This blog initially set out to focus primarily on Islam and the Islamisation of the UK. However, since that time the subjects covered have broadened. They now include (amongst other things): IQ tests, Jean Baudrillard, global warming, sociobiology, Marxism, Trotskyism, David Cameron, Foucault, Nazism, Ralph Miliband, economics, statistics and so on. - Paul Austin Murphy
I've had articles published in The Conservative Online, American Thinker, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc... (Paul Austin Murphy's Philosophy can be found here.)

Saturday, 21 June 2014

What is the US going to do in Iraq?

The Logo of the Multi-National Force in Iraq (2003-2011) | IMAGE CREDIT: Public Domain
The Logo of the Multi-National Force in Iraq (2003-2011) | IMAGE CREDIT: Public Domain

Many people will say that it is inevitable that the US government will take some action in Iraq. The question now is: What kind of action?

President Obama has stuck to his original pronouncement (first articulated when the ISIS situation originally unfolded) when he said that US forces “will not be returning to combat in Iraq but we will help Iraqis as they take the fight to terrorists”.

Instead of armed intervention, Obama with be sending 300 “military advisers”. (That is 200 more than Iran’s 100 military advisers who arrived in Baghdad a few days ago.) Those advisers will also be “going out into the field”.

The beautiful US Embassy in Baghdad | PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Although Obama has ruled out military action here and now, he hasn’t ruled it out altogether. The American President said that the US will carry out “targeted military action, if and when” such action is needed. Indeed the US has even said that ISIS may well come under American fire in south-eastern Syria (which borders north-western Iraq).

When Obama said that military action will occur “if and when” that may be deemed an odd thing to say because some people will argue that this “when” is now. Indeed future military action may well turn out to be largely superfluous or even counterproductive.

It’s also worth noting that Shia Iran has also asked for US air strikes against ISIS. That’s not surprising: Iran asked for US action against the Sunni Taliban in Afghanistan. It’s clear, then, that Iran is using the US for its own anti-Sunni ends and also to hasten its hegemony in in the Muslim world. (This is not, in itself, an argument against US military action.)

Despite calls for military action, Obama has also said that there is “no military solution” to the deep-seated problems of Iraq.

Having said that, there could indeed be a military solution to the singular problem of ISIS (if not to the numerous other problems of Iraq). Given the will, belief and manpower, the US air-force, and other forces, could wipe out ISIS overnight if the US accepted the notion of a complete war. But it doesn’t.

The other problem is just as the “progressive” Left blames the “capitalist US” for the current crisis (three or four years after pulling out), it will also criticise the US for doing something about that crisis.

So it’s not at all strange or uncharacteristic that the pious and sanctimonious anti-war brigade has nothing remotely constructive to offer other than – semi-ironically – providing an airlift of books by Al Gore, Karl Marx and Noam Chomsky and then dropping them on the population of Iraq. (No doubt some Leftists will hope that such an action will bring about an equally-violent workers’ revolution. Others may believe that it would help convert the Iraqis to Western progressivism.)

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has also recognised the non-military problems of Iraq. He has called for a new “more inclusive” government.

Many commentators, not only Leftists, will be keen to point out to Kerry that the former US government was partly responsible for the sectarian nature of the Iraqi government.

For example, these points are worth considering in relation to the Shia-Sunni situation and the American intervention in 2003:

i) When the US first intervened in Iraq, it faced less resistance from the Sunni provinces it captured that it did from its Shia equivalents.
ii) The de-Ba’athification process effectively expunged all Sunni influence in Iraqi politics and even stretched to denying Sunnis an influence in the universities.
iii) By 2005, Shia dominated Iraq’s police force and Kurdish militias gained control of the Iraqi army.

Nonetheless, even as early as 2004, thousands of suspected Ba’athists were given their government jobs back and the US also released  hundreds of Sunni Prisoners. And in May 2005, preceding Kerry by nine years, Secretary of State Condolezza Rice had this to say about the sectarian divide (as replicated in government) in Iraq:
“If there is to be a united Iraq in the future, then Sunnis have to be included in the processes going forward.”
Despite that, in February the following year (2006), the Shia gained almost total control of Iraq.

Nouri al-Maliki, the Shia Prime Minister of Iraq | PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

So it’s worth bearing in mind that those anti-Sunni policies go back ten years and that they began some time before Maliki became Prime Minister in 2006. However, eight years is still a long time to be Prime Minister considering the sectarian nature of Iraqi politics.

Having noted all that, the US, as well as the Shia, carried out such a thorough de-Ba’athification process simply to stop the old guard of Sunnis from reasserting itself; and thus in the process making the situation in Iraq as bad as it was precisely because of de-Ba’athification.

The point here is that ten years’ retrospect is a marvelous and convenient thing.

 Added to all that it can also be said that having Iran’s Revolutionary Guards working alongside US troops (though perhaps not literally) is not going to help the sectarian situation in Iraq.

Friday, 20 June 2014

Iran in Iraq: ISIS & Iran Fight to Control Iraq

Iran’s ethnic mix | IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Baghdad (Iraq), 19th June, 2014 — Just as ISIS is increasing its grip on Iraq, so too is Iran. Iran’s General Qasem Soleimani is now in Baghdad. Gen Soleimani is the head of the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.

It has been reported that up to 100 leading members of the Quds Force have already arrived in Iraq to give “military advice” to the Iraqi government.

Gen Soleimani has had prior experience of fighting ISIS when he tackled the Sunni jihadists in Syria.

It has also been reported that Soleimani helped President Bashar al-Assad stop the onslaught and successes of the Sunni forces in Syria and that he also contributed to recovering previously captured cities and towns.

More specifically, there is evidence which shows that Gen Soleimani helped Bashar Assad create the National Defence Force, which is a militia of mainly Shia (i.e., Alawite) volunteers.

Clearly, this will be the strategy which Soleimani will apply in the case of Iraq.

The Sunni-Shia war, therefore, is already wider than Iraq. It also encompasses Syria; just as it encompasses Yemen, Bahrain and other countries. And where there isn’t outright civil war, there is the simple persecution and killing of Shia by Sunni Muslims; as in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states.
The emblem of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards | IMAGE CREDIT: Wiki Commons

The Revolutionary Guards of Iran have been involved in Iraq for longer than the recent events suggest. In 2007, Americans arrested five Iranians in Iraq. They were accused, by the Americans, of being Revolutionary Guards who were in the process of “training Shia militias”. That was during the previous (2006-2008) Shia-Sunni civil war in Iraq.

US and Iran

The US has formerly admitted that Soleimani is in charge of the operations against ISIS. For example, the former US ambassador to Afghanistan, Ryan Crocker, said:
“My Iranian interlocutors on Afghanistan made clear that while they kept the foreign ministry informed, ultimately it was Gen Soleimani that would make the decisions.”
It shouldn’t come as a surprise to note that Shia Iran has cooperated with the US before. And it did so for more or less the same reason: to stem the advances of Sunnis jihadists and even to help control Sunni states. In this case, that country was Afghanistan. Between 2001 and 2007, Iran offered military information to the US in order to defeat the Sunni Taliban.
Iraqi (Shia) cleric, Fadel al-Maliki | PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

Despite that Iran-US cooperation, there have been calls for the Shia Prime Minister of Iraq, Nouri al-Maliki, to resign – even from US officials. However, I don’t think that will work; although it may work in the extreme short-term. The problem is that many Sunnis aren’t simply against Maliki simply because he has acted prejudicially against the Sunnis. They are against him because he’s a Shia Prime Minister. And even, in many cases, simply because he’s a Shia.

The fact that all this has a specifically religious – not simply an Iraqi – dimension is shown by the fact that General Soleimani is only seeking the recruitment of Shia Muslims in Iraq; even though those Shia troops and militias may well end up fighting alongside the now beleaguered Iraq army (which includes Sunnis).

None of what’s happening in Iraq at the moment is entirely new; though ISIS’s actions have been more extreme - and more successful! - than what has happened in the immediate past.

For example, just as Iran’s Revolutionary Guards have been in Iraq since 2007 (if not before), if only on and off; so foreign jihadists have been in Iraq since 2001. (To take just one example. In late 2001, around 500 foreigners, including 100 Egyptians, entered Iraq through Iran.) And even the Salafists (which is basically what ISIS is made up of) have been active in Iraq since the 1950s.

Wednesday, 18 June 2014

David Cameron Discovers Patriotism... Again


Secretary Kerry meets David Cameron & the British Foreign Secretary, William Hague/PHOTOCREDIT: Wiki Commons

LONDON, UK, 16th June, 2014 — Yesterday the British Prime Minister said that British people shouldn’t be “bashful” about being British.

David Cameron attempted to specify what he meant when he referred to teaching British school kids about the Magna Carta. Why the Magna Carta? Cameron explained:
“The remaining copies… may have faded. But its principles shine as brightly as ever, and they paved the way for the democracy, the equality, the respect and the laws that make Britain, Britain.”
He also said that “British values” include the following:
“A belief in freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, respecting and upholding the rule of law.”
All the above, Mr Cameron said, are “as British as the Union Flag, as football, as fish and chips”.

He went on to elaborate on that by saying:
“That if you don’t want to believe in democracy, that’s fine; that if equality isn’t your bag, don’t worry about it; that if you’re completely intolerant of others, we will still tolerate you.
“This has not just led to division, it has also allowed extremism – of both the violent and non-violent kind – to flourish.”
Clearly the above is an implicit – or explicit? – reference to what has been called the (‘Islamist’) Trojan Horse plot to take over various British schools. It may also be a reference to the other Islamists and Muslim militants within our midsts.

David Cameron & Barack Obama/PHOTO CREDIT: Wiki Commons

There are problems with what the British Prime Minister said.

David Cameron has often played down Britishness. And then he’s played it up… and then he’s played it down… For example, not so long ago Cameron said that rather than British Muslims embracing “British values”, he said that British people should embrace the “Asian way of life”. He said that after staying with a Muslim family (in Birmingham) for two days. It’s clear, then, that at least in this instance Cameron meant that Brits should embrace the Muslim/Islamic way of life.
Cameron said:
“Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British Asian way of life, not the other way around.”
He also said:
“Integration is a two-way street…. we have to recognise that it won’t happen unless there’s something attractive to integrate into.”
As for Islamic terrorism, like Barack Obama (‘Don’t say “Islamic terrorism”!’), David Cameron doesn’t think it so much as exists:
“Calling for people to stop using the words ‘Islamist terrorists’. It’s hard to overemphasise the importance of language. Every time the BBC or a politician talks about Islamist terrorists they are doing immense harm (and yes I am sure I have done this too, despite trying hard to get this right).”
Cameron’s public patriotism, therefore, seems to depend on what’s in the news at the time. And what’s in the news today is a lot of trouble with British Muslims; whether that’s the Trojan Horse affair, forced marriages, Muslim sexual grooming gangs, British Muslims going to Syria and Iraq to do their “Islamic duty” (i.e., jihad), Muslim corruption and Islamisation in London’s Tower Hamlets or Muslim electoral and council corruption throughout England.
The British Foreign Secretary, William Hague & Baroness Sayeeda Hussain Warsi in Bradford (north of England)/PHOTOCREDIT: Wiki Commons

No, this isn’t exactly a case of Islamists being “under the bed”. More like a case of Islamists being in some of our schools, national newspapers (well, The Guardian), universities, law firms, Muslim ghettos, mosques, etc. It’s an attempt to stop Islamists from being under every bed.

Again, David Cameron’s patriotism seems to wax and wane depending on the political wind (to mix metaphors). And, in this instance, that political wind, as I said, is the fallout from the Trojan Horse affair.

Cameron explicitly commented upon the Trojan Horse plot. He has called on teachers to promote “British values” in the schools. Why not? British schools have been teaching the values and ideologies of our unelected Leftist “hegemony” since the 1960s. Sure, not all the time and everywhere; just much of the time and almost everywhere.

Cameron also said that Brits shouldn’t be “bashful”. In fact he said that Brits should be “far more muscular” when it comes to our “values and institutions”. The problem is, rather than being bashful, the British - along with their values and institutions - have been ceaselessly bashed by a Leftist ruling class which thrives everywhere there is no vote or popular mandate required (e.g., the law, the race and rights industries, the interfaith circuit, newspapers like The Guardian, the Fabian Society, universities, etc.).

Monday, 16 June 2014

ISIS, Iraqi Shia & Iran: an update of events


Al-Abbas Mosque, Karbala, Iraq | Photo Credit: Wiki Commons
Al-Abbas Mosque, Karbala, Iraq | Photo Credit: Wiki Commons

BAGHDAD, Iraq, June 14, 2014 — It’s entirely predictable that Iraqi Shia have reacted strongly to the recent events in Mosul, Tikrit and the surrounding areas. For example, a Shia cleric has demanded that Shia Muslims take up arms to stop Sunni ISIS taking more territory. Sheik Abdulmehdi al-Karbalai (in Karbala) said:
“Citizens who are able to bear arms and fight terrorists, defending their country and their people and their holy places, should volunteer and join the security forces to achieve this holy purpose.”
All that is fully understandable as ISIS is about to march south towards otherwise Shia-dominated areas, including Baghdad. And that call to arms has been successful. Thousands reportedly joined various Shia militias.
Iraq/PHOTOCREDIT: Wiki Commons

Shia Iran, along with the US, has promised to aid the fight against the Sunni fighters. However, as far as the US is concerned, Barack Obama has said that he “will not be sending US troops back into Iraq”. As for Iran, President Hassan Rouhani has said that Iran would “not allow the supporters of terrorists to disrupt security and stability of Iraq through exporting terrorism to Iraq”. In fact, according to the Wall Street Journal and CNN, Iran has already sent elite units of its Revolutionary Guard to Iraq.

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, said (at a news conference in London) that Iraq was facing a “brutal enemy” – one which also posed a threat to American interests. However, it has also been argued that Shia Iraq poses just as much of a threat to the US than the ISIS forces. Yes, the Sunnis have overtaken cities and created a lot of mayhem. However, that doesn’t automatically mean they are more of threat than Shia Iraq. After all, Shia Muslims have already taken over cities and towns. In addition, some commentators have said that Shia Iraq is now just a outpost of the Iranian theocracy. In the early days (roughly from 2003 to 2005/6), Shia Muslims allied with America and with American troops. But they only did so to defeat their ancient enemies – the Sunni Muslims of Iraq. As soon as Shia gained power, they treated the Sunnis just as the Sunnis had treated them. And that included death squads, terrorism, torture and anti-democratic measures against the Sunni minority.

In addition, it’s not just Sunni Muslims who’ve been killing civilians recently. A UN human rights spokesman, Rupert Colville, said that the Shia government itself had committed “excesses” when it shelled civilian areas on the 6th and 8th of June.

Shia self-flagellation in Iraq (Ashura)/PHOTOCREDIT: Wiki Commons

It won’t come as a surprise to those familiar with the Sunni-Shia war (which can be deemed an Islamic civil war) that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) has called the Shia of Iraq “infidels” (or Rawafid). Then again, many Shia of Iraq, Iran, etc. see Sunnis as infidels (Nawasib) too.

Although the Shia-Sunni war dates back 1, 356 years (to 656AD), the most recent Iraqi phase of that war occurred as recently as 2006-2008. In fact ISIS was more or less born in 2006. That is, in an Internet pronouncement made in October 2006, al-Qaeda in Iraq (the forerunner of ISIS) declared an independent Islamic state which comprised all the Sunni provinces of Iraq.

One other important point to make is that what has happened recently isn’t all about ISIS or al-Qaeda – it’s a situation which embraces many other Sunni Muslims. For example, other Sunni groups have joined ISIS in its actions; including officers who were once part of Saddam Hussein’s military regime. So it can be said that this is a Sunni - not just a ‘militant’, ‘Islamist’ or al-Qaeda - battle.

Indeed even the BBC’s Middle East editor, the Arabophile and Islamophile Jeremy Bowen (a fierce and constant critic of Israel who’s been publicly reprimanded, even by the BBC itself, for that bias), has recognised the religious nature of what’s happening in Iraq. He told the BBC:
“Iran, which is a majority Shia Muslim country, shares a border with Iraq. It has a direct line to Iraq’s Shia Muslim Prime Minister, Nouri Maliki, and close links with some Iraqi Shia militias. The Iranians could direct their proxies, and even their own special forces units, at ISIS.”

Sunday, 15 June 2014

MPACUK: "Muslims are sick of being colonised, oppressed and killed!"

Asghar Bukhari

The latest Muslim rationalisation for the 1,400 year-old war between Islam and all that is non-Islamic involve the so-called “occupation” of Muslim countries; as well as the military actions (including drone attacks) carried out by Western states in Muslim countries.

Most of the time that Muslims (as well as Western Leftists) say this kind of thing they have in mind Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel. That's strange really because most British soldiers withdrew from Iraq in 2009 (the few remaining left in 2011) and the Americans did the same in 2011. And since then there has been a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq.  

In terms of Iraq, the West is (retrospectively) held accountable for all that's still happening in that country – some three years after the last Western (American) troops pulled out. That blame-game is no surprise: Muslims are still talking about the Balfour Declaration of 1917 and many Leftists still point their pious and reprimanding fingers at Europe and America for the slave trades of the 18th and 19th centuries.

Added to all that, many (positive/inverted) racists of the Left deem Iraqi Muslims (as they do all Muslims) to be children: i.e., beings who are free of free will and who are effectively without conscience. Consequently, all that Islamic/Muslim violence in Iraq (as well as elsewhere in the Muslim world) simply must be someone else's fault – ours!

Both American and British troops are still of course in Afghanistan. Yet even in this case Barack Obama has planned to withdraw all American troop from Afghanistan by 2016.

There are roughly 34,000 US troops still left in Afghanistan. Despite that, there are vast swathes of the country in which there are no Western soldiers at all. Of course 34,000 soldiers can still do much damage. Nonetheless, what's happening in Afghanistan can hardly be called a Western “occupation”.

All that simply won't matter because many Muslims will simply refocus on other issues: say Israel or possibly the infidel “occupation” of both India and southern Spain (or Andalusia, as Muslims call it).


In terms of civilian causalities, Afghanistan has been a remarkably unbloody war.

In the period 2001 to 2012, between 18,000 and 20,000 civilians were killed in the conflict. That is not the number of civilians killed by Western troops: simply the number killed. In other words, most of those civilians would have been killed by fellow Muslims (mainly, but not exclusively, by the Taliban). Sure, as the saying goes, “every death is a tragedy”; yet compared to other conflicts or wars, that death-toll is fairly low.

Compare Afghanistan to the Sudanese Islamic campaigns (roughly between 1991 and 2005) against Sudanese Christians and animists . As a result of these campaigns over one-and-a-half million people were killed; over two million people died due to the resultant starvation (caused by the conflict); and over four million people were displaced. In addition, Sudanese Muslims captured over 200,000 Southern Sudanese and Nuba slaves. (All done, it must be said, in full concordance with both the Koran and Islam generally.)

Let's also compare Afghanistan to Asghar Bukhari's very own Pakistan (its direct neighbour) in roughly the same period.

There are no “occupying”' American troops in Pakistan; though there were some 370 drone attacks, between 2005 and 2013, in parts of the country.

Now between September 2001 and May 2011, 35,000 Pakistanis were killed due to Islamic terrorism alone. That's 15,000 more than the 20,000 (max) civilian deaths (most of whom were killed by fellow Muslims) in Afghanistan; though in a shorter period.

Drone Attacks: Pakistan, Yemen & Somalia

Asghar Bukhari, or another writer for MPACUK, states that drone attacks “kill more women, children and civilians than anyone else”. Now that is either an outright lie or Bukhari is simply drunk on his own rhetorical “narrative” (a word he often uses) of Muslim victimhood.
From 2005 to 2013, between 258 and 307 civilians were killed as a result of drone attacks in Pakistan. Those same drone attacks, on the other hand, managed to kill between 1,623 and 2,787 Islamic militants. (Details found here.)

The other two states which have been the recipients of drone attacks are Yemen and Somalia.

Between 2002 and 2014, there were 96 drone attacks in Yemen. These attacks resulted in 105 civilian deaths, compared to the 472 Islamic militants who were also killed. In the same period, al-Qaeda alone (discarding other Islamic groups) killed the same number (105) of Yemeni civilians.

As for Somalia, from 2007 to 2014 there were between 5 and 8 drone attacks in that country in which between 0 and 1 civilians died. The total deaths in this period were between 10 and 24.

In comparison, more Muslims die each month in Pakistan at the hands of Islamic terrorists or “militants” (or, indeed, “freedom fighters”) than have died in the entire 2002-1014 period of US drone attacks in Yemen. When it comes to drone attacks in Pakistan itself, it can be said that more Pakistanis have died every few months as a result of Islamic terrorism than in the entire period of of drone attacks (2004-2014) on that country.

Asghar Bukhari's Narrative of Muslim Victimhood

Asghar Bukhari's (or MPAC's) position (as shown on its website) is that all this Muslim violence has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Islam:

The well worn narrative is that media commentators, the self described experts on terrorism and Islam alike, will find the roots of violence in Islam and the Quran itself. …. there isn’t a single one of us who hasn’t groaned when we see Islamic texts being purposefully twisted and misrepresented to arrive at the above conclusions.”

After that we can cite a laughable quasi-Marxist analysis of all Muslim violence (as found on its Facebook page); all of which faithfully concurs with what Trotskyist or Trotskyist-run groups say about the same issues:

Muslims are the most oppressed people on earth, we have been denied our freedom, we have been denied our equality, we have been denied any justice, we have even been denied the right to tell the world our own story.”

As you can imagine, MPACUK can't exactly praise the savage murder of Lee Rigby; as well as all the other atrocities committed by Muslims in the name of Islam. Nonetheless, it can – and often does - rationalise, justify, excuse and explicate them. And this is what it does here:

.... [the killing of Lee Rigby] was an extreme reaction to an extreme situation. These people did what they did because they wanted to get a message across, a message that tells the world that they are sick of being oppressed, colonised, demonised, killed and murdered, simply for being Muslim.”

Now how does all that rhetoric tie in with Muslim sexual-grooming gangs in the UK, female genital mutilation (FGM), and, more relevantly, Muslim-on-Muslim violence? How is all that a result of Muslims being “oppressed, colonised, demonised,killed”? How do the Buddhists of southern Thailand - the victims of random jihadist violence - fit into this quasi-Marxist package of Islam? What about the animists and Christians of Sudan in the period 1991 to 2005? Or what about the hundreds – possibly thousands – of working-class girls who were the victims of the Muslim sexual-grooming gangs of England? What has all that to do with the "oppression” of Muslims?

What's happening here is painfully obvious.

Muslims cannot - almost by definition - blame Islam. As Muslims, they must completely deny (at least to non-Muslims) that Islam has any influence on all this violence and sexual abuse . Muslims must do this quite simply because they are Muslims. Yes, they do indeed tart up their Muslim tribalism with Marxist, quasi-Marxist and even interfaith gobbledegook. Nonetheless, it all still remains thoroughly tribal and Islamic in nature and origin.

Asghar Bukhari himself tarts up his own Muslim tribalism with the help of the language of the Left. He does so because he knows full well that talk of “oppression”, “demonisation” and “colonization” will sound extremely appealing (as well as politically correct) to his Leftist enablers. So what Bukhari and MPACUK are doing is gilding (e.g., with Leftist jargon) the ancient Muslim habit of blaming others for their own violence, intolerance and supremacism.

If you've ever seen MPACUK's Asghar Bukhari being interviewed on TV, you will have quickly noted his barely-controlled aggression and blinding hate. All that aggression and hate - inspired by the reasoning and rhetoric of eternal Muslim victimhood - is probably precisely the same incendiary material which fuels most Islamic terrorists.



What we have here is a kind of geopolitical Manichaeism in which Muslims say that Western non-Muslims are to blame for literally everything. However, because the Left aligns itself with Muslims (as well as vice versa) on these issues, it's very easy and tempting for Muslims to slyly move from cursing Western kuffar generally to cursing Western "capitalist states". This is done in order to help Muslims forge strategic alliances with the Leftists they so desperately need. Likewise, Leftist will also “tap into the revolutionary potential of Muslims” and use that potential for their own atheistic and non-Islamic ends.

What's more, when Muslims claim that they've been “oppressed”, "colonised” and “demonised”, they really are taking the piss. Historically, Muslims have been the worst oppressors,colonizers and demonizers on the planet. Indeed the Islamic killing machine has been the worst killing machine the world has ever known: with a grand score of over 250 million (dead) victims.