think the children were white, you can guarantee that all this mob would be sat at home watching football at the weekend.

This ranty-but-boring bloke from the Bolton and Spalding EDL Division is going on about travelling to Rotherham to protect his children (assuming he has any), who presumably are in Lincolnshire, against Muslim paedophile gangs in South Yorkshire.


Children in Lincolnshire are threatened by paedophiles in South Yorkshire? Look mate, if you’re so worried about your children’s future, then why are you leaving them and buggering off to another part of the country? Surely staying at home with your kids would be better for their safety and future? Think about it.

 “The authorities won’t do anything, so we’re the last chance!”

If the authorities aren’t going to do anything, what exactly is the demo going to achieve? Demos are supposed to bring pressure on the authorities to do stuff, so it makes you wonder why he’s bothering if he doesn’t think it will work. Presumably he thinks this demo will magically make the grooming gangs vanish, drop dead or have some other magic effect. Or maybe he’s just plain stupid.

 Slagging off your own supporters is probably not going to inspire them much either, especially accusing them of being paedophiles for not going to Rotherham. As if going to Rotherham was necessary to prove ones non-paedophile credentials. As he talks of them being on their keyboards a lot, it’s tempting to think that maybe that’s all the Bolton and Spalding EDL Division is, with Mr. Boring Rant Man being its only genuine real world activist.

 The EDL are always saying how they’re defending their “children and grandchildren’s futures”, because otherwise they’ll be raped, beheaded, genitally mutilated and forced to wear burqas or something (not necessarily in that order). The grandchildren, and sometimes the children, are theoretical in most cases anyway and don’t exist.


Because camping outside a cop shop….                     

imageHaving a barbecue….

imageDrinking beer….


And pissing up walls is a good way to a) defend your children who may be hundreds of miles away and b) sympathise with 1400 sexually abused kids.

 But hey, if they thought those kids had been murdered then it would be mankini and pig mask time!

imageThe EDL keeping it classy in Blackpool for Charlene Downes 

And how can the likes of Andrew Edge afford to take a couple of weeks off work on what must’ve been a spur of the moment decision? How did he persuade his employers to give him the time off or, if he’s self-employed, how can he afford to lose the work? If he’s on working benefits he has to make himself available for work, which he isn’t, and if he’s on sickness/disability benefits, isn’t sleeping rough in a tent in all weathers something that someone who has a long-term health condition would want to avoid? This isn’t just him remember, it is several individuals, so how are they managing this?

imageAs I’ve not seen him declare that he’s ended his hunger strike, after 2 weeks he should’ve lost a massive amount of weight compared to this photo above. If this strike carries on for another few weeks, bearing in mind he says in writing that he’ll go on until Shaun Wright resigns, we can expect him to die of starvation. If however he still looks the same, he isn’t dead and still pretends he was on hunger strike, then he’s a bullshitter. Of course if he admits to not going through with it, then we can tell that it was just piss and wind, like all EDL threats. The thing is with the previous EDL hunger strike it lasted 24 hours (until Tommy got hungry!), but was claimed to have lasted a week, so we can do doubt expect the same here. EDL hunger strikes like all of their politics totally fall short of all their boasts, and revolve around alcohol and bacon!   

image They also plonked themselves outside the police station in Rotherham, despite the Police and Crime Commissioner for South Yorkshire (Shaun Wright being the man they’re after) being based at 18 Regent Street, Barnsley, about 13 miles away.

Andy Edge is EDL, obviously. Like Mr. Boring Rant Man, Andy Edge says anyone who doesn’t support him is a paedophile.  


The EDL and many other far-right organisations level that very same accusation against anyone who opposes them on their demos.


 Oh dear, the other far-right organisations are trying to muscle in on the EDL’s prime location grief tourism campsite!




This is David Gorton, former supporter of the non-racist EDL’s Blackburn Division….


 ….Who now sympathises with the white supremacist National Front and has become a member of the neo-Nazi NWI. Note the neo-Nazi 14W (14 Words) slogan on his T-shirt.


He looks like Frankenstein’s Monster in a wedding dress!

They have thus declared their opposition to the EDL and anyone opposing a “patriotic” group supports paedophiles, so surely that means the NF, BNP, NWI, BF and all the rest of them support paedophiles?

 The EDL must support paedophiles too, because they object to the presence of other “patriotic” groups protesting about paedophiles. Oh dear, oh dear!


But then again news about Muslim paedophiles and the threat of Muslim paedophiles seems to be what fuels these groups, which is why they are buzzing around Rotherham like flies around shit. So in a sense that’s right: they support the existence of kiddy fiddlers.


Thanks to EDL News for the photos.

2 notes

8,000 Men of Pakistani Origin?

There appears to be a trend now, especially on English Defence League pages, of stating that there were 8,000 men of Pakistani origin involved in the rape and sexual abuse of 1,400 children. I have yet to see any evidence whatsoever to support such a high figure, although I suspect it will now become part of EDL lore like all the other rubbish “FACTS” they believe in. 

Here’s the story linked on the EDL page shown in the screen-capture above: http://news.sky.com/story/1324952/horrific-cases-of-child-abuse-in-rotherham 

More than 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham between 1997 and 2013, a report has concluded.

The abuse of youngsters, some just 11 years old, has been described as “horrific” and “not confined to the past but continues to this day”.

One victim told Sky News she was sexually exploited by “hundreds” of men and authorities did nothing to stop them.

Roger Stone, leader of Rotherham Council, has stepped down over the damning report.

Roger StoneCouncil leader Roger Stone

"I believe it is only right that I, as leader, take responsibility on behalf of the council for the historic failings that are described so clearly in the report and it is my intention to do so," he said.

In the summary of her findings, Professor Alexis Jay said: “It is hard to describe the appalling nature of the abuse that the victims suffered.

"They were raped by multiple perpetrators, trafficked to other towns and cities in the north of England, abducted, beaten, and intimidated.

"There were examples of children who had been doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight, threatened with guns, made witness to brutally violent rapes and threatened they would be next if they told anyone.

"Girls as young as 11 were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators."

A Number 10 spokesman described the failings of local agencies as “appalling” and said the attackers need to be brought to justice.

Martin Kimber Chief Executive Rotherham CouncilChief executive Martin Kimber says there will be no sackings at the council

South Yorkshire Police issued an “unreserved apology” to victims and said “we fully acknowledge our previous failings”.

The report highlights a variety of serious child protection failings and concludes the council and other agencies should have done more to protect those at risk.

However, Rotherham Council Chief Executive Martin Kimber said no council officers will face disciplinary action.

"Officers in senior positions responsible for children’s safeguarding services throughout the critical periods when services fell some way short of today’s standards do not work for the council today," he said.

"To that extent, I have not been able to identify any issues of professional practice related to current serving officers of this council that would require me to consider use of disciplinary or capability procedures."

Alexis JayProfessor Jay presents her report

In just over a third of cases, victims were previously known to services in the South Yorkshire town.

The report says there was a series of failings including poor leadership from senior managers in child protection services and a perceived “lack of interest” in, and understanding of, grooming as a model of child abuse.

Victims were not heard or believed and there was a perception that a “macho and bullying” culture within the council prevented child sexual exploitation from being properly discussed.

There was “denial” that such events could happen in Rotherham and issues of ethnicity were “played down” by senior managers.

"Almost all" the abusers were described by victims as being of Pakistani origin, but authorities "wanted to play down ethnic dimensions… for fear of being thought racist."

The spotlight first fell on Rotherham in 2010 when five men, described as “sexual predators”, were given lengthy jail terms for grooming teenage girls for sex.

The prosecution was the first of a series of high-profile cases in the last four years that have revealed the exploitation of young girls in areas including Rochdale, Derby and Oxford.

No mention of “8,000 men of Pakistani origin” in the entire article, in fact no exact figure is given. It appears that they have taken the entire Pakistani heritage population of Rotherham - men, women and children - made them all men and made them all complicit in the crime. That’s totally in keeping with the EDL practice of collective blame/punishment, something of course that never applies to them when one of theirs commits a crime.

0 notes


It is very difficult to adequately convey in words the feelings that are stirred up by the information that 1,400 children were sexually abused by gangs of paedophiles in Rotherham and the authorities did nothing to stop it.
Understanding why they did this is not really something I believe is worth exploring in any depth, because there was a simple moral choice between saving children from sexual abuse or avoiding what they claim was the threat of being accused of being racist.
If they knew what was happening and action was taken to stop it, how could they then be accused of racism that would imply they were making false accusations on the grounds of race? Maybe it was more complicated than that, but in any case the behaviour of the authorities amounts to cowardice.

If the authorities were acting cowardly, then the gloating from the likes of the English Defence League can only be described as vile and deeply disturbing. Their entire response to the case has been one of attention-seeking and a desire to prove that they are right, added to their obvious need for an excuse to attack Muslims and Pakistanis. When cases of paedophile gangs formed of mostly Asian suspects come to light, the EDL and their ilk firstly claim there’s a media blackout (with ongoing trials the media can’t release details) and behave as if they themselves were the only source of information, even though they get their information from the media in the first place. Then they protest outside the court where the trial is being held, as if to try and influence the verdict. When the North West Infidels did this outside Liverpool Crown Court they almost caused a mistrial (their presence couldn’t guarantee that the defendants would get a fair trial) and what were men guilty of child sex abuse, would’ve been found not guilty and released on a legal technicality. Afterwards they brag about how they were right and use the trial as an excuse to racially abuse Pakistanis, religiously abuse Muslims and try and score political points over anti-fascists by falsely accusing them of defending paedophiles.
There’s a world of difference between counter-protesting against a bunch of fascists looking for some free publicity and protesting in defence of paedophiles.

It’s as if not collectively hating all Muslims and Pakistanis amounts to not detesting certain Pakistani and Muslim individuals.

A similar pattern was on display last year with Lee Rigby’s murder. After he was murdered, the police had secured the area and the media were covering everything, the EDL turned up and attacked the police. But why? There was absolutely no reason for them to be there: the police had taken the suspects away and the media had broken the story to the world. But the EDL will no doubt claim, as they always do, that they were “defending the streets from Islamic extremists”, the police “are in bed with Islam”, the media “won’t tell the truth” and so presumably the EDL had to come to the scene of the murder to “wake everyone up” to what had happened. And of course have a pointless fight with the police, pose in front of the TV cameras and generally act as if they were important in some way.
Despite the murder being a major story in the media for several months afterwards, right up to and including the trial, the EDL were of the opinion that if it wasn’t for them Lee Rigby would’ve been forgotten. Then there was the trial and themselves and the BNP turned up
outside the court for no apparent reason, other to demand the non-existent death penalty and moon at the TV cameras.

If we look at their Facebook main page we can see that the EDL actually thrive on stories of Muslims raping, murdering and committing other serious crimes. It fuels and supposedly justifies the EDL’s hatred of Muslims/Pakistanis and gives them the excuse they need to do
their demos, which are nothing more than events to boost the egos of people with very low self esteem. Demos make them feel like they are important: “Look Mum, I’m on the telly!” If they get to do a march through the streets, well, that’s even better because everyone can see them then and they can pretend they’re soldiers at a parade. The English Defence League is the Jeremy-Kyleisation of activism.

They are totally silent on cases not involving gangs of Asian or Muslim paedophiles.

A further two men have been arrested in the last week over the child sexual abuse scandal that went on North Welsh care homes in the 70s and 80s. There are currently 283 people under investigation.
The EDL have not commented on this and the names of the latest two suspects suggest why not.

They were also silent on Jimmy Savile, Stuart Hall, Max Clifford and Rolf Harris, when Savile alone had hundreds of victims. Combined with the EDL’s off-stated hatred of “Muslims” (because Muslims can be any colour, this probably means Pakistanis) raping white women, we can conclude that the EDL is not interested in the victims, but only in the race or religion of the perpetrators.

The Rotherham case has now presented the EDL with another such excuse to be in the public eye (they’ve organised a demo after the case is closed) and for them to gloat about being right. Looking at their “Unplugged” Facebook group we can see that they are positively revelling in the outcome, throwing racial abuse around, challenging anti-fascists to come and eat humble pie, and even making a game of falsely accusing anti-fascists of defending Muslim paedophile gangs. Some of the posts almost read like Oscar speeches with their lists of names that the EDL deem responsible. 

The fate of the 1400 sexually abused children doesn’t seem to come into this and the fact they were sexually abused almost seems to be a cause for celebration for the EDL, as it means they can do a bit of point scoring against everyone they don’t like. 



I’d rather not be commenting about this awful crime in relation to the EDL, as it will merely give them something more to squawk about and really it’s beneath my dignity to speak about the EDL and sexually abused children in the same blog. However as they seem to be mistaking everyone else’s dignified silence on the matter as a sign of humiliation, I thought a few things needed saying.

1 note

Where’s the money, errm, anyone? Hel Gower confirms EDL cash went missing.

Posting on the now anti-EDL (yeah) facebook page  EDL English Defence League Support Group, Tommy Robinson’s PA, and director of English Defence League Limited, Hel Gower, has confirmed that money donated by supporters, and raised by merchandise, which we were long convinced was being siphoned off, has indeed been pocketed by, well, someone.

"As for the tax issue I wouldn’t even go down that route lad. I have enough proof that I was never involved in the Finance side of EDL and that RO’s always have been the ones in charge of it and don’t forget by RO’s that means the Committee including you in the past tense. I had one spreadsheet that I did when Tommy/Kev left EDL and closed the Paypal a/c that had been managed by RO’s and I pointed out the shortfall in money and what did the RO’s say, including yourself, drop it don’t tell anyone!!! I’ve also got the allegations from Bolton where he ‘alleged’ Dave McKenna had stolen money/merchandise and again the Committee said drop it, then there was Big J and the money that he took, shall I go on? all swept under the carpet and never revealed to the supporters of the EDL, why was that? Whilst it would be an inconvenience to me if I was investigated by HMRC I know I have enough proof of who was in charge of monies/merchandise throughout my course of time with the EDL, even now they use an RO’s bank account or did. I’m sure it would be more of an inconvenience to RO’s past and present to also be investigated after all your run by a bankrupt and benefit scroungers and all their accounts would be frozen as well whilst being investigated. Plus the person that now does merchandise and gives 50% to EDL would have to be investigated and have to prove his books are all legit so don’t give that threat out because it would really be more of a hassle to you lot then me and where are the accounts for the 50% held?" Hel Gower.

In a lengthy argument with former EDL organiser, Tony Curtis, the one thing that is clear is that money went missing. As for who the culprit was,  Hel blames the RO’s past and present, and Tony thinks it was Growler, Uncle Kev and Tommy:-

Filed under EDL Julie Blackadder Janie Munchkin Jones missing EDL funds hel gower Tommy Robinson

0 notes

Murphy’s Bore

In my experience the far-Right comes in two types.

Category A: grunting, snarling illiterate morons whose eyes seem to about to disappear under the weight of their brows and whose pleasures in life involve drinking and attacking brown people/the police/each other. A typical conversation by them reads something like, “im a edl soldya!!!! n im gonna fkn kil ya trayta!!!!”, so you give them a bone and pat them on the head….well, sort of.

Category B: swivel-eyed crackpots of the Pamela Geller School, who can actually string sentences together, but whose output seems to consist of blogging paranoid rants about Muslims and secret conspiracies that try and silence anyone who criticises Islam. They just know Muslims are collectively up to no good, so they see cover-ups everywhere, and believe liberals and Marxists control the government, the media, the police, etc. “You think the Daily Mail is a Marxist newspaper and it won’t criticise Muslims? Yeah buddy, you keep taking your pills and no, I don’t need to take the red pill.

I came across this fine example of Category B tin-foil-hattery.


First of all, to announce its totally biased approach, it uses this picture, not that there’s anything wrong with the sentiment expressed in the picture.


 Then it proceeds from what is frankly a completely false assumption.

Only it is actually quite clear how big the contribution was.


“Of the 1.3 million Indians who constituted the volunteer force during the first world war, approximately 400,000 were Muslims.”


India’s army grew from 200,000 in 1939 to 2.5 million in 1945, with Muslims making up about a third of the numbers at any one time. Most Muslim recruits came from what is now Pakistan.”

Well that was easy: 1.2 million Indian Muslims fought for the British in the two world wars and I found that in seconds. Why did anyone fight for us for that matter? It’s a silly question, but more on that later.

Not many Muslims fought for the British? Try over 1,200,000 from India, which doesn’t include the ones from Africa and the Middle East. Remind me: who exactly was T.E. Lawrence leading into battle? An outright assumption that well over a million Muslims decided to fight for Britain when they had no loyalty to the people they were fighting for. What is that based on? So is Christianity for that matter. 

Galatians 3:28
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Apparently then Muslims have no love for their own countries and there’s no such thing as a Muslim nation-state!

The quote, “[Muslims] should fight for the Ummah; not for the nation state”, does not relate to anything I can find. The only examples of it all come from this article in its various reproductions, i.e. it appears to be a made up quote, probably created by the article’s author, Paul Austin Murphy, in order to prove his point. 

Considering that Murphy does not appear to be reiterating anything, has apparently falsified his own evidence and gives no examples of what the “many Muslims” say, we can safely assume that the actual reason he is saying this is to slag off Muslims. Indeed, this little bit, “You would hardly expect anything else from Muslims”, utterly destroys any pretence of him being unbiased.

Moving on to the next section….

Yeah, well we’ve already covered this. The Sikh contribution actually came in third place after Hindus and Muslims as it happens: 130,000 in World War I and 300,000 in World War II.

Murphy is assuming, despite the absence of any evidence, that there were hardly any Muslims in the Indian Army because the Metro doesn’t give numbers.

So his entire argument for there being “very few” Muslims in the Indian Army is his single source (the Metro) not mentioning actually how many Muslims were in the Indian Army. I don’t know why based on the evidence he’s presented that this supposed lack of Muslim contribution was so clear to him.

Yes, but then again by that same measure there is not a single reference to the numbers of Hindus and Sikhs either, but the author doubtlessly would tell you that far more Sikhs were in the Indian Army than Muslims, which isn’t in fact true.

Which is really rich coming from the very same people who insist that any suspect wanted by the police who is described as being Asian; is in fact a Muslim and should be described as such even when their religion is unknown. Even more ironic is the author objecting to positive generalisations of Muslims when he himself is making negative generalisations! 

We’ve already covered the numbers, so no further comment needed here.

This is a pointless and deliberately misleading paragraph. It says that because the Ottoman Empire was virtually the only Muslim state, Muslims either fought on the side of non-Muslim states or the Ottoman Empire. The Ottoman Empire was one of the Central Powers, as were the German Empire and the Austro-Hungarian Empire, who were both non-Muslim states.

Any Muslim fighting on the on the side of the Ottoman Empire would also be on the side of Germany and Austro-Hungary. See, pointless.

Wrong! The Indian Army in the Second World War was the largest volunteer army ever seen. Muslims fought in the Indian Army because they wanted to. Saying they had a choice between being soldiers and not being soldiers is extremely stupid, as the same could also apply to both Hindus and Sikhs. In fact as India didn’t have conscription and Britain did, Indian Muslims fought because they wanted to and vast numbers of Christian Britons fought because they were made to.

Aha, so having criticised the Metro for conflating Muslims with Indians, the author proceeds to do precisely that himself for his own ends! The Legion Freies Indien AKA Infanterie-Regiment 950 (indisches), was founded by Subhas Chandra Bose: a Hindu. There was actually a smaller percentage of Indian Muslims in the Legion Freies Indien than there was in the Indian Army.

(Hartog, Rudolf (2001). The Sign of the Tiger: Subhas Chandra Bose and His Indian Legion in Germany, 1941–45, p. 7) "Compared to the distribution in the Indian Army in the Classification Lists, where the Muslims were 34 per cent, the Hindus 41 per cent, the Sikhs 11 per cent and the Gurkhas and other races 14 per cent, this points to the fact that in the Indian Legion there were most Hindus and Sikhs and fewer Muslims than in the Indian Army."

 Oops, that attempt at further heaping dishonour on Muslims backfired!

I’ve no idea what the random asterisk at the beginning referred to. There’s no note at the bottom of the page and it plus the parenthesis were detached from the previous paragraph..

Anyway, on to the next section we go….

 None of which is actually untrue as it happens. Oh, but hang on, I thought that it was “not quite clear how big" the Muslim contribution to Britain’s war efforts was and it was "clear that of those ‘1 million troops in the Indian army’, very few of them would have been Muslims”. Muslims were 40% of the Indian Army in WWI using the information Murphy himself has provided! I wonder how many times he’s been knocked down crossing the street, because he thought it was “clear”?

It only sounded as if Bunglawala was talking about British Muslims, but he didn’t actually state that and when Bungawala said Muslims fighting for the British Empire/Commonwealth he only meant Indian Muslims, did he? That’s a big assumption.

 OK, so Bunglawala was talking about Muslims who fought for Britain in the world wars, which could be several different groups of people including Arabs, Malays and Kenyans, but which Murphy immediately interprets as being Muslims in the British Indian Army. Then he suggests Bunglawala “gave the game away” by mentioning British promises to Muslims over the Levant. It does not appear to have occurred to Murphy that when Inayat Bunglawala was talking about the Muslims who were fighting for us that he was talking about Arabs, not Indians. The obvious clue is the author mentioning that Bunglawala spoke of promises made by the British to Muslims about Palestine, Iraq and Syria. Why would the British be making such promises to Indian Muslims? The British also made promises to Jews at the same time, which in conjunction with their promises to the Arabs properly cocked up the Levant.

 Seriously it seems that to Murphy “Muslim” equals “Muslim Indian” and that every last Muslim Indian wouldn’t have fought for the British if they’d have known about the Balfour Declaration, which had absolutely nothing to do with India! And all of this is based entirely on Murphy’s assumption that Bunglawala was talking about Muslim Indians and not Muslim Arabs. Yes, that’s how nonsensical this is!  

 He apparently makes the foolish error of believing that the regionalised modern conflict between Arabs and Israelis; is a part of a global hatred of Jews by Muslims stretching back into antiquity, which isn’t in fact the case.

To put it simply, Muslim Arabs fighting for the British against the Ottoman Empire received certain assurances over Palestine, Iraq and Syria regarding their future autonomy. Then the British promised the Zionists that there’d also be a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which conflicted with the promises made to the Arabs. The Arabs probably wouldn’t have sided with the British if they’d have known that the British lied to them and had done a deal with the French to carve up the Middle East. Could you blame them? 

I’ve absolutely no idea what Murphy is dribbling on about here. What Bunglawala said was that the Arabs, who were not citizens of the British Empire/Commonwealth, would probably not have fought for the British (a foreign power) against the Ottoman Empire (the foreign power occupying their lands) if they’d have realised that the British were going to stitch them up and replace one empire with another. If by “loyalty to fellow Muslims, and to Islam” and “if Muslims fought on anyone’s side, it was either on the side of a non-Muslim state or on the side of the Ottoman Empire”, Murphy is suggesting that the Arabs would’ve fought for the Ottomans, he is a total moron. The Arabs were being totally patriotic in wanting national independence. 800,000 Indian Muslims voluntarily joined up and fought for Britain in World War Two: what is that if not loyalty and patriotism? Why should the Arabs have had loyalty to the British state, a foreign power? Ah yes of course, the idiot Murphy still thinks Bunglawala was talking about Muslim Indians!

 On we go….

Anyone using “vast majority” in a sentence has no idea of the actual figure and is bullshitting. Also Murphy deliberately doesn’t mention the fact that Britain secured the help of India’s Hindus and Sikhs by promising an independent India after the war. Britain declared war on Nazi Germany on behalf of India without seeking their approval, which understandably did not go down well and led to calls for independence. Britain then had to do a deal with the various Indian factions in order to get their help.

Yeah, Murphy totally ignores the fact that Stafford Cripps was also negotiating with Gandhi in 1942, promising an independent India if India fought for Britain, because Gandhi was campaigning for the British to leave India at that point. Hindus and Sikhs fought for Britain on a promise of independence just as much as Muslims did.

Jinnah was worried about a Hindu-dominated India, so he wanted a separate country and thus India underwent the Partition. The Unionists and Loyalists in Ireland feared a Catholic-dominated Ireland, which led to the partition of Ireland. The British far-Right is very supportive of Ulster Loyalists, but it would seem they are also critical of their Indian counterparts, Jinnah’s Muslim League. Go figure.


Yes, just as interestingly as Indian Hindu nationalists fought for the British to secure an independent India; Irish Catholic nationalists accepted that Home Rule had been delayed due to World War One and fought for the British; and Burmese Buddhist nationalists were promised independence by the British for helping fight the Japanese. Funny, all those people fighting because they’d been promised independence! Churchill also ordered £100,000 be spent on the establishment of the Central London Mosque in October 1940, as a mark of respect for the Muslim soldiers of the Empire.

….And Britain shafted the Arabs. The Arabs rose against the Turks on 5th June 1916 at Medina, before British military support arrived and would still have done so even if it never did. Arab nationalism stretched back several decades. General Allenby would’ve eventually taken Jerusalem and Damascus, and the Middle East would’ve been divided between Britain and France anyway. The Arabs rose up before they received any support from the British. Their objective was to tie down Turkish troops and to make it easier for the British to fight the Turks. They failed to achieve a pan-Arab state because Britain reneged on its promises.

No, you moved away from the British Indian Army as soon as you started discussing the Balfour Agreement, only you were too stupid to realise that you had.


Bearing in mind of course that not all Arabs are in fact Muslims and the “short time” they fought for us in World War One being from June 1916 to November 1918, i.e. over half the war and longer than the Americans were our allies for!

The Arabs had no intention of founding their own empire or “destroying Ottoman Islamic hegemony”, just destroying Ottoman hegemony over their own lands and establishing their own rule over their own lands. British High Commissioner Henry McMahon led Grand Sharif Hussein to believe he’d be the ruler of a vast empire if he sided with the Allies, which of course the British had no intention of giving him.

 Most Arabs in WWI were against the British? Which battles did they fight against the British then? Between the wars and during WWII having been screwed out of their independence by the British and then having had their land colonised by Zionists with the support of the British, who were now in control of Palestine, Iraq and Jordan, the Arabs were not exactly pro-British. Again, can you blame them?


In Arab lands occupied by the French and British, their enemy Germany was viewed as a liberator. National Socialist politics had nothing to do with it; it was simply a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. Also there were huge numbers of Nazis in European countries occupied by Nazi Germany.

Newsflash: Bosnia is not an Arab country! Also about 98% of the SS were in fact non-Muslims: guess which religion they were? 20,000 Muslim SS out of 920,000 total SS is not exactly a huge number. The Bosnian Muslims were recruited because of the need to defeat Serb partisans without tying down large numbers of German troops in the process. The Orthodox Christian Serbs had massacred 100,000 Bosnian Muslims, so recruitment was easy. Yugoslavia was controlled by the Ustaše, Nazi Croats, who were Catholics and enemies of the Serbs. The Ustaše were responsible for the Holocaust in Yugoslavia and killed 60% of Yugoslavia’s Jews.

The Grand Mufti of Jerusalem was opposed to British rule in Palestine, opposed to Zionism, appealed to Hitler to stop Jewish immigration to Palestine (even if it meant sending Jews to their deaths) and was a disgusting anti-Semite. He was however merely a religious leader with no army, his country under British control and wielding significantly less power on the world stage than the Archbishop of Canterbury.

That’s unlike non-Muslim, pro-Nazi leaders such as Petain, Mussolini, Tojo and Quisling, who actually had political power and, excluding Quisling, had armies at their command. His role in the Holocaust and WWII generally is massively inflated by Islamophobes, ditto the Bosnian Muslim contribution to the SS.

In far-Right Islamophobic writings the Mufti becomes Hitler’s closest and most powerful ally, who designed the gas chambers, persuaded Hitler to start the Holocaust and toured Auschwitz, whilst the Bosnian Muslim SS were busy running the death camps and exterminating Yugoslavia’s Jews. None of that is remotely true: it’s all bullshit to deflect blame from European Christian society, from which those genuinely responsible for those crimes came from.

Not forgetting of course that most Nazi “labour camps” for Jews were in Europe.

Quisling was an Arab too was he? Petain? Laval? Most collaboration with the Nazis happened in non-Arab, Christian Europe. Vichy France even introduced anti-Semitic laws without even being told to do so by Nazi Germany. 

Why not ask the same question about Christianity, whose persecution of Jews is far longer and far greater than that of Islam’s? Are Arabs not human beings and not capable of empathy?

 OK, so how many Arabs fought for the Axis? No figures given. As pointed out above, the Arabs wanted an end to being a part of the British and French empires, and an end to Zionist colonialism. It’s worth mentioning that Jews and Arabs had lived peacefully side-by-side for centuries up until this point.

Those shared ideologies being Arab nationalism (which Muslims supposedly are incapable of), and opposition to the British Empire and Zionism. Or does Murphy believe that the Arabs shared the Nazis’ belief that that the Arabs were racially inferior? Sharing anti-Semitic beliefs does not mean a shared ideology. Britain was awash with anti-Semitism and the last anti-Jewish riot occurred in Manchester in 1947: was Britain Nazi in 1947? Essentially the Arabs (who aren’t all Muslims) saw Nazi Germany as a liberator. Just like the Ukrainian Cossacks and citizens of the Baltic States saw Nazi Germany as a liberator from the Soviet Union. 

As for shared political views….

Hitler said that the conquering Arabs, because of their racial inferiority, would in the long run have been unable to contend with the harsher climate of the country. They could not have kept down the more vigorous natives, so that ultimately not Arabs but Islamised Germans could have stood at the head of this Mohammedan Empire.” - Albert Speer

We shall continue to make disturbances in the Far East and in Arabia. Let us think as men and let us see in these peoples at best lacquered half-apes who are anxious to experience the lash.” - Adolf Hitler

 Oh yeah, old Adolf really thought highly of the Arabs!


The blog entry reveals that:

  1. Paul Austin Murphy suffers from that paranoid malaise of far-Right thinking: extreme polarisation. Everything must fit into two rival camps, the Muslim camp and the anti-Muslim camp. In this scenario Muslims are inherently evil and any claims that they’ve performed good deeds are either massively exaggerated or are total lies. Therefore Murphy has decided that Inayat Bunglawala is part of some sort of conspiracy to hide the “truth”.
  2. Murphy also falls into the standard far-Right thought pattern of believing that his own ideology, what he would term “nationalism and patriotism”, is something Muslims are incapable of. This is presumably because he does not want to believe that Muslims can share his loyalty to Britain, so he even fabricates evidence to back this up.
  3. Murphy also deliberately omits major evidence in order to show only half the picture, to deceive his readers and to show Muslims in a bad light. For example, there is no way he could know about British deals with Jinnah over Pakistani independence, but not know about similar British promises to Gandhi over a free India.
  4. The purpose of the blog seems to be because Murphy could not comprehend why Muslims would fight for King & Country, because he believes them incapable of patriotism or loyalty to Britain. So he draws the conclusion that they were bribed, deceived or forced into fighting for Britain, and that their natural instinct is to oppose Britain.
  5. Reading between the lines, Murphy by his omissions would appear to believe that all non-Muslim subjects of the Empire fought for it out of loyalty and patriotism. Because in ignoring Gandhi’s Quit India movement and focusing on Jinnah’s Muslim League, he is somewhat creating the impression that India’s non-Muslim population did not seek independence in return for fighting for Britain.
  6. Murphy does his best to reduce the Muslim war effort on Britain’s side to practically nothing, whilst exaggerating the Muslim war effort against Britain (including treason) at every opportunity. He attempts this by merely stating that hardly any Muslims fought for Britain and most fought against us, without providing figures and based entirely on his say-so.
  7. Murphy inexplicably misinterprets Inayat Bunglawala’s recounting of British promises to Arab Muslims over the Near East, as having been made to Indian Muslims. Murphy then uses his own misinterpretation as “evidence” of Indian Muslims’ inherent “disloyalty” to Britain.
  8. Also in keeping with standard far-Right practice, Murphy tries to inflate the connections between Muslims/Arabs and the Nazis, whilst utterly ignoring the far greater links between European Christians and the Nazis, which is after all what the Nazis were and what the modern far-Right (whose ideology is the same or similar to the Nazis’) are. Also he totally ignores the fact that many non-Muslim subjects of the British Empire, including British citizens, collaborated and even fought for the Nazis and Japanese.

In my opinion the blog entry attempts to sound clever and well-informed, but in fact proceeds from a collection of assumptions based on the author’s own anti-Muslim prejudice and then tries to make the facts fit those assumptions by either fabricating evidence, or by ignoring any that undermines Murphy’s argument. In fact the very first claim he makes, that Muslims have loyalty only to their religion and not to their country, the supposed truth on which his entire argument hangs, appears to have been invented by him in order to argue that Muslims have no loyalty to Britain. It’s supposed to be a “patriotic” and “counter-jihad” blog, yet it attacks the the memory of the war veterans of the British Empire and Commonwealth, and also that of its allies. A total Category B conspiracy theorist crackpot.