Michael Adebolajo Raw and Uncut


Note: What Mr Adebolajo did in Woolwich should be punished as harshly as the law permits. Once more, it may be regretted that the death penalty has been abolished.

At the same time, we should recognise that neither the murder he committed nor the speech he gave to justify it was inexplicable. He does not consider himself to be British. He considers himself instead to be a Moslem simply resident in England. It is hard to argue that our armed forces are not engaged in wars of aggression within the Islamic world, and harder still to argue that they have not committed atrocities there against civilians. I will not bother with his comments on Mr Cameron.

We should also compare his crime with those of the Sinn Fein/IRA terrorists presently allowed to rule in part of the United Kingdom. Whether by chance or judgement, he chose to murder a soldier. The method he chose to do this put no one else at risk, and involved the certainty of his own immediate arrest and final punishment.

The wider sadness of what happened in Woolwich may be less that Mr Adebolajo is mad or evil, than that certain propositions to which we are required to give public assent cannot be made true either by wishful thinking or by force of law. SIG


Here is what he says:

“The only reason we have killed this man today is because Muslims are dying daily by British soldiers, and this British soldier is one, it’s an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. By Allah, we swear by the Ummah we will never stop fighting you until you leave us alone. So what if we want to live by the sharia in Muslim lands. Why does that mean you must follow us and chase us and call us extremists and kill us? Rather, you lot are extreme. You are the ones – When you drop a bomb, do you think it hits one person? Or rather your bomb wipes out a whole family. This is the reality. By Allah, if I saw your mother today with a buggy, I would help her up the stairs. This is my …nature. But we are forced by the Koran, in Sura At-Tawba, through many many ayah [verses] throughout the Koran that we must fight them as they fight us. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. I apologise that women had to see this today but in our lands our women have to see the same. You people will never be safe. Remove your government. They don’t care about you. Do you think David Cameron is gonna get caught in the street when we start busting our guns? Do you think the politicians are gonna die? No, it’s gonna be the average guy — like you, and your children. So get rid of them. Tell them to bring our troops back so we can-so you can all live in peace. Leave our lands and you will live in peace. That’s all I have to say. Allah’s peace and blessings be upon Mohammed, salaam alaikum.”

13 responses to “Michael Adebolajo Raw and Uncut

  1. Pingback: Director’s Bulletin, 26th May 2013 | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  2. Sounds like an articulate guy. I’m prepared to believe that that’s what he said, since it has a sort of ring of truth about it.

    But to just run down a random guy (who happened to be a soldier) and butcher him to death in broad daylight in a London street seems hardly the sort of act calculated to gather support for his policy-position.

    The people such as the murdered socldier’s family, friends, drinking-buddies, mates, regiment and so on, all have lots of votes, and all read the Daily Mail and the Sun, and appreciate what I call “crying on the television”. The situation of Muslims, both here in Britain and in places like up-country-Afghanistan, cannot have been made better or more secure by this.

  3. I wonder if the situation for the soldier would have been different had he been required to be armed with a weapon. It might not have made a difference, but since that cannot be ruled out as a possible deterence it puts the attacker more in a threatening position to his own life. And since the soldier was targetted, it yet makes a strategic decision about arming soldiers on the streets, that they are still in the service of the country and society , even if off duty officially. And it illustrates that the warfare is already on the streets of the capital city.

  4. john warren

    I cannot understand Sean’s reasoning here. Butchers picked up meat-cleavers, then went looking for a soldier to kill. There wasn’t any luck involved in if it might be a soldier or not. He also writes that the method chosen to destroy a young soldier’s life placed no one else at risk. Well, from what I’ve read, a car was first employed to mount the pavement and ram the soldier in order to bring him down. So, since when have cars mounting pavements with violence in the mind of their drivers not placed other people at risk?

    Additionally, had Sean been on the spot when these vile monsters rushed in on their downed victim, would he have felt himself not to be at risk should he try to intervene? Had I been there, I’d have felt myself very much at risk of losing at least a hand or arm.

    Of course what the butcher said afterwards is meaningless, coming from a very obviously insane human being. How odd it is now that, a comfortable distance after the event, the keft-wing is attempting to move the blame over to the right-wing.

    The interventions into Moslem states, no matter how delusional, came after the air-born attacks upon New York. Already people are beginning to forget all those people, including tiny children, who were trapped in aircraft about to be deliberately crashed into steel and concrete towers. What thoughts tore through the minds of those people moments before impact?

    It’s just too ghastly to contemplate. I little bit like rolling about on the floor having been knocked down by a car, only to then realise that the men approaching were not offering help but were instead monsters armed with meat cleavers who’s intention was to savagely hack through your neck. For once the word terror, in all it’s meaning, can truly be used.

    My sympathies lie firmly with the victims of beasts. Certainly not the other way around.

  5. A raving lunatic whoose mind has been manipulated to kill, could have been anyone

  6. According to Peter Hitchens it was the fault of the drugs the murder was taking when he was younger! Good grief. Really? I mean, seriously? Not my fault gov it was then drugs that made me do it. http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/05/for-once-a-stupid-insult-is-more-important-than-brutal-murder.html

  7. john warren

    Sean, I understand it’s a tight line that people in your position must walk. You’ve also said that you don’t wish to martyr yourself and I understand that; echo it to the rafters. However, you are one of the few men I know that could genuinely give back all he was obliged to take in one of our new-age, so-called Courts of Law.

    I wish it wasn’t so but I think the jig is over for this country anyway, so don’t blame you in the slightest for deciding to put your family first. A man needs to feel that even if his own battle is lost, natural justice will eventually prevail.

    But you know, if someone like you dare not speak the way he truly feels, what chance do those of us have who were not given your intellectual ability? That also applies to several other people on this site who regularly make well founded comments. They have the tools to do their part of the job too but aren’t quite ready to start doing it. Not yet.

  8. The vast majority of Muslim women and children killed are killed by other Muslims, indeed by the Islamic “warriors of God” who falsely claim to be protecting Muslim women and children from evil infidels.

    As for Britain being engaged in “wars of aggression in the Islamic world” this is the sort of false language that makes it impossible for decent people to get involved in the anti war movement.

    One can argue (in fact I would argue) that the war against Saddam Hussain was a waste of effort (and of human lives and treasure) as the democratic government in Iraq is not fundementally better than the dictatorship of Saddam.

    One can also argue that the last Afghan election was rigged in favour of K. (the Obama Administration did not seem to care that the opposition was cheated of victory and a corrupt government kept in power), but that is hardly the same as saying that fighing the Taliban is a “war of aggression”. Waste of time (and lives and money) yes, war of aggression no. After all the Taliban would never win any elections – they could not care less about majority support (even in Pakistan – where the local Taliban declared that anyone who tried to vote was a legitimate target), they are “warriors of God” and He is the only support they care about, not the majority of (non fighting) men, let alone the majority of women.

    This post simply accepts Islamist propaganda (about women and children and about “wars of aggression”) as the truth. Much as if someone during World War II had just replayed Nazi propaganda (about Winston Churchill and so on) and then said “well there is a lot truth in this – not that I am pro Nazi of course…”

    What chance is there for peaceful coexisance with Muslims in Britain if Islamist propaganda is simply repeated (as truth) even by nonIslamic sources? The point of replaying the words of this man is surely to refute them – not to agree with them.

    Not that I am claiming there is a wonderful chance for peaceful coexistance even if nonIslamic sources do not just accept Islamist propaganda as truth. However, undermining enemy propaganda is a vital part of tryiing to undermine the pro terrorism case that is presented to Muslims in Britain.

    “Ah, but you do not undersand Paul – the only way to get out of Afghanistan (which you admit is folly – a waste of resources and human lives) is to inflame the public against the war by pretending it is a war of aggression…..”

    That line of argument has no charm for me. Any more than pretending the Islamist terrorists (who slaughtered women and children on trains and buses on 7/7) do not want to murder British women and children. They do – and they would even if no British soldier had ever faught the Taliban.

    What do people here think the riots in Sweden are about?

    Swedish “wars of aggression” in the “Islamic world”?

    Swedish support for Israel (a country the Swedish elite, in fact, detest) perhaps?

    Or perhaps it is lack of “Social Justice” in Sweden?

    Terrorists like Michael Adeboajo kill because that is the way they see of spreading fear of (and submission to) Islam (remember Michael A. is a convert – this was a war he joined of his own free will) – if he was in Sweden (or Kenya – another nation with no troops in Afghanistan) he would be the same.

  9. The Koran says again and again that nations that attack Moslem countries should face retribution from both the Moslems living in them and in other countries. I would like to see this fact put to one of the placatory ‘Islam condemns all killing’ speakers that the media love to interview, but then that would only happen in a country in which there is not a blanket attempt by the mainstream media to constrain our opinions to those that the elite consider acceptable.

  10. IB – what have, for example, the Islamic attacks in Sweden got to do with “nations that attack Muslim countries”?

    Muhammed and his followers claimed (and still claim) the whole world – not just some particular land. If it was the case that Islam only claimed Arabia – well that would be bad for Arabia but people outside that area of the world could ignore Islam. But it is NOT true that they only claim this land – they claim all lands.

    Blaming British government policy for the actions of this murderer is just wrong – “but he says….”

    It does not matter what he says (Muhammed often promised peace and friendship before attacking – indeed this was a favourate tactic of his) – warriors of Islam would attack (if they think an attack can achieve something for their cause) REGARDLESS of British (or any other) government policy.

  11. Pingback: Halal & Hypocrisy VII: Reflecting the Reviled | MRDA's Inferno

  12. Pingback: Halal & Hypocrisy VII: He Who Fights Muslims… | MRDA's Inferno