ArcticMonkey:
All because Labour left the country bankrupt when they handed power to the tories in 2010
Interesting, I always thought it was private sector finance that went bankrupt.
Rjan:
dieseldog999:
Honestly I ask you, when you bump into a van driver at work who looks a bit Middle Eastern but has a London or Bradford accent or whatever, do you really think he goes home and has his wife walking three paces behind him with a bag over her head, and that this is representative of the norm?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
you dont half spout utter pish there on a regular basis,but as far as the norm of the wifes ive seen walking around bradfordistahn and similar cesspits,then i would reckon having a bag over their head would be obligatory with the option of one over mine as well in case hers fell off…
Thank you, because this goes to show you don’t give a fig about the women you claim are subject to oppression.
Probably little different to the victims of ■■■■■■ abuse, who will also no doubt be discarded as undesirables who should put bags over their heads, once they have outlived their usefulness as a prop in your anti-Muslim rantings.
[/quote]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
your quite correct there,i do not give one flying fig about those women oppressed or otherwise.
as for anti muslim rantings,then i would assume as every poster does ( with certain exceptions,you know who you are chesterukdrtrampydamon jts ect) that anything i refer to would be truthful and an accurate statement of fact.
the victims of abuse ( assuming its the ones groomed by the muslim gangs) are a different bucket of eels entirely,though they would not have drawn media attention of being abused if there were no undesirable muslims in the uk for them to be groomed and abused by.
Except Islam isn’t stuck in a centuries-old timewarp. If you go to Kabul, the reason women have few rights for example is not because stuck-in-the-mud Islamic religion naturally entails it, it’s because the Americans bankrolled Taliban extremists in the late 1980s (i.e. 30 years ago), and then smashed the place up some more in 2001 (i.e. just over 15 years ago).
It’s the same in Northern Ireland. On the British mainland women have rights. In the Irish Republic women have rights. But NI remains a religious backwater because until recently it was the setting of (non-religious) military conflict and extreme poverty.
Not all Muslims are bad and not all can’t integrate, but in no country in the world do Muslims as immigrants successfully integrate into a host society after they reach even a small percentage of that population.
It’s difficult to know where to start with such sweeping statements. What does it mean to integrate? To adopt white skin? To adopt atheism?
They try to change that society instead. It’s what you’re seeing across the western world. You can say it’s not happening, or choose not to believe, but when you introduce a backward alien culture based around the religion of millions into a modern first world society, you’re going to see an almighty clash.
So what has actually changed? It seems to me the only demand that finds even the faintest political expression, is to stop bombing and smashing the Middle East, and a hell of a lot of white people also support that. Even many right-wingers have belatedly got with the anti-war programme, now they realise that every smashing is followed by a tidal wave of refugees.
Beyond this, where are the changes? The supposed demands for “Sharia law” and similar appear to exist only amongst a few local extremists and more broadly in the imaginations of far-right campaigners trying to whip up hate, it’s not a real pressure to which white people are subject.
And if you want to break the back of insularity in Muslim communities, a good start would be to stop subjecting them to racist and religious attack, and alleviate poverty. In other words, to stop subjecting them to the consequences of right-wing politics.
As a final aside, I’ve said before that I think immigration should be seriously curtailed, in general and for a variety of reasons. I do agree that Muslim communities are becoming somewhat isolated. But I argue that is primarily because they are under a consistent siege, not because their religion or culture is warlike or hateful.
I’ve already explained at length why I think “grooming gangs” are more a problem with how white right-wingers treat white children and adults, which creates the opportunity for exploitation by abusers.
Abusers are not unique to the Muslim community - they abound in white society too, and are rarely away from the news (look at the Prince Andrew scandal, it has all the same elements of whites acting as a loose “gang”, of the “flamboyantly” wealthy, of older women acting to procure young girls, of authorities turning a blind eye and doing deals, and so on).
If you look at Islamic countries around the world (including Afghanistan), you’ll see something very obvious. There’s a distinct lack of human rights. That’s because they take their law from the Quran and ‘human rights’ laws are a western invention. NI is not a religious backwater, it’s a religious sectarian divide that caused the problems, not poverty or a lack of religion. ‘Integration’ means adopting the values and obeying the laws of a host country. Muslims are the only group as a whole who are unable to integrate into societies that aren’t also majority Muslim.
You’re quite right to say that the main cause of refugee and economic migration are the invasions and bombings instigated chiefly be the US, disguised with garbage about bring democracy to majority Muslim countries. The second major mistake is believing all cultures are equal and inviting people to assimilate en-masse. That idea has never before been tried in history and has proved a disaster.
The backlash of racism and homophobia (poverty?), is a consequence of trying to pretend we all think and behave alike. In Europe that has blatantly been proved we don’t. We have borders for a reason and within those borders are specific cultures. If you open borders, if you believe everyone will adopt the values of the host country, if you try to abolish national identities, the consequences shouldn’t come as a surprise.
Muslim grooming gangs are not the product of how ‘white right wingers’ treat their children. Sharia law is not a backlash to any kind of perceived British racism or homophobia, it’s part of Muslim culture. Whites, or Christians are not stabbing people on British streets shouting ‘God is great.’ What you’re seeing are the consequences of importing millions of people from backwardly religious countries into first world societies
All this is not the fault of whites, British, or right wingers. The blame can be laid squarely at the door of the EU which is where the idea of a multicultural European super state arose from. Watch the video ‘Before Europe Awoke’ again, because what happened shouldn’t come as a surprise. What does come as a surprise is a minority who still believe it’s our fault that the EU political social engineering didn’t work.
dieseldog999:
Rjan:
Thank you, because this goes to show you don’t give a fig about the women you claim are subject to oppression.Probably little different to the victims of ■■■■■■ abuse, who will also no doubt be discarded as undesirables who should put bags over their heads, once they have outlived their usefulness as a prop in your anti-Muslim rantings.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
your quite correct there,i do not give one flying fig about those women oppressed or otherwise.
No, so we can at least rule out that you’re interested in protecting women’s rights.
the victims of abuse ( assuming its the ones groomed by the muslim gangs) are a different bucket of eels entirely,though they would not have drawn media attention of being abused if there were no undesirable muslims in the uk for them to be groomed and abused by.
But I’ve given several examples where white people engage in these patterns, so there’s no reason to think abuse will end.
It might be true that if there were no Muslims, then the children would not be abused by “Muslims”. But since there are millions of Asians in the country, what do you propose to do, engage in a holocaust of millions on account of a minority of abusers amongst the millions?
Do we throw all the Jews out the country too, and the Royal Family and their white supporters and the soldiers who swear allegiance to the Queen, on account of Epstein, Prince Andrew, and others in cahoots?
And if you want a taste of how the authorities treat the victims, look at this article from yesterday: theguardian.com/society/201 … st-in-care
They’ve basically thrown her in a Guantanamo-style hole.
I stand by my original theme which is that people like you are basically the problem in this equation. You care little about any principle of social solidarity or protection, instead you’ve just got a bee in your bonnet about Asians or the Muslim religion, perhaps due to racism or perhaps something else, but instead you’re waging a proxy war through various other issues.
Whether it be protection of children, women’s rights, whatever, it’s just a front and you don’t give a hoot about these various victims you use as pawns in a demonisation and propaganda campaign against an entire community.
The real question is, what’s really at the bottom of all this?
Rjan:
dieseldog999:
Rjan:
Thank you, because this goes to show you don’t give a fig about the women you claim are subject to oppression.Probably little different to the victims of ■■■■■■ abuse, who will also no doubt be discarded as undesirables who should put bags over their heads, once they have outlived their usefulness as a prop in your anti-Muslim rantings.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
your quite correct there,i do not give one flying fig about those women oppressed or otherwise.No, so we can at least rule out that you’re interested in protecting women’s rights.
the victims of abuse ( assuming its the ones groomed by the muslim gangs) are a different bucket of eels entirely,though they would not have drawn media attention of being abused if there were no undesirable muslims in the uk for them to be groomed and abused by.
But I’ve given several examples where white people engage in these patterns, so there’s no reason to think abuse will end.
It might be true that if there were no Muslims, then the children would not be abused by “Muslims”. But since there are millions of Asians in the country, what do you propose to do, engage in a holocaust of millions on account of a minority of abusers amongst the millions?
Do we throw all the Jews out the country too, and the Royal Family and their white supporters and the soldiers who swear allegiance to the Queen, on account of Epstein, Prince Andrew, and others in cahoots?
And if you want a taste of how the authorities treat the victims, look at this article from yesterday: theguardian.com/society/201 … st-in-care
They’ve basically thrown her in a Guantanamo-style hole.
I stand by my original theme which is that people like you are basically the problem in this equation. You care little about any principle of social solidarity or protection, instead you’ve just got a bee in your bonnet about Asians or the Muslim religion, perhaps due to racism or perhaps something else, but instead you’re waging a proxy war through various other issues.
Whether it be protection of children, women’s rights, whatever, it’s just a front and you don’t give a hoot about these various victims you use as pawns in a demonisation and propaganda campaign against an entire community.
The real question is, what’s really at the bottom of all this?
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the real answer your asking for is that if there were no muslims or similar in britain then there would be no issues regarding them.
personally, the millions you are mentioning would be expelled with certain limitations,and there would be no more allowed in until the uk could treat its own citizens to a more reasonable standard of life ranging from roads,to hospitals and housing ect.
you are correct in saying i do not give a monkeys about these womens rights as i already stated that.
im not staging any proxy war,im just stating my own views and opinions.
ive been the same standard of racist for over 50 years and never deviate from that bottom line.
if i got any say in it then there would be a sign at every port and airport saying " dont unpack,your going back"
reading between the lines about andrew then i believe he met the tart when she was at least 17 so he wasnt exactly ripping the nappy off of her when she had already been ploughed by epstien and friends.
she was part of a large group of available prozzies for the pleasure and whims of rich dudes which is just par for the course.
as usual its only the media frenzy out for crucifixion that lets gullible lemmings look no further than the headlines.
somewhat similar to that fat nolan sister who seemed quite happy for jimmy saville to be cuddling and squeezing her when she had her face on top of thepops,but 35 years later when everyone else jumps on the bandwagon she decides to be mortified and abused all those years ago…total pish my man.
Rjan…the crux of the matter is that even “moderate” muslims do not agree with so much of how we live our lives in the West. Their book calls all non-believers kuffar who are lesser than them and should be enslaved if they will not convert. Why shouldn’t we be able to mock how they look in the burka or how the men look queer in their white frocks?, or just criticise islam in general?. We live in a Western democracy where we should be able to debate or mock anything we want but they are playing the race card all too often and taking advantage of our civil liberty laws. Look back at the Middle Eastern countries which were not majority islam over the centuries and how they are now cesspits and have become backward now islam has the majority. Look at how minority Christians and others in the Middle East are been wiped out all in the name of islam. It WILL happen here in Europe in the decades to come and it will be our grandkids who are in the firing line
Grandpa:
If you look at Islamic countries around the world (including Afghanistan), you’ll see something very obvious. There’s a distinct lack of human rights. That’s because they take their law from the Quran and ‘human rights’ laws are a western invention.
Actually you have it quite right on one front: human rights are a Western invention. Which I would emphasise is a very recent one, and thinking about universal and inalienable rights really only came into common currency after the Germans gassed a million Jews just over 70 years ago, including a vast number of German citizens.
The scale of the losses being caused by right-wing politics, and the ideological discredit into which it was bringing capitalism at a time when the power of Soviet communism was surging, convinced the ruling class that they had to start abiding by new rules and place limits on the degree to which they could attack their own populations.
But there is nothing particular about Islamic countries. Look at any peasant economy and you will see a lack of human rights.
NI is not a religious backwater, it’s a religious sectarian divide that caused the problems, not poverty or a lack of religion.
It really isn’t to do with religious differences (and both communities in NI are Christian anyway), it’s everything to do with politics.
‘Integration’ means adopting the values and obeying the laws of a host country. Muslims are the only group as a whole who are unable to integrate into societies that aren’t also majority Muslim.
What laws and values are they breaking on the whole?
You’re quite right to say that the main cause of refugee and economic migration are the invasions and bombings instigated chiefly be the US, disguised with garbage about bring democracy to majority Muslim countries. The second major mistake is believing all cultures are equal and inviting people to assimilate en-masse. That idea has never before been tried in history and has proved a disaster.
There are really two reasons for immigration.
Firstly, for social liberals, it is hoped it will provide some ballast against right-wing politics in the form it was previously known - even in the 1970s, Britain continued to have a terrible problem with racism and white supremacy and so on. This is thought to throw a spanner in the cultural or ethnic homogeneity on which such backward and incorrect views depend.
However, as the Jewish experience in Germany had already shown, mere proximity or intermingling does not necessarily provide an inoculation against culture wars or scapegoating.
Secondly - and perhaps more significantly for why we actually have immigration - for economic liberals, it disciplines workers (especially in routine occupations), forces down wages, and increases profits.
Since the 1970s certainly, the country has consistently voted for economic liberals, and they will do again in 2019 if they elect Boris Johnson, who will continue to maintain the record non-EU (and record overall) immigration the Tories have now achieved.
Muslim grooming gangs are not the product of how ‘white right wingers’ treat their children.
I disagree. I don’t mean specifically their own children of course, I mean their general attitudes to community solidarity, and to other white people’s children.
I linked an article earlier in a previous post, about how the state was treating a victim of ■■■■■■ abuse and institutional care, by locking her up in a barren room with only a mat to sleep on. It strikes me as scarcely any better than how these abusers have treated children, especially once you factor in that the state will treat you like this relentlessly and without reprieve, and will bring enormous resources to bear in the process. You will not even be given the compensating pleasures of money, attention at times, or hard drugs.
Sharia law is not a backlash to any kind of perceived British racism or homophobia, it’s part of Muslim culture.
My assertion was that the insularity of the community, the sense that there exists a subculture, is on account of a history of “racism”, the unwarranted hostility of whites, and poverty.
Whites, or Christians are not stabbing people on British streets shouting ‘God is great.’ What you’re seeing are the consequences of importing millions of people from backwardly religious countries into first world societies
Whites or Christians are engaged in stabbings. In fact a white man brandished a knife at my brother last year, apparently with a view to robbery. The fact that most whites are fairly secular means that few resort to religious chants when attempting murder, whether for criminal advantage or political reasons.
I think most of us would be primarily concerned with stabbings, not the utterances that occur during them, and wouldn’t seek to exclude millions of people simply because a handful happen to be knifemen.
All this is not the fault of whites, British, or right wingers. The blame can be laid squarely at the door of the EU which is where the idea of a multicultural European super state arose from. Watch the video ‘Before Europe Awoke’ again, because what happened shouldn’t come as a surprise. What does come as a surprise is a minority who still believe it’s our fault that the EU political social engineering didn’t work.
I’m not sure why the EU really come into this. When Merkel took millions of refugees, she wasn’t forced by the EU. German left-wingers said the same as I do, that it was a plot by right-wing liberals to force down wages.
It seems to me that what most people are reacting against is right-wing liberalism, even at the same time as continuing to elect its supporters. Brexit is a prime example, where those who say they dislike immigration, are about to elect the Tory party which has sent immigration to soaring levels.
dieseldog999:
Rjan:
…
The real question is, what’s really at the bottom of all this?^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
the real answer your asking for is that if there were no muslims or similar in britain then there would be no issues regarding them.
personally, the millions you are mentioning would be expelled with certain limitations,and there would be no more allowed in until the uk could treat its own citizens to a more reasonable standard of life ranging from roads,to hospitals and housing ect.
Well I broadly agree with you about stopping further movement. But the UK already can treat its own citizens to a more reasonable standard - the problem is that every time a political party offers to do so, right-wingers reject it, and vote for the party that attacks general standards for working people.
The roads are only falling apart at the tarmac seams because people elected a Tory government that openly said it would both cut central transfers to councils, and limit councils’ ability to increase council tax. So unsurprisingly, councils have had to cut the money spent on repairing and resurfacing their roads.
All the while, the Tories cut taxes on the rich, so that every swindling boss who manages to force your wages down to increase his own income, doesn’t even face the final hurdle of paying a good slice of that lucre back in tax. And because your wages have gone down, so has your ability to pay tax too.
Before you know it the public coffers are empty, because workers are paid too little to afford taxation, and they won’t put taxes up on the rich, and they won’t bargain for better wages either or even vote for a government that mandates pay increases.
reading between the lines about andrew then i believe he met the tart when she was at least 17 so he wasnt exactly ripping the nappy off of her when she had already been ploughed by epstien and friends.
At least this shows people what I mean about a lack of genuine concern for the victims. One can probably imagine that many 14 year old girls in care act like tarts and have probably been ploughed before, perhaps by other abusers.
I believe in the American states in question, the age of consent is 18. Unsurprising, given that some states are highly conservative, and the age of consent for drinking alcohol is 21 in some places.
The point is that when children are treated well, when they are properly looked after, adults are in a position to exert supervision and influence on their behaviour, to keep them away from undesirables, to ensure that any ■■■■■■ decisions are made on their own merits in healthy relationships, and not for money, shelter, security, or attention from exploiters and abusers.
she was part of a large group of available prozzies for the pleasure and whims of rich dudes which is just par for the course.
as usual its only the media frenzy out for crucifixion that lets gullible lemmings look no further than the headlines.
You do realise Epstein was accused of having ■■■ with girls as young as 12?
somewhat similar to that fat nolan sister who seemed quite happy for jimmy saville to be cuddling and squeezing her when she had her face on top of thepops,but 35 years later when everyone else jumps on the bandwagon she decides to be mortified and abused all those years ago…total pish my man.
It was another thing when he was given the keys to hospital wards to go and abuse sick children.
ArcticMonkey:
Rjan…the crux of the matter is that even “moderate” muslims do not agree with so much of how we live our lives in the West.
But neither do most “moderate” whites. Go into any pub and you’ll still easily hear condemnation of blacks, of poofs, of bloody feminists, whatever.
As I say, the average Muslim is basically a 1950s middle-class conservative - you go to church on Sunday, your women dress modestly, your neighbours are all curtain-twitchers amongst whom you must maintain face and keep up appearances. Their general lifestyles and outlooks are not more extreme than that.
There is another issue which has nothing to do with lifestyle, and that’s political views about foreign policy. Understandably, most Muslims are scathing about British foreign policy in the Middle East - they have a religious affinity with the victims, but more importantly many of them are from these places and have a view from the ground that isn’t passed through the filter of the mainstream British media, and they have an understanding of the history that the average white man doesn’t care about (I don’t myself to any great degree).
We are finally getting to the point where the man on the street seems to be sceptical about foreign interventions - sceptical both of the motivations of governments, and of the likelihood of good outcomes in the long term. But it’s taken decades to get there.
Their book calls all non-believers kuffar who are lesser than them and should be enslaved if they will not convert.
What bible doesn’t contain such nonsense? It’s standard fayre, for heaven’s sake!
Why shouldn’t we be able to mock how they look in the burka or how the men look queer in their white frocks?, or just criticise islam in general?. We live in a Western democracy where we should be able to debate or mock anything we want but they are playing the race card all too often and taking advantage of our civil liberty laws.
It’s one thing to roll your eyes at white frocks, it’s another thing to engage in harassment or menace.
It’s also one thing to engage in fair criticisms, another thing to peddle lies, or spread hateful tropes and generalisations.
And I think you’ll find Muslims hardly ever “play the race card”. It’s almost exclusively white liberals, or just bosses spinning attacks on workers or the general public into “promoting inclusivity”. For example, the local authority can’t afford the electric bill for the Xmas lights this year, so they say they’re ending the practice to be fair to other religions.
Look back at the Middle Eastern countries which were not majority islam over the centuries and how they are now cesspits and have become backward now islam has the majority. Look at how minority Christians and others in the Middle East are been wiped out all in the name of islam. It WILL happen here in Europe in the decades to come and it will be our grandkids who are in the firing line
But you weren’t complaining when your grandkids were being sent to Iraq, if you represent the average right-leaning opinion in Britain at the time. If there is to be a general environment of peace, it must surely start with a cessation of involvement with attacks in the Middle East, together with bankrolling and arms sales. The British government has hardly gone 6 months in the past 20 years without sending in rockets or selling guns or bankrolling yet another bunch of religious radicals in a marriage of convenience. Bin Laden and the Taliban were both products of 1980s American intervention in Afghanistan.
This reached the pinnacle of absurdity in Syria, where they bankrolled and supplied both sides at different times, so the West has ended up with no friends, plenty of enemies, tidal waves of refugees, and finally the Russians stepped in to restore some basic order and left Putin looking like the only adult in the room.
Rjan. The English Magna Carta in 1215 was a basic form of human rights, as was the outcome of the English civil war, which abolished the right of an absolute monarchy. The post war period (United Nations) which you refer to was less to do with human rights than collectivizing nations to stop a repeat of the circumstances which led to the rise of European dictators in the 20th century. Not all right-wing either; as the Soviet and Spanish revolutions showed.
There is no such thing as a peasant economy; a peasant performs the labour. I take it you mean agricultural. Saudi Arabia, or Iran are not agricultural societies and their economies are oil producing ones. Both have a very poor record of human rights.
Of course NI is divided by religious views, just as in earlier times England was also divided by protestant and Catholic divides. Politics is simply the process of arguing those views and ‘the troubles’ are a result of the failure of politics to find a solution.
The laws and values Muslims as a group fail is integration. In the UK we don’t care what the Quran says, we have English law, not Sharia law, or I can do what I want law. Our values are those that have formed a nation over centuries not the values of others. We don’t do religious terrorism, honour killings, or grooming gangs.
There isn’t the racism, white supremacy or right wing politics you blame. Now Thatcher could be argued to have been right-wing, but for the past 20 years we’ve been so liberal and politically correct it’s frightening. We’re now paying the price for that. What on earth is right wing liberalism?! Immigration isn’t a choice, we’re bound by EU law to have European open borders and that’s how many are coming in from France. Those characters pitched up in Calais heading for the UK don’t look very East European.
There is no right wing plot and there shouldn’t be any white guilt. When the next slaughter takes place on the streets that’s not the fault of the British people, it’s the fault of the politicians who led us into all this and when the people voted to stop it with Brexit, they simply carried on.
Grandpa:
Rjan. The English Magna Carta in 1215 was a basic form of human rights, as was the outcome of the English civil war, which abolished the right of an absolute monarchy. The post war period (United Nations) which you refer to was less to do with human rights than collectivizing nations to stop a repeat of the circumstances which led to the rise of European dictators in the 20th century. Not all right-wing either; as the Soviet and Spanish revolutions showed.
The Magna Carta contains nothing on human rights. It was merely a settlement between the King and the Barons.
There is no such thing as a peasant economy; a peasant performs the labour. I take it you mean agricultural. Saudi Arabia, or Iran are not agricultural societies and their economies are oil producing ones. Both have a very poor record of human rights.
Indeed, worse than a peasant economy is one based purely on mineral resource extraction.
Of course NI is divided by religious views, just as in earlier times England was also divided by protestant and Catholic divides. Politics is simply the process of arguing those views and ‘the troubles’ are a result of the failure of politics to find a solution.
This just isn’t correct. As I say, both communities are Christian in nature, and their crucial points of conflict are not theological.
The laws and values Muslims as a group fail is integration. In the UK we don’t care what the Quran says, we have English law, not Sharia law, or I can do what I want law. Our values are those that have formed a nation over centuries not the values of others. We don’t do religious terrorism, honour killings, or grooming gangs.
I notice you still haven’t identified which laws Muslims are not actually complying with, or which values they are in conflict with. There are plenty of people who still think we should bring back the noose and the birch, neither of which are English law, yet it doesn’t cause disintegration.
As for religious terror, a moment ago you were arguing the Troubles in NI were religious in nature, so that would suggest the British do do religious terrorism. They certainly do terrorism of some sort.
We don’t typically do honour killings, but we do do ■■■■■■■■■■ gangs, although the police tend to stay on top of smashing them nowadays.
There isn’t the racism, white supremacy or right wing politics you blame. Now Thatcher could be argued to have been right-wing, but for the past 20 years we’ve been so liberal and politically correct it’s frightening. We’re now paying the price for that. What on earth is right wing liberalism?!
Right-wing liberalism is what Thatcher represents. It’s the general notion of freedoms for bosses, freedoms for the rich.
Immigration isn’t a choice, we’re bound by EU law to have European open borders and that’s how many are coming in from France. Those characters pitched up in Calais heading for the UK don’t look very East European.
We aren’t bound to have open borders, and in fact we don’t. We are only required to admit EU citizens who hold proof of identity. Moreover, EU law does not require us to offer work visas to non-EU citizens, which have rocketed under the Tories since the Brexit vote (mainly to backfill what they have lost from the EU).
The Magna Carta. The Barons forced the monarchy to reduce its power because it affected them directly. The Church became autonomous from the crown. The right to inherit and own property free from excessive taxation … Those are the beginnings of human rights and why the Magna Carta was so important. Previously the King could take at will what he wanted and that continued at a lesser pace until the civil war abolished absolute monarchy and where our current day parliament stems from.
Re: NI. The same conflict arose out of protestant v Catholicism as it did previously in England and Europe. The Catholics wanted to unite with a Catholic Southern Ireland and the Protestants with a Protestant England. Of course there was terrorism involved in that and for many years to achieve objectives, but when those objectives couldn’t be met an agreement was reached. No one is going to reach an agreement with the Muslims, either here in the UK or anywhere else. As we write, you know the next terrorist attack is already being planned and it’s almost certainly going to come from a British born Muslim.
You ask what laws the Muslims are breaking. Ask again when the next Muslim grooming gang are discovered, the next atrocity occurs, or one of the hundreds who ran off to join ISIS try to return, because these aren’t just one off events.
Yes, we do presently have open borders for E. Europeans and that will change to Middle East quotas if we’re kept in the EU. Don’t take my word for it, look at the so-called refugee camps on the French border and you won’t see many E. Europeans there and they’re all heading for the UK.
Grandpa wrote and Rjan wrote and in reply I spend my time having to explain basic facts. You say it’s the fault of the few Muslims giving others a bad reputation. In a previous post it was already stated by the EU intelligence branch that there are upwards of 25K Muslims that are under surveillance by British intelligence and that’s just in Britain alone. The Muslim grooming gangs don’t target their own children and as Rotherham was discovered others started to pop up in Manchester and Huddersfield and that’s just the ones they know about. The honour killings have left the media center stage, but that too is part of Islamic culture. There are now an estimated 85 Sharia courts in the UK and growing. This shouldn’t be happening in a country where all are supposed to be equal under one British law. All this isn’t the fault of white right wing racists, it’s the fault of the hard left and liberals who thought they could create a multicultural utopia.
Islam is not a religion of peace, it’s based on ideological conquest; it’s what it was designed for. What happened when the west removed dictators like Saddam and Gadhafi who held it all together and tried to introduce democracy? Those countries collapsed into murder and chaos as the Sunni’s and Shia’s set about each other. It’s why the western invasions have stopped. What happened when the politicians invited millions into the west and thought they’d embrace British democracy and values? The same thing happened. It’s the job of politicians to make you believe it’s the fault of the host country and white skin colour, or racism and millions fall for it. When you understand what Islam is, it’s then you understand the consequences of inviting it in and thinking you could change centuries old culture.
Grandpa:
The Magna Carta. The Barons forced the monarchy to reduce its power because it affected them directly. The Church became autonomous from the crown. The right to inherit and own property free from excessive taxation … Those are the beginnings of human rights and why the Magna Carta was so important. Previously the King could take at will what he wanted and that continued at a lesser pace until the civil war abolished absolute monarchy and where our current day parliament stems from.
It’s always possible to trace “human rights” back to previous developments. But Magna Carta did not create human rights. The increasing insistence on rule by a committee of the powerful and the emergence of Parliamentary rule, which reached a head (so to speak) with Charles I, is not a human right - in fact it was a right exercised by only a tiny minority.
The emergence of one-person-one-vote is really a 20th century innovation, and it’s only really at this stage that the right of democratic participation became universal.
Re: NI. The same conflict arose out of protestant v Catholicism as it did previously in England and Europe. The Catholics wanted to unite with a Catholic Southern Ireland and the Protestants with a Protestant England.
The key is that it wasn’t theological differences that made those two groups want to unite with the mainland or the Republic respectively. Their religious distinctions are coincidental - the Protestants because they are descended from settlers from the British mainland, the Catholics because they are descended from people indigenous to Ireland (which never underwent a split from Rome).
But the Protestants are not settlers for religious reasons, and the Catholics are not indigenous for religious reasons, the exploitation of Ireland by Britain was not induced because of religious differences, and resistance to that exploitation has not occurred because of the religious differences between exploiter and exploited.
You ask what laws the Muslims are breaking. Ask again when the next Muslim grooming gang are discovered, the next atrocity occurs, or one of the hundreds who ran off to join ISIS try to return, because these aren’t just one off events.
But you’re talking about a few dozen people. If this logic held, you’d be arguing that white people are constantly breaking English laws because of their ■■■■■■■■■■ gangs. The reality is that almost none of us are breaking such laws.
Yes, we do presently have open borders for E. Europeans and that will change to Middle East quotas if we’re kept in the EU. Don’t take my word for it, look at the so-called refugee camps on the French border and you won’t see many E. Europeans there and they’re all heading for the UK.
Why would there be a French refugee camp, if the inhabitants could just waltz across the border? Like I say, our borders are not physically open - Europeans can cross freely, but nobody else can unless they smuggle themselves across.
Grandpa wrote and Rjan wrote and in reply I spend my time having to explain basic facts. You say it’s the fault of the few Muslims giving others a bad reputation. In a previous post it was already stated by the EU intelligence branch that there are upwards of 25K Muslims that are under surveillance by British intelligence and that’s just in Britain alone.
And that will be entirely the product of foreign policy over decades, not failures to integrate. Tories (including Blairites) in Britain seemingly have to learn the lesson to stop sending the military into places unnecessarily and in a fashion that primarily attacks civil populations.
The Muslim grooming gangs don’t target their own children
It hasn’t been established that Muslim children don’t suffer ■■■■■■ abuse. Your argument is invalid by analogy with arguing that because some British paedophiles go to the Far East and abuse children there, therefore it is proven that white people don’t (or mainly don’t) target white children.
The honour killings have left the media center stage, but that too is part of Islamic culture. There are now an estimated 85 Sharia courts in the UK and growing. This shouldn’t be happening in a country where all are supposed to be equal under one British law.
Are you suggesting that the honour killers are let off Scot free? I don’t need to find excuses for a tiny minority of criminals. Some British people abuse and kill their children - that inbred couple went to jail a few months ago for killing two of their sons
All this isn’t the fault of white right wing racists, it’s the fault of the hard left and liberals who thought they could create a multicultural utopia.
Islam is not a religion of peace, it’s based on ideological conquest; it’s what it was designed for. What happened when the west removed dictators like Saddam and Gadhafi who held it all together and tried to introduce democracy? Those countries collapsed into murder and chaos as the Sunni’s and Shia’s set about each other. It’s why the western invasions have stopped. What happened when the politicians invited millions into the west and thought they’d embrace British democracy and values? The same thing happened. It’s the job of politicians to make you believe it’s the fault of the host country and white skin colour, or racism and millions fall for it. When you understand what Islam is, it’s then you understand the consequences of inviting it in and thinking you could change centuries old culture.
Xenophobic bunkum. You seem to overlook that, by your own argument, the white liberals themselves could be accused of various kinds of “ideological conquest”.
It’s little wonder that Saddam and Gaddafi’s societies stayed smashed after the West smashed them, because democracy is a cultural artefact, and there is no history of it in these places. It’s purely Western liberal propaganda that these leaders are basically dictators who impose themselves and just need to be prodded and toppled to allow an advanced economy and it’s cultural trappings to flower.
I broadly agree that a lot of Muslim refugees which result from these smashings, are unsuitable to be integrated into British society. They are from places which are culturally backward by modern standards, even aside from that they are veterans of warzones and utter civil destruction.
But the answer is simply to stop the head-to-toe smashings and leave these societies alone. It’s not more complex than that.
As for the average British Muslim, the sort who are born here or who have moved here by consent at some point, as I say there is nothing wrong with these people. They are integrated, they are law-abiding, and you’re just smearing them all with the behaviour of a minority of criminals.
Grandpa:
The Magna Carta. The Barons forced the monarchy to reduce its power because it affected them directly. The Church became autonomous from the crown. The right to inherit and own property free from excessive taxation … Those are the beginnings of human rights and why the Magna Carta was so important. Previously the King could take at will what he wanted and that continued at a lesser pace until the civil war abolished absolute monarchy and where our current day parliament stems from.Re: NI. The same conflict arose out of protestant v Catholicism as it did previously in England and Europe. The Catholics wanted to unite with a Catholic Southern Ireland and the Protestants with a Protestant England. Of course there was terrorism involved in that and for many years to achieve objectives, but when those objectives couldn’t be met an agreement was reached. No one is going to reach an agreement with the Muslims, either here in the UK or anywhere else. As we write, you know the next terrorist attack is already being planned and it’s almost certainly going to come from a British born Muslim.
You ask what laws the Muslims are breaking. Ask again when the next Muslim grooming gang are discovered, the next atrocity occurs, or one of the hundreds who ran off to join ISIS try to return, because these aren’t just one off events.Yes, we do presently have open borders for E. Europeans and that will change to Middle East quotas if we’re kept in the EU. Don’t take my word for it, look at the so-called refugee camps on the French border and you won’t see many E. Europeans there and they’re all heading for the UK.
Grandpa wrote and Rjan wrote and in reply I spend my time having to explain basic facts. You say it’s the fault of the few Muslims giving others a bad reputation. In a previous post it was already stated by the EU intelligence branch that there are upwards of 25K Muslims that are under surveillance by British intelligence and that’s just in Britain alone. The Muslim grooming gangs don’t target their own children and as Rotherham was discovered others started to pop up in Manchester and Huddersfield and that’s just the ones they know about. The honour killings have left the media center stage, but that too is part of Islamic culture. There are now an estimated 85 Sharia courts in the UK and growing. This shouldn’t be happening in a country where all are supposed to be equal under one British law. All this isn’t the fault of white right wing racists, it’s the fault of the hard left and liberals who thought they could create a multicultural utopia.
Islam is not a religion of peace, it’s based on ideological conquest; it’s what it was designed for. What happened when the west removed dictators like Saddam and Gadhafi who held it all together and tried to introduce democracy? Those countries collapsed into murder and chaos as the Sunni’s and Shia’s set about each other. It’s why the western invasions have stopped. What happened when the politicians invited millions into the west and thought they’d embrace British democracy and values? The same thing happened. It’s the job of politicians to make you believe it’s the fault of the host country and white skin colour, or racism and millions fall for it. When you understand what Islam is, it’s then you understand the consequences of inviting it in and thinking you could change centuries old culture.
Perfectly explained
Rjan…so what you’re saying is that because the West have gone into Middle Eastern countries and bombed them, that’s why muslims living in the West hate us?
When 9/11 happened no Western country occupied any muslim country. So what is their excuse for attacking the Twin Towers?. Islam has wanted to have world dominance since the 7th century and have tried and failed on occasions, most notably the Ottoman empire.
They know they can’t take over the West by military means so they have the long term plan to integrate into Western society until they are the majority and then reach their goal that way.
Also when 9/11 happened, i remember seeing lots of muslims celebrating in muslim dominated areas of the UK, so it’s pretty clear that it has nothing to do with the West bombing their backward countries.
What were the US supposed to do when the towers had been hit?. Please don’t say it was an inside job or you’ll just make yourself sound silly.
ArcticMonkey:
Rjan…so what you’re saying is that because the West have gone into Middle Eastern countries and bombed them, that’s why muslims living in the West hate us?When 9/11 happened no Western country occupied any muslim country. So what is their excuse for attacking the Twin Towers?. Islam has wanted to have world dominance since the 7th century and have tried and failed on occasions, most notably the Ottoman empire.
They know they can’t take over the West by military means so they have the long term plan to integrate into Western society until they are the majority and then reach their goal that way.
Also when 9/11 happened, i remember seeing lots of muslims celebrating in muslim dominated areas of the UK, so it’s pretty clear that it has nothing to do with the West bombing their backward countries.
What were the US supposed to do when the towers had been hit?. Please don’t say it was an inside job or you’ll just make yourself sound silly.
Why did the US retaliate by attacking Iraq and not Saudi.
What actually hit the Pentagon and therefore questioning the credibility of all the rest.
Why does it have to be an inside job.As opposed to a challenge by China in the form of a sub launched cruise missile attack which the US chose not to meet and instead covered up.
We know that radical Islam is an enemy of western civilisation so why is that civilisation appeasing it and inviting it in.
Rjan
Ryjan, the more you write, the deeper you get yourself entangled in beliefs. 
You now say it’s possible to trace back human rights to previous developments, where previously you said it was a recent phenomenon. Magna Carta was the prelude to modern day human rights and much of what our law is still based on. Do you own the property you have? Magna Carta first gave you that right. No one mentioned one man one vote, that’s something different entirely and is not a human right, it’s part of our democratic voting system.
No one mentioned Irish settlers, we were discussing the religious divides and the problems that caused.
I wasn’t talking about a few people breaking British law. I’m talking tens of thousands in the UK alone. What don’t you understand about tens of thousands of Muslims being monitored by the security services?
So the so-called African ‘refugees’ aren’t in Calais and along the French coast trying to smuggle themselves across. Is that what you’re saying? For every one they catch, how many do you think have got across in years gone by?
Yes, it has been established that the Muslim ■■■■■■■■■ gangs don’t target Muslim children. The victims were not Muslim.
I’m not suggesting that those who commit honour killings be let off scot free. I’m saying it’s a tendency among Muslims to commit those types of offences as it’s part of their culture.
The problem is we did leave these people alone. We let them congregate and create ghetto’s. We were told terrorism was carried about by men of ‘Middle Eastern appearance’, or ‘Asians’, because political correctness said we mustn’t offend. The politicians pretended we were all the same and anyone who disagreed were labelled xenophobic and racist. You can’t re-write history using liberal beliefs and pretend nothing is wrong and it’s all our fault atrocities occur on a regular basis by Muslims.
Parts of London are already predominantly Muslim. Cameron said he wants to see a Muslim PM and the favourite British child’s boy name is now Muhammad. Now you might say, so-what? The so-what is no one was allowed to vote for that to happen and when we voted for this to end and regain control of our borders and immigration we were ignored. The segregation will continue and the atrocities get more frequent. All this isn’t going to go away, but while people make excuses for it, the problem will never be addressed.
ArcticMonkey:
Rjan…so what you’re saying is that because the West have gone into Middle Eastern countries and bombed them, that’s why muslims living in the West hate us?When 9/11 happened no Western country occupied any muslim country. So what is their excuse for attacking the Twin Towers?. Islam has wanted to have world dominance since the 7th century and have tried and failed on occasions, most notably the Ottoman empire.
They know they can’t take over the West by military means so they have the long term plan to integrate into Western society until they are the majority and then reach their goal that way.
Also when 9/11 happened, i remember seeing lots of muslims celebrating in muslim dominated areas of the UK, so it’s pretty clear that it has nothing to do with the West bombing their backward countries.
What were the US supposed to do when the towers had been hit?. Please don’t say it was an inside job or you’ll just make yourself sound silly.
I was driving in the north on the night of 9/11 and most of us were at that time listening to the James Whale show. I personally saw people cheering in the streets, but when fellow drivers phoned in with what was happening in other places as well, they were shut down and told they were racists. Many of us also saw the buses going up the motorway M6 at night packed with foreigners, who we now know were being dispersed to place like Glasgow to make it look as if the south of England wasn’t crowded with asylum seekers. We also saw them walking along the M25 heading for London. It’s not something we all dreamed up, there’s no racism involved, it’s what happened. The authorities went overboard to re-assure us our borders were guarded and nothing out of the ordinary was happening and they’re still lying to us to this day.
ArcticMonkey:
Rjan…so what you’re saying is that because the West have gone into Middle Eastern countries and bombed them, that’s why muslims living in the West hate us?
Do you still beat your wife, too?
I haven’t said “Muslims living in the West hate us”. I adduced foreign policy as the reason why 25k people (supposedly) are on MI5 watch lists, which can mean almost anything, not necessarily that they hate other ordinary British people. Some are on lists because they are suspected to have fought abroad, or because other states want us to keep an eye on them. And in virtually all cases, they are not actually criminals.
When 9/11 happened no Western country occupied any muslim country.
The US is an ever-present spectre in the Middle East.
Bin Laden was himself bankrolled by the US to fight in Afghanistan. I don’t know exactly why Bin Laden didn’t return the thanks, but it seems to follow a pattern of the Americans bankrolling any madmen willing to fight their opponents in proxy wars, and then having to deal with the madmen who, amongst the rubble, turn out to be a greater threat (and more staunchly anti-American) than America’s original opponents.
So what is their excuse for attacking the Twin Towers?. Islam has wanted to have world dominance since the 7th century and have tried and failed on occasions, most notably the Ottoman empire.
I don’t know why this trope of “Islam wants world ■■■■■■■■■■” and similar keeps making an entrance - it’s clearly meant in the sense that somehow the millions of Muslims in Britain are engaged in some grand conspiracy.
Bin Laden attacked the Twin Towers because he’d declared war on the US and bringing down those towers was clearly a spectacular strike. Why was Bin Laden at war? I don’t know all the specific reasons, but I do know he was a US-trained fighter and extremist. The consequence of training and equipping extremists is that they gain power and influence, not on account of an organic or democratic base, but because they have a superpower patron.
They know they can’t take over the West by military means so they have the long term plan to integrate into Western society until they are the majority and then reach their goal that way.
You’re sounding like a conspiracy nut. Even Bin Laden didn’t seem as concerned about taking over the West, as he did to simply bring it down to size and eject it’s influence from the Middle East.
Muslims exist in British society mainly because they are from places that used to be British colonies, and have been drawn into Britain as workers, generally several decades ago. There hasn’t been a grand plan to colonise Britain as some sort of device to control British foreign policy - hell, nations have come and gone quicker than that strategy could possibly bear fruit.
Also when 9/11 happened, i remember seeing lots of muslims celebrating in muslim dominated areas of the UK, so it’s pretty clear that it has nothing to do with the West bombing their backward countries.
I can imagine the sentiment, which is that America finally gets a taste of its own medicine. You have to understand that for all the people killed in the Twin Towers, the Americans (or West generally) typically kill that many people or more every 6 months in the Middle East.
The chaos provoked in Syria has claimed half a million lives.
What were the US supposed to do when the towers had been hit?. Please don’t say it was an inside job or you’ll just make yourself sound silly.
Pah! I could stretch as far as imagining that somebody might have known about the plot and withheld information about it, but not that the US state itself executed the plot.
What the US needs to do is stop interfering around the world. If it must act, it should take actions that promote civil stability and moderate ideologies, rather than keep smashing societies, upsetting populations, and bankrolling extremists.
Rjan:
ArcticMonkey:
Rjan…so what you’re saying is that because the West have gone into Middle Eastern countries and bombed them, that’s why muslims living in the West hate us?Do you still beat your wife, too?
I haven’t said “Muslims living in the West hate us”. I adduced foreign policy as the reason why 25k people (supposedly) are on MI5 watch lists, which can mean almost anything, not necessarily that they hate other ordinary British people. Some are on lists because they are suspected to have fought abroad, or because other states want us to keep an eye on them. And in virtually all cases, they are not actually criminals.
When 9/11 happened no Western country occupied any muslim country.
The US is an ever-present spectre in the Middle East.
Bin Laden was himself bankrolled by the US to fight in Afghanistan. I don’t know exactly why Bin Laden didn’t return the thanks, but it seems to follow a pattern of the Americans bankrolling any madmen willing to fight their opponents in proxy wars, and then having to deal with the madmen who, amongst the rubble, turn out to be a greater threat (and more staunchly anti-American) than America’s original opponents.
So what is their excuse for attacking the Twin Towers?. Islam has wanted to have world dominance since the 7th century and have tried and failed on occasions, most notably the Ottoman empire.
I don’t know why this trope of “Islam wants world ■■■■■■■■■■” and similar keeps making an entrance - it’s clearly meant in the sense that somehow the millions of Muslims in Britain are engaged in some grand conspiracy.
Bin Laden attacked the Twin Towers because he’d declared war on the US and bringing down those towers was clearly a spectacular strike. Why was Bin Laden at war? I don’t know all the specific reasons, but I do know he was a US-trained fighter and extremist. The consequence of training and equipping extremists is that they gain power and influence, not on account of an organic or democratic base, but because they have a superpower patron.
They know they can’t take over the West by military means so they have the long term plan to integrate into Western society until they are the majority and then reach their goal that way.
You’re sounding like a conspiracy nut. Even Bin Laden didn’t seem as concerned about taking over the West, as he did to simply bring it down to size and eject it’s influence from the Middle East.
Muslims exist in British society mainly because they are from places that used to be British colonies, and have been drawn into Britain as workers, generally several decades ago. There hasn’t been a grand plan to colonise Britain as some sort of device to control British foreign policy - hell, nations have come and gone quicker than that strategy could possibly bear fruit.
Also when 9/11 happened, i remember seeing lots of muslims celebrating in muslim dominated areas of the UK, so it’s pretty clear that it has nothing to do with the West bombing their backward countries.
I can imagine the sentiment, which is that America finally gets a taste of its own medicine. You have to understand that for all the people killed in the Twin Towers, the Americans (or West generally) typically kill that many people or more every 6 months in the Middle East.
The chaos provoked in Syria has claimed half a million lives.
What were the US supposed to do when the towers had been hit?. Please don’t say it was an inside job or you’ll just make yourself sound silly.
Pah! I could stretch as far as imagining that somebody might have known about the plot and withheld information about it, but not that the US state itself executed the plot.
What the US needs to do is stop interfering around the world. If it must act, it should take actions that promote civil stability and moderate ideologies, rather than keep smashing societies, upsetting populations, and bankrolling extremists.
I would say millions of muslims in UK and Europe are part of the same wish to see the whole of Europe under islamic rule. They hate us and bring their children up to hate the white man. I’m from an old mill town in West Yorkshire. I grew up amongst them and have shared a classroom, workplace and town centres with them. I’ve heard their intentions from the horses mouth. You should come and spend a week living in these mill towns of Yorkshire and Lancashire and just see how divided we are up here. Farage was right. We live parallel lives literally we have areas where you can not walk as a white person. This is England not bloody Pakistan