Sunday, 25 December 2016

China rectifies mosques using bulldozers

Worldwide wave of islamo-skepticism
Ostensibly to assure the safety of its cherished Mohammedan citizens, China has “rectified” thousands of mosques using bulldozers in its western province of Sinkiang.
According to a report from Radio Free Asia[1] dated 12 December, "The Chinese government has destroyed thousands of mosques over the past three months in the restive Xinjiang region ... Wang Jingfu, head of Ethnic and Religious Affairs Committee in Kashgar City, told RFA that the government was acting out of safety concerns because many of the mosques were antiquated.”
A policeman in Toqquzaq said of local Uighurs, “Some of them laughed at us when we explained the purpose (i.e. worshipers' safety), and some of them stared at us to show their disagreement.”
Those Chinese have a way with words, you’ve got to admit. Perhaps Israel should adopt this terminology to describe its punitive measures against Palestinian buildings. That would do wonders for Israel's tarnished street cred.

In 2013 reports surfaced[2] that the Angolan government was likewise rectifying Angolan mosques. This triggered outraged protests by uptight Mohammedans in England and the Palestinian-occupied territories (see pictures). Certain unscrupulous islamophobes in the US, for their part, propagated the idea that Angola had banned islam, hoping to spark a worldwide trend (which actually wouldn’t be a bad idea). 
However to everyone’s PROFOUND relief, this turned out to be a misunderstanding and/or canard, as recently revealed by the BBC[3]. On the contrary, it seems that islam is alive and well in Angola, and actually GROWING (yuck!).   


[1] Under the Guise of Public Safety, China Demolishes Thousands of Mosques, 2016-12-19 http://www.rfa.org/english/news/uyghur/udner-the-guise-of-public-safety-12192016140127.html 
[2] Angola accused of 'banning' Islam as mosques closed, Guardian, 28 November 2013  https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/28/angola-accused-banning-islam-mosques
[3] The persistent myth that Islam was banned in Angola, BBC, 18 October 2016 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-37316749

Saturday, 24 December 2016

FUCK THOSE PALESTINIAN BASTARDS

by Igor Slamoff
It was Barack Obama’s swan song. In an unprecedented move, the US abstained from a Security Council vote on Israeli settlements, allowing a vote of censure to pass. Finally Obama could get back at his nemesis Netanyahu, now that he had nothing to lose.[1]
There's no dispute that international law is on the Palestinian side. However, and at the risk of being denounced as a Zionist agent provocateur of the most sordid stripe, I think it’s stretching it a bit to be so pernickety about international law IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE.
How so?
The West Bank Israeli settlements (not to be confused with the Bank for International Settlements) breach the law of war, which says that a country whose army occupies foreign territory is barred from settling its own people on the occupied land. So far so good.
But IS IT foreign territory?
What country DO the West Bank and Gaza belong to, if not to Israel? Some people say Palestine. This answer is intuitively obvious and satisfies common sense. However law is not based on intuition, and even less on common sense. Law has a reasoning of its own, in which purely procedural and formal aspects play a crucial role.
Brief discussion of international law
The manner of legal reasoning varies considerably from one field of law to another. Unlike in domestic law, in international law there is no legislator whom everyone accepts as such, for example an elected legislature. Instead, as in religious law and English common law, the law is worked out through scholarly discussion, precedent and agreements among recognized authorities, which in the case of international law means international treaties.
Just as international law has no legislative branch, it also lacks an executive branch capable of enforcing decisions. Instead, international law is enforced – if at all -- analogously to the way its laws are created, namely through agreements among the big shots of the day, which nowadays usually means the UN Security Council and its posse of hangers-on.
Well the upshot of all this is that international law is not a highly refined tool like bankruptcy law or tax law or criminal law, in which clear rules exist because there have been millions and millions of cases, and every possibility, no matter how unlikely, has already occurred dozens if not thousands of times, so that all practitioners agree on the ground rules and on much else.
Well, one established rule of international law is that the principal actors in international law are sovereign states or their successors. Actions and omissions performed by actors other than sovereign states have secondary important, if any. So during the many years between 1765 and 1944 when no independent Poland existed, a continuity persisted, so that when Poland became independent again in 1944, the new Polish state assumed automatically all the powers and rights of the old Polish state.
Now Palestine has never been a state, sovereign or otherwise, so to claim that Palestine possesses territory is kind of iffy, more of a pious wish than a statement of legal fact.
And why has no Palestinian state ever existed? Is that Israel's fault?
No, as a matter of fact, it is the Palestinians’ fault.
For some mysterious reason, the two leaders Palestinians have had over the last century, to wit Amin al Husaini (led 1920-1960) and Yasser Arafat (led 1968-2004) were both very hard bargainers, and as a result of this trait, they never struck any bargains.
But as we have seen, international law needs agreements, otherwise nothing gets done.
And the fact is that – at least until Arafat’s death by polonization in 2004 -- Palestinian leaders were never willing to make the concessions needed to swing a deal with the Zionists.
They both preferred to go on struggling to the bitter end, because no doubt they believed firmly that their cause would triumph in the end. Presumably they counted on divine intervention to help them out of tight spots, although historical experience offers precious little reassurance on this score. As a matter of fact, if they really did count on providence, this is merely one more argument in the rhetorical panoply of the League for Eradicating Primitive Superstitions (that I have the honor of presiding), namely to the effect that excessive reliance on prehistoric myths and tribal savvy (not to mention primitive superstitions) is a seriously pernicious trait that is sure to cause everybody involved a lot of headaches in the long run.
The Israeli Labor Party has always been more willing to make deals with the Palestinians than the Israeli right. That’s because Labor is bunch of incorrigible softies. When Israel AGAIN licked the Arabs in the 1967 war, Israel's first Prime Minister Ben-Gurion came out of retirement and made a speech on Israeli TV exhorting Israel to prompt withdrawal from the freshly seized lands.  Ben-Gurion warned that any delay in returning the West Bank and Gaza to Arab rule (I suppose he meant returning them to Jordan and to Egypt respectively) would cause future conflict. History seems to have proven him right. In 1974 the Palestine Liberation Organization was founded in Cairo pledging to recover Palestine by force. Its leader was Yassir Arafat. Nonetheless even after the Israelis bungled by hanging onto the conquered land, there were still various escape routes at its disposal. So deciding to glom onto the West Bank and Gaza after 1967 was an error, but not necessarily a fatal one.  
At Camp David in 2000 – with the active on-the-spot wheeler-dealership of Bill Clinton – Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak made Arafat an independence offer that would have cleared out all Israeli settlements except for East Jerusalem and handed back 98% of the West Bank and Gaza free and clear,[2]
Here is Ehud Barak’s description of Arafat’s approach at Camp David, as relayed by Benny Morris:
Arafat, says Barak, believes that Israel “has no right to exist, and he seeks its demise.” Barak buttresses this by arguing that Arafat “does not recognize the existence of a Jewish people or nation, only a Jewish religion, because it is mentioned in the Koran and because he remembers seeing, as a kid, Jews praying at the Wailing Wall.” This, Barak believes, underlay Arafat’s insistence at Camp David (and since) that the Palestinians have sole sovereignty over the Temple Mount compound (Haram al-Sharif—the noble sanctuary) in the southeastern corner of Jerusalem’s Old City. Arafat denies that any Jewish temple has ever stood there—and this is a microcosm of his denial of the Jews’ historical connection and claim to the Land of Israel/Palestine. Hence, in December 2000, Arafat refused to accept even the vague formulation proposed by Clinton positing Israeli sovereignty over the earth beneath the Temple Mount’s surface area.
Arafat must have known that Barak was likely to be the last Labor P.M. of Israel for a very long time. The rightward trend of Israeli politics has been clear since 1978. Between 1978 and 2001 Labor cabinets became scarcer and scarcer, and the Labor Party itself grew more conservative.[3] 
So that even when Arafat knew that it was now or never, he steadfastly refused to accept the terms Barak offered him. [4]
Consequently, if we ask why the 1947 UN deal to split Palestine never jelled, one can plausibly argue that Palestinian intransigence was a big part of the reason.
Why should Israel be required to comply with an ancient treaty that never took effect because the Palestinians were so inordinately stubborn? Palestine is the only territory I ever heard of that turned down not one, but SEVERAL opportunities to become a sovereign state with a guaranteed seat at the UN.
The Palestinian leaders were betting on their luck.
But their luck ran out.
Now they want the rest of the world to bend Israel to their will, since they bungled their chances through sheer incompetence and recklessness.
I say fuck those Palestinian bastards.
For a long time now the sordid history of Palestinian politics has escaped the attention of world opinion.
Now, however, the jig is up.
We have Wikipedia and sundry other resources at our disposal, where we can find out the facts that Palestinian apologists have been hiding from us for decades.
I used to march in Palestinian demos. Then I started reading Palestinian history.




[1] US Rebukes Israel in UN Vote on Illegal Settlements. U.S. abstains from Security Council vote, allowing resolution to pass. By Sarah Lazare, AlterNet, December 23, 2016 http://www.alternet.org/world/obama-declines-veto-un-resolution-blasting-israeli-settlements?akid=15041.1929166.PDvoo3&rd=1&src=newsletter1069410&t=6
[2] Camp David and After: An Exchange (1. An Interview with Ehud Barak), by Benny Morris, The New York Review of Books, June 13, 2002
[3] See graph Prime Ministers of Israel 1948-2016
[4] Moreover, as pointed out by Zenobia van Dongen, right after the Camp David talks, Arafat instigated a rebellion against Israel. In reaction to this rebellion (the Second Intifada) the Labor Government lost its majority in the Knesset and was forced to call general elections, which it promptly lost to the right-wing Likud. Thus Arafat nudged Likud into power in 2001, where it has remained ever since. See Groaning Under the Zionist Jackboot on http://islamophiliawatch.blogspot.com

Wednesday, 26 October 2016

Division of Post-Islamic Affairs

MINISTRY OF REASON 
Division of Post-Islamic Affairs

Important Acronyms

ACDS    Accursed Camel Driver Syndicate 
ASSF     Anti-Sharia Strike Force
BOFOD  Bastard Offspring of Fascism and Oriental Despotism
CMCA  Central Mohammedan Conspirator Archives
DCDC   Disreputable Camel-Driver Cult
DIP       De-Islamization Proceedings
DPIF     Division of Post-Islamic Affairs
FJNI     Former Jihadist Now Incarcerated
IAFC     Islam as a Field of Criminology
IASA     Islam as a Subject of Archaeology
IREC     Imam Re-Education Camp
JNP      Jihadist Neutralization Program
LEPS     League for Eradicating Primitive Superstitions
LWICJ  Loitering with intent to commit jihad
LWPQ  Loitering while in possession of a qur’an
MOR    Ministry of Reason
MSSU   Mobile Sharia Suppression Unit
OMF    Oscar Morel Foundation
PFFPL   Prophet Foreskin Fried in Pork Lard
PIRP     Post-Islamic Recovery Phase
PSAS     Primitive Superstitions Annihilation Service
PSMB   Primitive Superstitions Mop-Up Brigade
QRAP   Quran Repository for Agricultural Purposes 

Friday, 14 October 2016

KUFFAR POWER



Al-Azhar University, hotbed of intolerance
From Egyptian TV, downloaded from MEMRI on 30 Aug 2016. 
An Egyptian professor at the University of Geneva (Switzerland) discusses education reform in Egypt.  
"It is important not merely to improve the curricula, but to hold courses for Imams and Guides who graduated from Al-Azhar, because they are the reason for the spread of ideas that lead to violence ..." 

Friday, 23 September 2016

Why there is hope for Islam

“A religion founded by a criminal is a criminal religion”.
At first glance Islam seems to confirm this old adage (actually I just made it up). Also at second, third  and fourth glances, by the way.
But nonetheless I am convinced that one day a purified Islam will arise, purged of its brutality, bitchiness and meanness,
The proof: Buddhism is founded on the principle of universal compassion for all living creatures. Yet many of the Mongol hordes that invaded West Asia and Eastern Europe in the 12th century or so were at least formally Buddhist, even though they took delight in torturing and mutilating women and Christian priests.
And nowadays we see a further sign of Buddhist callousness: the indifferent attitude of the Buddhist clergy toward the plight of the Burmese Mohammedans called the  Rohingya.
In a documentary I saw yesterday on Al Jazeera English, a Burmese Buddhist monk gave the same bland, evasive replies regarding the fate of the Rohingya as I became accustomed to hearing from German Fascists when asked after the fate of the Jews.  I once lived in Germany.
And I think that if Buddhism in Burma has been able to distance itself so much from its compassionate roots, then a humane, sensible Islam must also be possible, indeed it might even exist already in some places.  


Monday, 29 August 2016

Compromise proposal to sterilize Muslim immigrants

[Brought to you by the Archives of Tastelessness]
In view of growing demands to curb Muslim immigration, Senator Stump has tabled a compromise proposal in committee (S-432) to expand Muslim immigration, but compensate for this growth in Muslim influx by sterilizing them all, either through vasectomy or chemical castration, or else by means of a riskier experimental procedure known as Petrochemical Scintillation of the Endoplasmic Reticulum, which has the substantial drawback that it can lead to a postoperative pathological condition known as FAS (Funky Armpit Syndrome), which is generally incurable and inexorably leads to convulsions, coma and death.  
Some members of the opposition demurred, alleging potential conflicts with the Genocide Convention. Debate was postponed until an interim ruling could be elicited from the Standing Committee of the Inter-Parliamentary Commission to Combat Snoring.

When asked the grounds for proposing this discriminatory measure against future Muslim immigrants, the senator reportedly replied, “Why? Because Mohammedans FUCK TOO MUCH! There was a Mohammedan Overfuck Ratio (MOR) of 216% in the second quarter of 2015! At this rate, by 2055, 96% of the US population will be Palestinian refugees!” [Note: these figures are imaginary and not meant seriously. I haven't checked the stats yet. IS] 

Eager to lick the Icelandic boot

How Newcastle United Won Against Pegida & Associates, by Chi Onwurah

“I knew about Pegida, marching in their thousands through German cities against the supposed ‘Islamisation of the West’, claiming not to be racist or Islamophobic but, when the media could get someone to speak, expressing the most hateful views.”

My dearest Chi:

Your objections to Pegida sound PHONY LIKE HELL.

You cannot discuss the problem of Islamophobia
without first discussing the problem of Islam.

You dismiss Pegida because of its conservative views.
I support Pegida DESPITE its conservative views,
simply because they, like I, oppose the onward march of islam.

If leftists weren’t such yellow-bellied spineless scum,
eager to lick the Islamic boot,
I would support a leftist movement.

BUT THEY ARE SO I DON’T.

I think the REAL problem is that you are an ISLAMOPHILIAC.

Ta ta, Uncle Igor

Sunday, 21 August 2016

Come mow my lawn, Shlomo!

http://www.northjersey.com/news/paramus-man-sues-nypd-over-muslim-surveillance-records-1.565249?page=all
This news item from a few years back shows the utter insouciance of the Mohammedan masses toward the criminal nature of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood menace.  
Paramus man sues NYPD over Muslim surveillance records [video], by Hannan Adely, Staff Writer, The Bergen County Record, November 27, 2013
New York City – Troubled by news reports of secret police surveillance, Samir Hashmi requested records a year ago he believes police have on him and on the Muslim Student Association at Rutgers University, where he was treasurer.

Smear Hashmi: "I just would like those records expunged," said Hashmi, 25. "I really would like to see what activity I did that caused them to be so suspicious.”
Dear Smear, the Muslim Students’ Association has been tightly linked to the Muslim Brotherhood for over thirty years. Evidence: Introductory memorandum, the MB signed confession to its repulsive goals. The Muslim Brotherhood is the source of most of the Arab world’s Islamic terrorist organizations, including Al Qaeda and Ham-Ass.   
Smear Hashmi: I've only been an active Muslim ...”
Dear Smear, if “being an active Muslim” involves joining an MB front organization, then “being an active Muslim” means being a sympathizer of Mohammedan totalitarianism. That is far more than sufficient reason to watch you very closely indeed. Mohammedan totalitarianism is a very grave danger to humankind at this stage of history.
Smear Hashmi: “ ...  and I've never advocated violence at any time
Dear Smear, so what?
Smear Hashmi: “I want peace of mind.”
Dear Smear, you won’t get peace of mind by recreating in your current location the Mohammedan hellhole (i.e. the Gangstapimp Republic of Porkistan) that your parents managed to escape.
Hashmi, a bookkeeper who graduated from college in 2011, said he joined the Muslim Student Association to help his community and show a positive side of Islam after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. He also has been involved as a youth leader at the Islamic Center of Passaic County in Paterson ...
Dear Smear, the Passaic County Gangstapimp Center in Paterson, New Joisy, is a notorious hotbed of Ham-Ass agitation. It is the absolute epicenter of Palestinian subversion on the American continent. If you were a “youth leader” at that pestilential dive, you are evidently a dangerous fanatic.
... which was monitored by the Joint Terrorism Task Force, which includes New Jersey and New York police and the FBI. Hashmi was born and raised in New Jersey and his parents are from Pakistan, he said.
In October 2011, the Associated Press broke news that the NYPD had watched Muslim students at 16 colleges across the Northeast by monitoring websites and emails and using undercover officers and informants to pose as students. The police actions were part of a wider program of surveillance at Muslim houses of worship, businesses and schools that stretched into New Jersey, including Muslim neighborhoods of Paterson and Newark.
Those camel-drivers are right. The NYPD has no business snooping on the Ham-Ass sympathizers at the Passaic County Gangstapimp Center

THAT’S THE ISRAELI ARMY’S JOB. 
Come mow my lawn, Shlomo! 

Monday, 15 August 2016

Pamela Geller converts to Gangstapimp

Pamela Geller converts to Gangstapimp

With photos to prove it!! 

Finally, one of Squallah’s most rebellious children has returned to the fold. Following Pamela Geller’s engagement to Sheikh Funky Baloney, a Mohammedan Horse-Shit Grand Master and spiritual leader of the Funky Armpit School of camel-driver apologetics, she has assumed strict hijabbery, as we can see in the daguerrotypes. 


Pamela Geller with Sheikh Funky Baloney

Pakistani Islamist murders Mohammedan witch doctor

Imam Maulama Akonjee and his assistant Thara Uddin were murdered on 14 August in New York City. Police say a gunman approached the men from behind and shot them in the head. No reports of anyone yelling “Allahu akbar!”. The incident happened near the Al-Furqan Jame Masjid in Ozone Park in Queens, New York City. Maulama Akonjee, a married father of three, moved to Queens from Bangladesh two years ago.  
Judging by the time of his arrival, it would seem that Akonjee was a member or sympathizer of the fanatical Jamaat-e-Islami party that was then being repressed by the secular Awami League government. Many islamists fled Bangladesh at that time and since then, and a number have been accepted as political refugees in the USA, where they no doubt will contribute to the islamization of the country.
Jamaat-e-Islami was founded in Lahore, British India, in 1941 by the Islamo-Fascist crackpot Abul Ala Maududi. It played a distinguished role in the Bangladesh genocide of 1971. Numerous Muslims are persuaded that they alone have the right to perpetrate genocide and its ilk. 
Parishioner holds sketches of gunman

Despite the predictable Mohammedan hysteria about Western islamophobes persecuting poor innocent Muslims, the hitman looked like a Pakistani islamist, not a likely Trump voter by a long shot. The only similar case I have heard of happened in Belgium a few years ago, when a Shia imam was murdered by a Sunni fanatic.
However the modus operandi looks more like a murder for hire than a religious killing. 


Tuesday, 9 August 2016

Historic Switch in Presidential Plumbing Impends


Since we know that Hillary has pledged allegiance to Goldman Sachs and is in bed with Israel, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Pentagon, and numerous other geopolitical heavyweights -- all at the same time -- we have no reason to fear any undue influences acting on the seemingly predestined leader of the Untrammeled World.
Despite the innovative layout of her genito-urinary tract, which has no precedent in the Oval Office (Ovarian Office?), she promises continuity, in other words same old rip-off capitalism, with a few paternalistic (excuse me, maternalistic) perks to keep the masses dazed.
Unfortunately her game plan entails prolonged and obsequious kowtowing in the direction of the GangstaSpace and its myrmidons who infest the West.  
For the foreseeable future the right wing will have a lock on counter-jihad politics. Geert Wilders, the great hope for an enlightened counter-jihad, now claims to disbelieve in global warming and recently attended the national convention of the French Front National, a veritable stomping ground of competing reactionary traditions, from monarchists to racists, anti-semites and clerical fascists. Critics of islam who are guided by the humanist values of the Enlightenment cannot possibly make common cause with such people. The Front National has even sprouted a neoliberal current, thus losing its sole endearing trait, namely an antiquated statism that reflected its nationalism.
An anti-islam party, the AfD, has grown swiftly in Germany and is now represented in  several  regional legislatures. It consists largely of conservatives who won’t vote for Angela Merkel’s party, the CDU, any more, due to her concessions to Islam and to Muslim immigration. The AfD has become the first sizable party in Europe to make opposition to Islam the main plank of its platform, and it pulls no punches. The Afd dispenses entirely with the ceremonial restraint that politicians traditionally display when discussing islam. Without going to the questionable extreme of denying that islam is a religion, the AfD stresses islam’s purely political dimensions and correctly designates islam as unconstitutional, since sharia law is incompatible with several constitutional guarantees. Unfortunately there is some overlap with Fascistoid ideology, although no actual storm troopers have surfaced yet.    

The left, for its part, shows little sign of emerging from its ethnological fixation on rustic zealots as the embodiment of third-world emancipation. The radicaler the better. But even the left has had to adjust. I recently watched a documentary by Germany’s Left party denouncing Mohammedan hooligans. No ethnic or religious terms were used in the film, but the convicted Muslim gang members and  their defiant families were shown cursing in heavily accented German. 

Friday, 22 July 2016

Ridiculous camel-driver costume

Comment on: “Kelvin MacKenzie's hijab remarks in Sun spark 1,400 complaints”, BBC 19 July 2016
Refuting Mohammedan horse-shit is like strangling a giraffe
You don't know where to start
Britain´s Channel 4 News assigned a journalist wearing Mohammedan costume to report on the Islamic terrorist atrocity in Nice, France.
Writing in the Sun on Monday, MacKenzie said: “With all the major terrorist outrages in the world currently being carried out by Muslims, I think the rest of us are reasonably entitled to have concerns about what is beating in their religious hearts. Who is in the studio representing our fears? Nobody.”
Manji accused MacKenzie of trying to “intimidate Muslims out of public life” and Channel 4 News described his comments as “offensive, completely unacceptable, and arguably tantamount to inciting religious and even racial hatred”.
Talking head Fatima Manji wearing her camel-driver costume

The “racial hatred” charge unmasks this whole performance as surrealist nonsense reminiscent of the late Salvador Dalí. Racism against Mohammedans is like sexism against penguins.
MacKenzie said nothing about Manji’s race or lack of same, he wrote about her ridiculous camel-driver costume. Why do Mohammedans insist on stuffing their primitive superstitions down our throats on nation-wide TV broadcasts?  
To assign a woman wearing Mohammedan headdress to report news on Mohammedan atrocities is at the very least grossly insensitive, if not actually a deliberate provocation on the part of Channel 4.
MacKenzie blamed Channel 4, not Manji.
He principally blamed Channel 4 for being insensitive to the public’s feelings.
Is associating headscarves with Islamic terrorism bigotry?
Two (2) of the most prominent traits of fundamentalist Islam as it presently exists all over the entire planet are:
1. Islamic terrorism, and
2. wearing headscarves

Both behavior patterns became fashionable

1.      at the same time (1980s),
2.     among the same kind of people (conservative Muslims)
3.     who were influenced by the same authors (Maududi and Syed Qutb).

It is an undisputed historical fact that these two behaviour patterns are at least loosely linked.  Consequently associating these two behaviour patterns with each other is a sign of pragmatism, not of bigotry. Therefore there should be nothing wrong in saying so, even if the remark was published by the gutter press.
Perhaps instead of constantly looking for pretexts to be offended, Muslims should look critically at their own religion and distinguish those Islamic traditions that are ripe for the rubbish heap.
Islamophobia is the mirror image of Muslim reluctance to face uncomfortable facts.
Consider a different trope that is assiduously cultivated by islamophiliacs and has become an unquestionable article of faith for many people, yet has much less historical justification than associating Islamic terrorism with headscarves:
The islam lobby never tires of associating hostility to islam on the one hand with neoconservative military adventures in the Middle East on the other.
For years a steady drumbeat of islamophiliac propaganda has sought to weld opposition to islam indissolubly to support for Western imperialism.
However this association is only about 10 years old.
The initial manifesto of Stop the War Campaign in the UK in September 2001 rightly denounced US imperialist designs on Iraq. But there was no mention at all of any hostility toward islam. That idea came later.  
I grant that there is some overlap between those who criticize islam and those who encourage imperialist war. Prominent examples are Sam Harris and Bill Maher [see 20 of the Dumbest, Most Bigoted Things Bill Maher Has Ever Said, by Adam Johnson, Michael Arria, AlterNet, March 7, 2016
http://www.alternet.org/media/19-dumbest-most-bigoted-things-bill-maher-has-ever-said.]
But such overlap is neither universal nor logically compelling. For my part I do not think that on the whole US wars in or against Mohammedan countries are a suitable means of opposing islam, although perhaps in certain cases such wars can be justified on those grounds.  
Western aggression against Iraq was not in the least characterized by hostility to islam, at least overtly. No mosques were shut down, no hate preachers were imprisoned, performing Mohammedan rituals was not discouraged.
By contrast those who associate Islamic terrorism with headscarves can refer to a long historical tradition that links both behavior patterns, although perhaps somewhat loosely.
What justification did Kelvin MacKenzie have for calling hijab “a sign of the slavery of Muslim women by a male-dominated and clearly violent religion?"
Well, consider this recent news report from the BBC:
Pakistan burned teacher's death was 'not suicide', investigation says, 
BBC 21 July 20016
“Maria Sadaqat's family say she was attacked and set on fire at her home in Murree after turning down a suitor” and that “the attackers had wanted revenge because she had rejected a marriage proposal from the school owner's son, because he was already married with a child.”
“Ms Sadaqat gave statements to the police in hospital, naming several men as her attackers, before she died on 1 June. Police initially arrested four men, including the owner of a school where Ms Sadaqat taught not far from the capital Islamabad.”
But the police then released the suspects and claimed that Ms. Sadaqat had committed suicide. This is a typical example of the impunity of honor killers in Pakistan.
So what is the attitude of Pakistani islamists to violence against women?
The same BBC article clears up any doubts on this issue:
In February 2016 Punjab province passed a law criminalising violence against women, but all the mainstream Islamic political parties threatened to launch protests if the law was not repealed.
In other words, Kelvin MacKenzie writes bluntly, but his statement seems a reasonably accurate portrayal of the facts. 
Skinheads & Sikhs
Suppose Nazi skinhead terrorists had committed the massacre in Nice. And then suppose that instead of assigning Fatima Manji to report on the atrocity, Channel 4 News had assigned an employee with a shaven head.
Or suppose it had been a Sikh terrorist attack [Sikhs have been known to commit terrorist attacks against India], and a Sikh journalist had appeared on Channel 4 News wearing the traditional Sikh turban.
Would that not have been at the very least in questionable taste?
Suppose someone had objected to a skinhead reporting on a neo-Nazi atrocity, or that someone had objected to a Sikh reporting on an atrocity committed by Sikhs.  
Suppose the skinhead or Sikh journalist had replied thusly:
"[He] has attempted to smear 1.6 million skinheads [or 27 million Sikhs] in suggesting they are inherently violent. ... And he has attempted to smear me by suggesting I would sympathise with a terrorist.”
Such indignation would be patently phony and hypocritical.
Which is a fair description of islam as a whole. 

Digging deeper into hijabbery
Manji accused MacKenzie of wanting to “intimidate Muslims out of public life”. She seems to be implying that she cannot appear in public without wearing Mohammedan headdress. How come?  Why is she compelled to wear it every time she leaves her home? Is it glued on? This behavior seems somewhat obsessive-compulsive. Surely she can make an exception one single time, for example when she's reporting on an Islamic atrocity?
But there's another thing: why do they wear it at all? According to a random page I found on the internet, Qur’an 33:59 says,
“This [i.e. hijab] is more appropriate so that they may be known [as Muslim women] and thus not be harassed [or molested].”
Men, whether they confess it or not, are slaves of lust and desire.
• Hijab protects women from such men; it symbolizes that she has been sanctified to one man only and is off-limit to all others.
• Hijab contributes to the stability and preservation of marriage and family by eliminating the chances of extramarital affairs.
These grounds may be valid in Mohammedan countries, but not in West European ones. So by wearing hijab in England they are implying that the social relations in the Middle East are reproduced everywhere Muslims go. Cultural imperialism?
Moreover, Manji wears a large and shapeless headscarf of a depressingly drab shade. Why not something a little more fashionable, less ominous, less Dickensian, less Biblical?
Why not wear Western-style headgear, which covers hair just as well? Check out these nifty models, most of which can be arranged to cover all of a woman's hair:

Since I have never seen Muslim women wearing Western-style headgear to cover their hair, I rapidly get the impression that they’re not really trying to cover their hair at all. Instead they’re making a fashion statement. A Middle Eastern fashion statement. They are wearing traditional clothes because they want to be clearly recognizable as Muslims.  
Identity politics.
So behind those noble claims, it seems that the camel-driver costume actually IS what MacKenzie said: a poke in the eye for Westerners.    


Note: Although in this instance I happen to agree with the Sun, I read that shady periodical with the same scepticism that I devote to reading the Holy Qur’an, for example. In particular I utterly condemn the Sun’s front-page story on 23rd November 2015, which allaeges  “1 in 5 Brit Muslims’ sympathy for jihadis”   https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/politics/776764/1-in-5-brit-muslims-sympathy-for-jihadis/
and I fully agree with the Guardian’s devastating criticism of that shameless libel that appeared on the following day, entitled “The Guardian view on the media after Paris: from fear to loathing, by way of made-up facts”.

Specifically, the term “sympathy for” someone covers a broad range of meanings and need not entail political support. I defend criticism of Muslims and Islam (and of everyone else, of course) when it is warranted by a careful study of verified facts. Criticism based on lies, rumors or conjecture is unacceptable and must be condemned out of hand. I recognize that not all criticism of Muslims is warranted, and that this subject matter lends itself to misunderstandings.