The 4 Freedoms Library

It takes a nation to protect the nation

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10491566/Lee-R...

The officer, identified only as D49, said in his witness statement: "I saw a black male running at me waving both his hands in the air in a chopping motion. In his right hand I saw what I call a meat cleaver or a machete.

"I instantly thought 'he's going to kill me'.”

She added: “I could still see the look in the suspect's eyes. They were so wide and I could see the whites of them. He was shouting something."

The statement was read out by prosecutor Richard Whittam QC as the jury watched CCTV footage of the dramatic moment police arrived at the Woolwich scene, where Fusilier Lee Rigby had been run over and hacked to death minutes earlier.

In a matter of seconds, two of the D49’s colleagues, who were in the car with her, had shot both Adebolajo and his co-accused Michael Adebowale, 22 while she tasered Adebowale.

I can understand why covert agents (police or MI5) might have their identity concealed.  I cannot see why an ordinary police officer is given anonymity like this.  The only explanation I can imagine, is that the police fear they will become targets of muslim terrorists.  I guess the courts and the media must share (and respect) those fears, since they are not commenting on this bizarre anonymity.

Views: 327

Replies to This Discussion

That makes sense, now even the police are afraid of Muslims.  But of course, that is no justification for protecting Tommy, or anyone else who criticises Islam, because they aren't under any real threat, that is just their personal fantasy and failure to understand the "Religion of Peace".  Capiche?

I also note how the court and media are glossing over the mutilation of Lee Rigby's face, and the scriptural endorsement of that.

From the BBC: 'Mr Adebolajo told the psychiatrist that he was concerned about the impact the events in Woolwich would have on his family'...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25216336

My Question:  If he knew that his family, and his extended family even, would suffer severe consequences as a result of his murderous actions would he have done the deed?  I hope the lawyers ask him this question.

Perhaps that's the BBC's incredible attempt to portray Adebolajo as deep down, a caring, respectful individual, as all Muslim Kuffarphobes are, its just that he got lead astray a bit?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/10496634/Lee-R...

Michael Adebolajo, 28, told police he was not sure “how I struck the first blow” but added “I struck at the neck and attempted to remove the head”.

Emulating Mohammed, but nothing to do with islam, of course.  http://www.scribd.com/doc/27156626/The-Earliest-Biography-of-Muhamm...

He said soldiers were a “most fair target” but revealed 25-year-old Mr Rigby died because he was simply the first soldier they spotted and it was as if “Allah had chosen him”.

Devout muslim, Mujahid Abu Hamza (named after one of Mohammed's early terrorist followers), claims Allah chose Lee Rigby for them.  But this killing is nothing to do with islam.  And religious muslims don't become terrorists. http://4freedoms.com/group/freespeech/forum/topics/religious-muslim...

Later, a detective told the jury how police on the day of the alleged murder feared “others” were waiting to carry out further attacks.

Why would the police expect there to be other muslims ready to carry out similar murders on the same day? It has nothing to do with islam.

He could not remember how he made the first blow but said: “I had concluded many, many years ago that the most humane way to kill any creature is to cut the jugular,” adding: “So I struck at the neck and attempted to remove the head.”

Why would he think it humane to kill a human in the same way that they perform halal slaughter?  Because the entire reason for halal slaughter is for the soldiers of Allah to keep their skills in murder honed.

He said in the war between Muslims and the British people soldier was “the most fair target because he joins the army with kind of an understanding that your life is at risk."

"the war between muslims and the British people"?  No wonder 59% of the British public know that a civil war is coming, even while the media lie to us. http://4freedoms.com/group/freespeech/forum/topics/civil-war  In a war, truth is the first casualty.

Excellent points.

I'm starting to think that all Muslim pressure and lobby groups should be forcibly disbanded. Not because they've done anything wrong particularly (although they may have), but because its impossible to make any sense of their position.

Just like the killer question (literally as well as figuratively): "Was Mohammed a terrorist?",
We can ask: "Are Muslims a defined political group?"

Well, are Golfers a defined political group? Not really. They do meet regularly in their own buildinhs, but there are no special rights, privileges and exemptions they demand or require.

Are Muslims a defined political group? Yes, we get a never ending stream of demands and disputes and political pressures from them.

But the group definition is like a porous 1-way membrane. It lets all their demands and violent protests out, but doesn't let any of our requests for: co-operation, taking responsibility, or behavioural change, in.

They should either take responsibility for this strong and segregatting grouping (of Islam) that they purport to be, or disbandthe concept altogether, and just become people who are politically grouped as conservative, socialist, liberal, etc, just like the rest of us.

"As an enemy soldier, I believe I should be ransomed to my mujahid brothers," he told a jury at the Old Bailey on Monday.

"Or I should be set free, or I should be killed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/09/michael-adebolajo-free-m...

We know what the future holds.  A British government will release him in exchange for hostages that muslims will take elsewhere.  

It's incredible, but just as we can predict what these jihadis will say and do, we can predict what future actions our society will do.  History really is repeating itself.   Mohammed must have been so gleeful that the pagan Meccans and the Medinan jews were multiculturalists.

The Life of Mohammed is a prediction of what the next 20 years of Europe will be like.

http://news.uk.msn.com/uk/woolwich-accused-soldier-of-allah

Woolwich killer says he's a soldier of Allah.

It won't matter what he says, the Islamic scholar D. Cameron has already said, this murder has nothing to do with islam.

So  Adebolajo  who was wearing a muslim tunic, and is probably being given full Islamic honours while on remand must be mentally deranged. He thinks he's a soldier of Allah, Cameron has already discounted that, so it'll be a mental institution for him. Oh wait, can't do that, because you can't be insane for worshipping Allah, or being a muslim.

The courts will have to just listen to all of their reasons for why they killed Lee Rigby, and then say, forget all that, your just a couple of murderers who went out intent on killing someone. 

The judges summing up is going to be the biggest piece of Islamic appeasement since Cameron last opened his trap. 

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2013/12/uk-jihad-murderer-i-believe-the-b...

Describing the attempted decapitation, Adebolajo said: "I believe the best way to conduct any act is to copy Mohammed. It was not for malice.

"After I struck at the neck, I used another of the knives to try to remove the head. I was unsuccessful with that attempt. I had already killed the soldier at the time my brother arrived at the time."

Those of us who know what is in Ibn Ishaq know exactly how things are going to play out.  Muslims don't mean copy Mohammed's behaviour in the small, they mean "copy the pattern which his life followed".  There shouldn't be a single person allowed to be a MP who has not read Ibn Ishaq.

That's why all terrorists should be executed immediately after conviction.  To be sure, retaliatory murders could then be instigated by the Islamic fascists, but those murders would be weak in drama and political impact.

Joe said:

"As an enemy soldier, I believe I should be ransomed to my mujahid brothers," he told a jury at the Old Bailey on Monday.

"Or I should be set free, or I should be killed."

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/12/09/michael-adebolajo-free-m...

We know what the future holds.  A British government will release him in exchange for hostages that muslims will take elsewhere.  ...

Since Nelson Mandela has died this story is being pushed to one side.

I'm watching the Nelson Mandela memorial at the moment. Seeing how many world leaders are jumping on the band wagon. Its not even his funeral which I suppose they'll all return for.

All those world leaders hob knobbing with people like Mugabe. Gadaffi would have loved it. 

The killing of Lee Rigby was a horrific crime, yet people would rather turn their attention to the Razzmatazz of Mandela's death.  Or should I say the Media have found the perfect distraction.   

'In his closing speech, prosecutor Richard Whittam QC said Islam was not on trial and told the jury: "The action of these two men acting together as they did, crashing their car into and breaking the back of Lee Rigby and then killing him is indefensible in the law of this country.

"Killing to make a political point, to frighten the public or to put pressure on the Government or as an expression of anger is murder."

He added: "It remains murder whether the Government in question is a good one, bad one or a dreadful one. We submit to you, it is clearly murder."

--

I thought understanding 'motivation' was part of understanding the deed.  For example, a person who sincerely believes that breaking and entering a burning building in order to save someone is not a crime then that person has a defense in law.  And does not the charge of murder have different degrees attached to it based on mitigating circumstances some of which is related to motivation and 'sincerely held beliefs'?

I think the prosecutor does not want to talk about the elephant in the room.  

The Judge cleared the way for the prosecutor strategy by declaring: 

"I have ruled that nothing said by the first defendant and... his evidence - in short he was a soldier of Allah and was justified in doing what he did - amounts in law to a defence to this count [i.e.count one.]'

The trial is over the verdict is in. As you would expect its a guilty verdict.

The media seem to be pushing the idea that because he's been found guilty of murder, the jury have rejected the idea that the crime was not commited in the name of  Islam.

So how are they going to spin the motive?

The media I believe will blame it on British foreign policy, or at least allow the talk of motive to be anything other than Islam.

 

RSS

Muslim Terrorism Count

Thousands of Deadly Islamic Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Mission Overview

Most Western societies are based on Secular Democracy, which itself is based on the concept that the open marketplace of ideas leads to the optimum government. Whilst that model has been very successful, it has defects. The 4 Freedoms address 4 of the principal vulnerabilities, and gives corrections to them. 

At the moment, one of the main actors exploiting these defects, is Islam, so this site pays particular attention to that threat.

Islam, operating at the micro and macro levels, is unstoppable by individuals, hence: "It takes a nation to protect the nation". There is not enough time to fight all its attacks, nor to read them nor even to record them. So the members of 4F try to curate a representative subset of these events.

We need to capture this information before it is removed.  The site already contains sufficient information to cover most issues, but our members add further updates when possible.

We hope that free nations will wake up to stop the threat, and force the separation of (Islamic) Church and State. This will also allow moderate Muslims to escape from their totalitarian political system.

The 4 Freedoms

These 4 freedoms are designed to close 4 vulnerabilities in Secular Democracy, by making them SP or Self-Protecting (see Hobbes's first law of nature). But Democracy also requires - in addition to the standard divisions of Executive, Legislature & Judiciary - a fourth body, Protector of the Open Society (POS), to monitor all its vulnerabilities (see also Popper). 
1. SP Freedom of Speech
Any speech is allowed - except that advocating the end of these freedoms
2. SP Freedom of Election
Any party is allowed - except one advocating the end of these freedoms
3. SP Freedom of Movement
The government can import new voters - except where that changes the political demographics (i.e. electoral fraud by means of immigration)
4. SP Freedom from Over-spending
People should not be charged for government systems which they reject, and which give them no benefit. For example, the government cannot pass a debt burden across generations (25 years).
An additional Freedom from Religion is be deducible by equal application of law: "Religious and cultural activities are exempt from legal oversight - except where they intrude into the public sphere (Res Publica)"

© 2017   Created by Netcon.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service