Islam versus Europe

Remember the heroic band of Muslims story from the riots last year? In the context of what was effectively a third-world uprising against the indigenous population of Britain, the media were desperately searching for a counter-narrative. They found it in the ethnic gangs who banded together to defend their shops from the rioters. These ethnics had the virtues we corrupt British had lost, we were told: community solidarity, pride of belonging, can-do attitude, etc. Then, when a group of British indigenes in Eltham decided to defend their territory too, a massive police formation was assembled to confront and disperse them. Europeans aren't allowed to defend their territory, you see.

But the most prominent of these "heroic ethnics" narratives was the Birmingham one, in which three Muslims were killed by a vehicle, setting the stage for the convicted criminal and former Hizb ut-Tahrir member, Tariq Jahan, to unleash his "Pride of Britain" act on the world, thereby dodging another prison sentence for the act of GBH he had committed only a few weeks before.

Anyone who was really, really paying attention at the time - and that means almost no one except me - could see that there were holes in the Muslim hero story from the start. The media did its best to cover these up. But as I noted here and here, the Muslims were clearly committing criminal offences, walking around carrying weapons, and attacking passing cars without provocation.

Now that the case has come to trial, The Times report essentially confirms these observations today, although the media is still doing its best to place the emphasis elsewhere.

Even the prosecutor had to admit that the Muslims were an "unruly mob":

Mr Spencer told jurors that because of the group’s behaviour – throwing objects at passing cars which they assumed were filled with looters – it could be “characterised as an unruly mob”. But he added that their actions “had to be seen in the context of a breakdown in public order”.

Source: The Times (£)

Crucially, when the cars drove at the Muslims and killed three of them, in what the prosecution claimed was a deliberate, coordinated attack, it was in response to a previous incident. Only a few minutes before, the Muslims had attacked and damaged one of the cars without provocation as it drove past. In other words: the Muslims were the aggressors. The car they attacked was brand-new. So the damage must have been particularly irksome to its owner. He wanted payback.

The plan, devised after a car newly bought by the brother of one of the men was damaged by objects thrown by Asians minutes earlier, culminated in a car ploughing into the group at speed. Three men were catapulted into the air and killed.

The group of up to 100 Asian men, many of them armed with bats and bricks, had been patrolling the pavements of Winson Green in Birmingham at the height of last August’s riots amid fears that their businesses would be attacked and robbed by looters rampaging through the lawless streets.

Source: The Times (£)

The prosecution also revealed that the defendants were guilty of a crime worse than murder: racism.

Jurors have also been told that some of the looters, who were mainly black and white youths, had flung racial slurs at the group of Asian men.

Source: The Times (£)

But I'm sure the 100 members of that "unruly mob" of tooled-up Muslims never dared to think a racist thought or speak a racist word as they attacked every passing vehicle that had negroes in it, right?