Are the Muslims really the biggest threat . . .

Post Reply New Topic

Look at the gap. From 1.25 billion down to 300 million. A factor of 4. The U.S. is virtually empty.

Japan has a higher population density than the U.S.

ruveyn

Okay? And what is this "Islamic separatism" you speak of, and how is it contrary to British culture? Helping the needy is really important in Islam. If someone refuses to do that, they're probably not acting in accordance with Islam.

I think you are confused, Cei. I happen to think that most- the vast majority- of Muslims are integrating well into British culture.

Tequila is the one who is paranoid about every Muslim who doesn't explicitly belong to a secularist group wanting to impose sharia law on "us normal British people".

'British' culture is a misnomer. When you talk about British culture what you really mean is the little England mentality being enforced on the other constituent nations. Most of whom want a peaceful co-existance with immigrants, muslim or otherwise and have no time for UKIP or their hard-tory bile.

In greater proportions these days, Scotland and Wales want out, and rightly so IMO.

Right, sorry for the mistake. Too many people to argue with, too little to time to write that post.

Appalling Islamophobe response alert! Unclean, unclean racist!

This is going to be a very long post, so beware.

Problem is that Pakistan is nowhere near the Middle East. It's where most Muslim immigrants to the UK are originally from. It's an Islamic theocracy where Christians have long been persecuted and where many are in fear for their lives. Many of the Pakistanis here dress and behave not dissimilar to how they do in Pakistan, although quite a few don't also. I'd quite like to hear the experiences of the people from Reading and Northern Ireland for instance on their experiences with Islam (Northern Ireland especially has very, very few non-British/Irish immigrants). (For areas of its size, it seems as though Muslim populations are quite small there - we have a lot more Muslims in Lancashire and Yorkshire.)

Basically, my point is that the countries where Islam is the state religion generally have appalling human rights records, in many different ways. (It's worth stressing that this isn't just a problem with Islamic countries, though - many fundamentalist Christian nations in Africa are quite similar. Difference is that these "traditions" - like actually wanting to execute people for being gay - are almost entirely reviled in the civilised world.)

My point is that it's really not difficult to criticise the actions of violent Islam - it does it by itself. Just as it's not difficult to criticise violent Christianity (where it's in evidence it basically offers ready-made criticism - in fact, violent Christianity is as alien to most Brits as violence carried out on behalf of any other religion.)



Many of us feel that way about the niqab. Just because it's legal in Britain doesn't mean to say that many people don't dislike it and would ban it if they could. About two-thirds of those polled would ban the burqa and niqab altogether, with higher numbers for when it's used in banks and airports. (Increasingly, European countries are banning and imposing restrictions on this garment but this isn't unique to Europe - it's disliked and has been banned in a number of Muslim countries too.)

Actually, I've visited 'Northern Cyprus'. I found a generally secular nation at ease with itself that seemed to hold at the time, more or less to the principles of Atatürk. There was a pork shop on the road to our hotel - apparently, it thrives on trade from expats and quite a few local Muslims too. There were farming communities held well away from the general public (we ended up utterly in the middle of nowhere at one point and it's obvious that they wondered how on Earth we managed to get there!) and it was clear to see that these Turkish immigrants to 'Northern Cyprus' were a lot poorer and more conservative, wearing various veils and the like (though I don't remember seeing even one niqab whilst in 'Northern Cyprus') - they seemed to be subsistence farmers and the like. Interestingly, in order to make the Northern Cypriot state viable, more Turkish immigrants live in the region than actual Northern Cypriots.

Interestingly, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey, actually banned the hijab (I'm not even talking about the niqab here) after founding Turkey, as he wanted it to be a secular country and he felt that these garments were against the idea of a modern, secular nation.



Firstly, I propose leaving the EU and regaining control of our own parliamentary democracy. At least 75% of our laws are made by the EU. We then don't have a complete open-door policy to most of Eastern Europe. I suspect that, if one country leaves the EU (it will almost certainly be a Northern European country - like the Netherlands [which has increasingly large anti-EU voices both on the right and the left now), Denmark, Finland or Sweden), more will leave with them. It's all a matter of time IMO. Anyway, we can have a free-trade deal with the rump EU and then go our separate ways. The Swiss seem to have a decent deal with the EU - I'm sure we could figure out something better given that they need us more than we need them.

Secondly, I propose an end to mass immigration. Having taken EU (which is ludicrously considered to be domestic) immigration out of the equation, we can halt mass immigration from the rest of the world. I think we need to halt immigration for a period (UKIP suggest five years) whilst we make sense of the state of the country. Legal immigrants to the UK won't be kicked out, although those who have been naturalised and still hold dual citizenship who commit crimes can be deported. I propose that we only accept immigrants that we actually need as a country (and genuine refugees). We do not owe any other country anything, and they likewise. I propose selective, limited immigration that fits with what Britain needs.

Thirdly, we need to end the policy of multiculturalism (which I think has been an absolute disaster - you simply can't have a cohesive divided community) and encourage a more cohesive identity (whether based on Britishness, Englishness or whatever regional definition you like). I'm a believer in open, civic nationalism - i.e. Britain for the people who live in Britain, not "Britain for the British". I believe we need to merge all the disparate and divided groupings and encourage a sense of shared history and a shared identity rather than a divided one. We need to strengthen and defend our liberal values of tolerance, freedom, fair play, freedom of speech, freedom of religion (but also freedom from religion, which is as equally, if not more important IMO and defending and aiding those that suffer from the effects of religion-related violence, force or terror) and all the rest of it - Western values, really. We need to make sure that we do not, through any weakness, tolerate violent intolerance from any particular quarter or group (not just violent Islamists, who are unfortunately the main group of violent fanatics, but also nationalist terrorist organisations and the like). I would like to see a partial ban on face coverings (niqab and burqa, although NOT specifically referring to those - all face coverings would be banned apart from a few exceptions) for airports, public buildings, schools, banks (and shops and supermarkets too, if they wished to ban them - I assume many would) and so on on health and safety and also security grounds. This would allow, say, "trick or treaters" (gah! I hate them!) to carry on with their nefarious dealings but would require them to take off their disguises when walking into the local Spar and so on.

I believe in free markets backed by a lean, efficient welfare state that cuts out a lot of the waste yet actually looks after and takes care of those in need. I find the current ATOS arrangement here to be an absolute, unutterable disgrace. Needless to say, I oppose corporate welfare and the "work programme". I'm against the death penalty, and I also oppose the increasing demonisation of legal substances.

I support the idea of much tougher sentences and enforcing the laws we already have properly. I think that would go a long way to making this country a safer place to live.

Also, I think the the idea of increasing secularism in public life is a good one - note: this does not mean no religion (as some religious ignoramuses, common in the Christian churches, would like to claim) but freedom of religion and a complete absence of religion from the general thrust of public life. Basically, religion should be a private matter. Do it in your church, mosque, temple, synagogue, whatever you like, but leave everyone else out of it. (I'm actually thinking of the Jehovah's Witnesses here - funny, they never seem to come round any more.)

So, yes, those are the sorts of ideas I am thinking of.

In 2001, 2.8% of people in Berkshire were Pakistani, with the Ward I live in having the highest proportion in Reading, 8.6%. 11% of people declared themselves to be Muslim, nearly four times the national average. I am fairly sure the percentage of Pakistanis will have increased since then.

Generally at school the non-whites (there are very few blacks at my school) group together, though this has lessened as we have aged and today it is only noticeable in girls, where there is a clique (probably the wrong term) dominated by Indians and mixed raced girls in my year. The boys play video games, football, basketball, and cricket together, we eat together, we work on homework together.

The only genuine homophobe I have encountered at school is a black atheist, Ghanaian parents so has possibly picked up their "Christian values", though interestingly the other person of Ghanian descent in my year is a practising Christian and not homophobic. On top of that, there are a few white Christians who say things like "well I think homosexuality is a sin, but if they want to get married and don't hit on me then I don't mind too much", and a Bangladeshi clown (non-practising Muslim) who makes homophobic jokes all the time.

There are issues with adult literacy in the immigrant community, at least in English. One of the local primary schools has had to translate the welcome sign into Urdu so the parents can read it. However, most second generation immigrants don't seem to be able to read the first language of their parents, only English.

Some of my friends fast during Ramadan, some of the white people (predominantly atheists) have taken up fasting during school in order to support them. They take days off for each Eid, but have to catch up on the work they miss.

There are similar levels of apostasy (I hope that word isn't necessarily associated with sin) amongst Christians, Muslims, and Indians (I do not necessarily know whether Indians come from Hindu or Sikh backgrounds). None of the Jews in my year are practising, though I know a few from outside of school. I can't quote figures as I haven't asked every person. This generally isn't a rational "ah yes, I do not believe in God/Allah/whatever, society should be secular, everyone should have freedom of religion", but rather "lulz God is stoopid".

A few years ago when a few Muslims were burning poppies in London, my peers went ballistic and posted anti-Islamic and anti-Pakistani Facebook statuses. Myself and a few Pakistanis pointed out that this was sweeping and unfair on the majority of Muslims, most people apologised. That's the closest we've had to tension between whites and Pakistanis.

There was a Palestinian boy in my year from Year 9 to Year 11, there were a few incidents where people were racist to him and he would respond in kind.

In the general community, I usually struggle to tell if someone is Muslim or Hindu/Sikh/whatever (unless they come from southern India and have a darker skin tone). Most of the men, except elderly men, dress like Westerners. A large number of the Asian women where saris, seemingly due to fashion and it being what they are comfortable in. Very few of the young girls where saris, except during religious events. A number of women wear plainer head-scarves, presumably because they are Muslim. Nearly all the Muslim women I know personally wear headscarves, those I've spoken to don't do so because of pressure from family. One is a white convert who is not married and feels the veil liberates her from being seen as an object, and gave a talk about this at my school. Unfortunately I couldn't attend as I had therapy, so I don't know how she responded to some criticisms.

There are a small minority- single digits- of women in Reading who wear a full burkha. Personally I don't like it. I don't know any of these people so I can't say whether they feel liberated or oppressed.

So Mike, in light of the last few days events are you feeling a little foolish for posting this comment or not?

The consular attacks aren't exactly the first time that muslims have reacted absurdly to freedom of speech issues, Fitna, Muhammed cartoons, Muhammed teddy bear, Satanic Verses, the Hanafi Siege in 1977?


Perhaps you are right and christians and jews react just as badly to perceived insults against their precious sky fairies but would you care to provide a bit of evidence for us to demonstrate how Christians have a nasty habit of causing riots, bombings and murders across multiple continents because someone thought they were making an arty statement with a 'christ in piss'?

This is not true. He did not impose a ban, even his wife wore hijab.

This link can be helpful. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country#Turkey

I would have to say no.
I think that insulting their religion was simply the final straw in a long line of US abuse.
The insult to their religion by the way for anyone curious comes from none other then the crazy bastard who likes to burn the Koran just to piss people off and would be now taking their god to trial "symbolically".

This comes after the us has funded 1.3 billion dollars annually to a military government.
Leaked info showing that our president"George Bush" tortured and then delivered prisoners to Mubarak, you know the dictator they overthrew.
No doubt "suspected" terrorists who they then sent to their death when they decided they weren't.

So uh, yah I think that they were perfectly within their rights to storm the American embassy and burn its flag.
These people just got done fighting a dictator.
Not only a dictator but a dictator the US supported financially and politically until his citizens had enough power that it was no longer beneficial to do so.
As far as they see it, one who is being replaced by an American puppet that does not hold most of their values, while they are being insulted.

Or maybe they were just pissed that the us was hosting a "symbolical" trial of their religion.
Which frankly, I'd like to see an "International Judge Jesus Day” or someone put God on trial for the near genocide of every living thing on this planet save a single boat.
That s**t wouldn't fly either.

No one was hurt, no buildings were burnt down, stores weren't robbed, cars weren't tipped over...hey wait, doesn't that happen every few years with soccer fans?

All they did was burn a flag. You want them to not react badly when people burn a Koran, but here you are condemning them for burning a flag. A FLAG

Erm, I'm not sure where to begin with this, would you care to review it and rejoin the conversation when you are capable of arranging words into sentences that have some form of relevant coherent argument?

Seriously, what happened did a cat walk over your keyboard?

You can add the Draw Muhammad Day and the very recent Islam documentary, called Islam: The Untold Story, on Channel 4 to that list as well. Channel 4 shouldn't have bowed to those threats.

What, also, about Undercover Mosque? The documentary about the radical mosques throughout the UK that was shown? The makers were immediately investigated by the police, the UK's prosecution service and our TV authority regulator. The documentary makers sued for libel against the police and the prosecution service and won. In the judgement they essentially said the documentary was absolutely truthful and spot on:

My, what a witty rebuttal. Whats next "U mad?"

While my thoughts may be somewhat scattered on occasion and my words may not always be as clear as I like, I am generally understandable.
If you can't be pained to actually read what I write I'll make it shorter for you.


Just because someone gets overly angry about something does not necessarily mean all their anger is devoted to that single incident.
It is usually caused by repressed anger over multiple wrongs resulting in a final straw causing the event.

You want to condemn people for rioting because of a burnt Koran.
Yet look at all the hate you focus on a group of people for burning a flag, just a flag.
Or look at the people who start setting cars on fire every few years because of a soccer game.

Was it the best course of action? Probably not.
Was it the only course of action that would get their opinion on the matter actually heard? Yes most likely.

I did read what you posted, very carefully and several times but still couldn't even begin to wrest some form of coherence out of it. I apologise for taking the piss I should know better on aspie forum to mock people for communication problems especially as I'm a hundred times more literate and coherent in writing than I am verbally. If you were hurt or offended by that I offer you my most sincere apologies, it was meant in jest and I didn't mean to upset you.



I'm not sure if you are aware of events in the last few days but in Libya but the 'rioters' didn't just burn a flag they murdered several people including the US ambassador to Libya.

I'm not focusing any hate on people who burn flags or bibles or korans, I don't give a s**t what they burn as long they actually own said object and as long the act of burning that object isn't endangering life or property.

You burn a union flag, I don't care. You drop a cigarette in the middle of dry forest and start a fire that destroys many acres and I think you are an asshat. Simple world view, no hate involved.

I do have very serious moral objections to people that commit murder and property damage on multiple continents to terrorise people into never criticising their backward and morally reprehensible ways.

Just as I have very strong moral objections to the actions of some representatives of the catholic church who castrated young boys to cure them of their homosexuality if the boys complained to anyone that the priest had been repeatedly raping them.

Don't give us any crap US policy or funding or Israeli blah blah blah, these are your exact words from a few pages ago-






Multiple people have called you out on this and asked you to provide any evidence of your extraordinary claims and all you have done is completely ignore them and spout evasive rubbish.

Come up with evidence for riots and mass murders caused by the burning of an american flag or bible or talmut or retract your absurd statements.

Exactly. People who burn the Bible are usually considered to be pathetic tosspots (or people wanting to be "clever" and "controversial") but I've never heard of people in the UK being violently attacked or imprisoned for burning one. What do you think the reaction would be in tribal parts of Pakistan to someone burning a Quran? Frankly, the idea of burning a Quran in Britain is very dangerous; in Pakistan, it would probably lead to widespread murders, rioting, killing of Westerners and Christians.

I wasn't upset, I honestly thought you were just being a dick. So I responded in kind.

In my first post I was attempting to explain that allegations of George Bush supporting Mubarak financially and politically may have played a large part in the burning of the US flag as well.
Recently documents have leaked suggesting that George bush "JR" may have tortured and delivered people to Mubarak.
I do not know the specifics of it aside from that they were presumably people who spoke out against Mubarak.
We also have supplied the government there, regardless of who is leading with 1.3 billion dollars annually.
Which from the point of view of the civilians who most likely have yet to see much or any of that money looks fairly bad.

I also attempted to explain that the movie they are upset over was created by the same man who burnt a "stolen" Qur'an simply to piss people off.
This man has seemingly made it his personal goal to instigate violence at every opportunity he can.
In my personal opinion at best this mans right to free speech should be revoked and at worst he should be jailed as his actions alone are responsible for many deaths that otherwise may not have occurred and that as far as I can tell has always been his goal.


As a matter of fact I was not aware.
I still do not know all the details either aside from 4 Americans and 10 local "unmentioned" working as guards were killed.
However I would wager that the people who did this attack were looking for any reason to do so and thus used this event as a scapegoat.

I was defending the group of people who burnt the US embassies flag, which was lead by a person who also helped head the overthrowing of Mubarak.
I do not defend people like the ones responsible for the killing of those 14 people.




I have in fact responded, my response is that I can find no statistical evidence.
However I have known people who would beat someone within an inch of their life for doing so.
I was basing that comment from personal experience.
I would also like to note that the US has on more then one occasion tried to make burning a US flag a jailable offense.



I do not defend the taliban, the people responsible for 9/11 or similar occurrences.
I also do not defend the US, or peoples reaction to such events.
However I am trying to defend the people who are unfortunately stuck in the middle of this conflict.
That includes the ones who are pushed over the edge into acts of violence due to the constant harassment by media and people.
It also includes the ones who we label as terrorists because they fought us when we started dragging their neighbors out of their homes in the middle of the night and feared for their families.

It does not mean I always agree with their choices, it simply means I understand why after being pushed into a corner and feeling they had no other recourse to be heard they would feel that violence was the only way to make themselves heard over the hate.

I feel that someone has to speak on their behalf even if no one will listen, unfortunately politically there are very few who are willing to do so.
Doubly unfortunate is that I possibly sometimes do more harm then good in my attempts.