Stop criticizing that... thing we're not supposed to talk about, lest our words be used to justify violence that political correctness will demand we blame ourselves for. "British watchdog warns on veil debate," by Beth Gardiner from AP:
LONDON - The heated debate over veils that cover the faces of some British Muslim women is growing ugly and could trigger riots, the head of Britain's race relations watchdog warned on Sunday.
Britons are becoming increasingly polarized along racial and religious lines, and if they don't talk respectfully about their differences, tensions could fuel unrest, Commission for Racial Equality chairman Trevor Phillips wrote in The Sunday Times newspaper.
In an interview with British Broadcasting Corp. television, he said he didn't want Britain to suffer the kind of violence that exploded in the deprived suburbs of Paris a year ago, when disaffected young people, many from immigrant backgrounds, rioted for three weeks.
He warned there could also be a repeat of the rioting in several northern English towns in 2001 caused by racial tensions between white and mainly Muslim south Asian youths.
"Only this time the conflict would be much worse," Phillips wrote in the Times.
Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said some violent attacks already have occurred against Muslims in the country. He said some women's veils have been forcibly pulled off, mosques set on fire and Muslims beaten by gangs of men.
Any such incidents are reprehensible and are as incompatible with Western civil society as the niqab itself. But they should not be used as blackmail to end this debate, or tar all who object to veiling and other trappings of Sharia with the same brush.
[...]
The issue touches on growing anxieties about Britain's diversity and the alienation of young British Muslims like those who carried out suicide bombings on London's transit system last year, killing themselves and 52 commuters.
Last week, Prime Minister Tony Blair said the country needed to talk about how minority communities could better integrate into the wider society while maintaining their cultural distinctiveness. He called the veil "a mark of separation."
Phillips said he thought Straw's remarks had been polite and respectful, but he worried the debate had since grown ugly and rancorous. The commission he leads was created by law in 1976 to fight discrimination and encourage good race relations.
In the interview with BBC, he said "what should have been a proper conversation between all kinds of British people seems to have turned into a trial of one particular community, and that cannot be right."
Just all of the communities that practice full veiling, Mr. Phillips.
Listen to the debate about the veil at Any Questions on BBC radio4 on the internet. The second segment. Bangawala was one of the speakers. It was very 'lively'. Worth a listen for sure.
Go to BBC, then radio, then 4, then news, then Any Questions.
Borg,
Just did a Dogpile search and found the website, plus bookmarked it for latter listening.
Let these peaceful religionists seethe.
The sooner the better, the more violently the better.
We have to take these fools on sooner or later, and the sooner the better.
If the government doesn't, there will be blood in the streets.
Damn. Who cares if they riot? Honestly. If they are that afraid of Muslims rioting, doesn't that prove how volatile things are, and how they SHOULD be doing something about it?
Man I wish these people would either get a brain or some testicles. Either or, really.
We have yet to see ANYTHING OTHER than islams ugly side. You never hear anything about them doing any good for society. Just whining and crying and rioting and burning and killing when they feel they were mistreated. Or during ramadandan.
I think riots would be a good thing at this point.
Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said some violent attacks already have occurred against Muslims in the country. He said some women's veils have been forcibly pulled off, mosques set on fire and Muslims beaten by gangs of men.
Any such incidents are reprehensible and are as incompatible with Western civil society as the niqab itself.
That's just a meaningless PC statement. When the government does nothing to protect the citizens, the citizens have the right to take the law into their own hands and protect their communities.
We need to call Islam what it is, a not so cleverly disguised Church of Satan, with all the honours and pomp it accords. It is the antithesis of the Church of Christ:
1) Hate your neighbor. Have no compassion, especially when they are vulnerable.
2) Lie, especially when you are weak until you are strong again.
3) Kill: family members who embarass you, non-believers who will not convert, anyone who opposes anything you think or say.
4) Steal their lands, their possessions and their lives.
5) Rape, betray your wife by having many wives, and have sex with little boys so you don't defile yourself with women.
6) Covet your neighbors property and if you're Mohammad, covet a relative's wife and come up with a flimsy excuse to have her.
7) Dishonor the name of the Christian God; make signs for a protest in London that say "Jesus is the slave of Allah".
8) Honour your parents, unless they convert to Christianity, then kill them.
Etc.
A rose by any other name...
The veil wars is another sign of a growing, angry backlash by non-Muslims in the west.
The BBC radio can also be accessed through DrudgeReport.
That show Sat. Oct.14. starts, second segment at 19:09:21 and ends at 19:25:30.
The audience actually starts to grumble, which I have never heard before, about ten minutes in. At 19:25 Bangawala says "when you let this debate out into the pages of certain newspapers". Kind of sounds like he wants censorship of the press to me.
Now who gets to decide what we talk about in a free Western society?
...hmmm.....
Oh yeah, I remember. WE DO.
@@
You don't see random acts of violence as undermining a civil society?
Perhaps more importantly, how does any of the conduct I expressed disapproval of actually help us against the jihad?
I'd say it doesn't.
?"Only this time the conflict would be much worse," Phillips wrote in the Times."-
Mr. Phillips is a moron, because when it comes to a challange of a real issue he buckles. If conflict has to happen, it wonn't go away becasue, like Mr. Phillip, we wish it to go away. If its worse or not, Mr. P. gave us no analysis to indicate why does he think that it would be worse. Are we getting more threats from Muslims again?
Mr. P ought to remember that our way of life is threatened by a tribal and a primitive society. That challange has to be met head-on. There cannot be side stepping. This is a challange thrusted upon us. How can we avoid a conflict, when we are bombarded with one event after another from Muslims daily in our own yard to our disliking?
To george_rem: Damned if we do.
To MarisolJW: Damned if we don't.
You don't see random acts of violence as undermining a civil society?
Civil society there is already damaged, and not by 'soccer hooligans' but by Muslims. And those were not 'random' acts of violence. Some people react violently when their government does nothing to protect them.
Anybody else notice that there is a direct correlation between the extent to which jihad is a spiritual and not physical struggle according to muslim spokesman and the actual numbers/ power of the muslims in that country?
US/CAIR muslims
- small minority, not very powerful = jihad is mostly a spiritual struggle
EU/various imams muslims
- the dominant minority, fair amount of power = jihad is still mostly a spritual struggle, except for the occasional riot on Ramadan
Iran/Pakistan/Indonesis
dominant muslim majorities = all out oppression of non-muslims and jihad
How stupid do the muslims think non-muslims are?
the last i heard if a imagrant comits a crime he can be deported well start doing that and see how fast the juvinail delinklints change there tune when they get shipped back to were they cant suck off the publics teat and get away with rapeing weman and actuly have to work to survive and if there parents object to there little darlings paying the price of there crimes send them along too
If it's Trevor it's one kind of warning, if it's Melanie quite another.
Hugh -- indeed. Thanks for pointing that out. I've made the headline more specific.
Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said some violent attacks already have occurred against Muslims in the country. He said some women's veils have been forcibly pulled off, mosques set on fire and Muslims beaten by gangs of men.
l think l heard about two firecrakers being thrown into a courtyard of a mosque, and it scarded the crap out those muslim men.. can you believe if people were really serious, Muslims need to learn their place in the West, and if stop their demands for special status, and if they dont like it, go back to cesspoolstan.
MarisolJW writes:
>>You don't see random acts of violence as >>undermining a civil society?
Sadly, yes I do, where I assume you're referring
to attacks on random Muslims here.
george_rem writes:
>Civil society there is already damaged, and not >by 'soccer hooligans' but by Muslims. And those >were not 'random' acts of violence. Some people >react violently when their government does >nothing to protect them.
Sadly, you're also correct, and even more sadly,
this kind of violence is probably necessary to
prevent far greater violence in the future. I
just hope that the innocent communities in the UK
(Hindus and Sikhs) who may look like Paki muslims
are not avoided.
But the Muslims should be induced to leave. All
of them.
Bring on the riots, turmoil and violence. The sooner this war escalates, the better. The fence sitters in the west will get on board as islam begins to becomes more violent. It must get worse before it can get better and time is on their side not ours. We can win this but we have to get started. Prolonging response means more bloodshed and less chance for victory. The Axis began a war with us and grossly under estimated our resolve and capacity to absorb violence and to respond in kind. Our society fought and won at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal..hand to hand..sometimes with knives and trenching shovels. We turned Germany and Japan into smoking ruins. We can and will do it again if we need to. No surrender to these animals..no concessions.
Any government that backs down to any portion of its populace because of blackmail does not deserve support and are not worthy leaders. Laws are only effective if enforced. A law that is not enforced is not a law it is a suggestion. If the muslims riot then crack down, much like the US did in the 60’s, we sent in the military, we did the same in New Orleans after the Hurricane. There are major differences between law enforcement and military crowd control. Film the riots and if the participates escape the wrath of the military hunt them down later and prosecute them, muslim, infidel, it doesn’t matter.
“Muhammad Abdul Bari, secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said some violent attacks already have occurred against Muslims in the country. He said some women's veils have been forcibly pulled off, mosques set on fire and Muslims beaten by gangs of men”.
Did any of that happen? Anyone have a link? If it did happen it shows me the populace has lost faith in its Government, it would not surprise me, as Britain has been there a few times in its history. I would rather see the Government handle this and not mobs, but if the “leadership” is not up to the task someone will step up. If the muslims want to push this issue, push back or buy a veil for your children. It is your country fight for it or surrender and convert, your choice.
"Britons are becoming increasingly polarized along racial and religious lines"
-Trevor Phillips
It takes a hell of a lot more than living in a host country, even as a citizen, and benefitting from its freedoms, to call oneself a Briton, an American, a Canadian, a Frenchman, an Italian, an Australian, or whatever.
It is a matter of respect for that country's historic roots and traditions. By that definition, many of these people do not deserve to be dignified by the name "Britons", especially when one considers calls for introduction of Shari'a law. I hope not all Brits' sense of their identity is so weak as to let a statement like that pass as legitimate.
So now merely debating the issue of veils is enough to cause riots? Oy vey! What next, just saying the word "veil" will cause violence?
Winston Churchill was one of the titans of British history-he grows ever larger nowadays.
Could anyone please tell me exactly how many people in the UK respect the CRE and Trevor Phillips? How many of us actually listen to him and his philosophically bankrupt quango?
If you want to know what the vast majority of us think about Phillips then follow this link (it says it all):
http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2003/05/12/trevor-phillips.html
The CRE site is at:
http://www.cre.gov.uk/index.html
Bear in mind that this body alone - appointed by the PM, not elected - costs the UK taxpayers over £600,000,000 (800,000,000 US dollars) each year according to the National Audit Office. This is nothing more than legalised daylight robbery.
Dominic.
After reading of these issues and anticipating our PC liberal future in the States, I am regularly appreciative of our 2nd Amendment Rights "to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Bring on the Isamo-facists, I am armed to the teeth!!!!
So 'Debate on Veils could trigger Rioting'eh.I say "Bring on Debates'-about every aspect of Muslims in Britain-their continual whines & demands,Black tented Crows everywhere which are certainly birds of ill omen-blood running from Halal slaughtered creatures in the streets-ugly great mosques spreading like a cancer rash over the face of Britain-let the common folk,the non Muslim majority taxpayers DEMAND DISCUSSIONS AND SOLUTIONS FROM THEIR COWARDLY LEADERS...First of all,strip all these non- elected pandering organizations of their funds as well as booting out every damn welfare, Jihadi Cleric & their wives,brats and concubines.If Blair's government had an ounce of gumption,this would have happened long ago.
"British watchdog warns on veil debate," by Beth Gardiner from AP:
Whose dog is he and whom is he watching?
Sadly, we all know the answer.
?"Only this time the conflict would be much worse," Phillips wrote in the Times."-
Mr. Phillips is a moron, because when it comes to a challange of a real issue he buckles. If conflict has to happen, it wonn't go away becasue, like Mr. Phillip, we wish it to go away.
Is Mr. Phiilps' middle name Quisling? or is it Chamberlain?
You don't see random acts of violence as undermining a civil society?
Perhaps more importantly, how does any of the conduct I expressed disapproval of actually help us against the jihad?
I'd say it doesn't.
Posted by: MarisolJW
Undermine *WHAT* civil society? Random and other acts of violence may have to be used to RESTORE civil society.
Please give it some thought, Marisol. What exactly does civil society mean to you? The freedom to draw cartoons regardless of what they are about? The freedom to be gay? The freedom for women to walk about unmolested? The freedom to make moies no matter how much others may disapprove of the subject?
Second, it helps a LOT against jihad since they are truly not a very brave lot and they tend to retreat when confronted with force. See Spain, the Battle of Tours, Vienna, and so on. It also reminds them WHOSE land they are presently ON and that they need to act accordingly. It may even serve to give them cause to consider repatriating and that would be indded a very desirable result. On the other hand it would also embolden those who truly wish to disassociate themselves from therse rogues.
This would be my first post here although I have been lurking and reading for at least a year.
I have the feeling that although it would be advisable to proceed as quickly as possible with our own "Polytheist-Jihad", there will be no stomach for it unless there are race riots as in France. Philips is correct in that if it happens in the UK it SHALL be much much worse. The biggest problem is thatWesterners need justification for violence and that necessitates that the Jihadists start it first, and the more evil the better.
It's one reason why I was hoping the Toronto 17 actually succeeded in accomplishing their deeds, unfortunaetly likely (but not necessarily) at the high cost of innocent lives.
On a secondary note, I would appreciate feedback on an email I sent to CCAIR (Canadian CAIR) posted at this web site:
http://www.alberta-autonomy.com/first_email_to_CCAIR.htm
Specifically I was wondering if it was succinct and poignant or rude and crude or somewhere in between. Any feedback would be appreciated.
Thanks,
http://www.therockalltimes.co.uk/2003/05/12/trevor-phillips.html
The CRE site is at:
http://www.cre.gov.uk/index.html
Bear in mind that this body alone - appointed by the PM, not elected - costs the UK taxpayers over £600,000,000 (800,000,000 US dollars) each year according to the National Audit Office. This is nothing more than legalised daylight robbery.
Dominic.
Posted by: necessitasnonhabetlegem
I've heard of the famous English Sense of Humour. Is putting a former broadcaster in charge of such things an expression of that?
From the cre website:
We work for a just and integrated society, where diversity is valued. We use persuasion and our powers under the law to give everyone an equal chance to live free from fear of discrimination, prejudice and racism.
When muftis hold threatening and insulting banners in public and outside churches.. why does cre NOT use its "powers under the law" to give everyone an equal chance to live free from fear of discrimination, prejudice and racism?
doublespeak ddoouubblleessppeeaakk
Their statement flies in the face of Reality and should be given the "Great Humor in doubletalk Award" of the Month.
I'm lookinbg around the cre website.. hey I kinda like those "Irish Travellers". Fun-loving bunch of lads.
* The decline of Britishness:
This happened in all focus groups with white people. They attributed the decline to four main causes:
* the arrival of large numbers of migrants;
* the 'unfair' claims made by people from ethnic minorities on the welfare state;
* the rise in moral pluralism;
* and the failure to manage ethnic minority groups properly, due to what participants called 'political correctness'.
'Political correctness' was said to be present at all levels of government in Britain (local, regional and national) and to be driven by the political and legal agenda of the European Union.
Most white participants were distressed by this perceived decline of Britishness. They felt victimised and frustrated, and many anticipated that social unrest would become inevitable. Much of their frustration was targeted at Muslims, rather than at ethnic minorities in general. Indeed, there were some indications that white respondents were drawing distinctions between ethnic minority groups.
]
Seems like white people aren't nearly as "racist" as the MSM and government/moslem types like to suggest.. The cre study clearly states that whites see *moslems* as the problem rather than *ethnic minorities*. Biinng!
The study ha s acondescending tone overall and I am sure it is used to find ways to trick Britons into being more accepting toward those who come to insult them and pick their pockets.
Trevor Phillips warns debate on veiling could trigger riots
Stop criticizing that... thing we're not supposed to talk about, lest our words be used to justify violence that political correctness will demand we blame ourselves for.
I try to stay off JW and then I give it a peek and I have to read this thing. If it wasn't so upsetting because of the potential consequences for all our lives then it would be funny.
Debating veils could cause riots.
Drawing cartoons could cause riots. Ooops. It already has.
If they want people to stop smoking i suggest the following: Smoking could cause riots.
Trevor Philips needs to be indicted into the Hall of "WHAT's WRONG WITH THEM?" I think the American Talkshow host Laura Ingraham came up with that line.
She'd relate story after story of Liberals Gone Wild.. sidecracking stuff really..
Like the "inclusion of Asians in porno movies" conference held at a Film School in North Carolina. Panelist after panelist bemoaned the lack of "inlusion" of Asians in porno films. she had soundbites. It was sidesplittingly funny! To top it all off they all watched a porno with an ALL-ASIAN cast at the end of the conference! By he way there were no actual Asians [and I mean the real kind] in attendance at this conference!!
This Trevor Phillips character would fit in rather well with these kooks. he scray ting is these are all people in positions of influence and power.
Trevor Phillips, yet another useless POS dhimmi in the Dhimmi-regime of Imam Toni Blairistani. Here's hoping that some of the true followers of MadMo kidnap him and saw off his wrteched, treasonous head with a dull blade, nice and slow. He deserves nothing less.
There is no chance of even resisting the invasion and colonization as long as people like Trevor Phillips remain in positions of power. They are traitors who deserve no mercy or quarter whatsoever. I realize that's harsh, but we've no chance of resistance until these evil treasonous scum are removed and destroyed - by any means available.
1. Society governed by the rule of law in the setting of a "social contract" government, i.e., that the gov't derives its authority from the consent of the governed. (Not, say, from coercion by force, or from clergy, a state religion, etc.)
2. Freedom of speech, freedom to offend, freedom to dissent, freedom of worship. The right to bear arms. Gender and racial equality protected by law.
Long story short, I really like the US Constitution.
My first objection to vigilantism is that one person's ability to take the law into his own hands is everyone's ability to do so: Human nature demonstrates from very early childhood the notion of "He's doing it, so why can't I?" So vigilantism by one encourages vigilantism by anybody. The rule of law gives way to tribalism -- protecting the people you do like, and abusing the people you don't, unless they make it worth your while to keep them around (Sounds a little like the dhimma codes to me). So much for civil society.
My second objection is more specific to the task at hand: It's not helpful; in fact, it's strategically very unwise.
It only reinforces the dichotomy that propagandists -- the practitioners of "slow jihad" in the media -- put forth where one is either unconditionally friendly and unquestioning of Muslim activity in one's country, or a raving nutjob going around setting fires.
Yes, there are shades of gray between those two distinctions, but someone on the fence, thinking that this jihad business is a problem, but finding distasteful the notion that their allies would be the type to commit random acts of violence, might opt to stay on the fence.
CAIR and their ilk would like them to think we're all a bunch of seething haters whom one is either with or against, and such activity plays right into their hands.
So, yes, I've thought about it, but for all of the reasons above, I still don't think random acts of violence accomplish anything except for fleeting, emotional kicks for the rationally challenged.
Marisol...Okay we now know what you feel and why.
How about your suggestions on what to do NOW?
It seems that more and more we elect goverments over whom we have NO control and who seem more interested in re-election and pandering to the votes of minorities and the multinationals rather than running the country, not to the satisfaction of the plutocratic elites but to that of the average voter.
Here in Oz it is NEVER a choice of the better party but always the choice of the lesser evil and the government seems to be taking only token notice of the needs and the desires of the masses while pandering to the minorities.
You make out vigilantiism to be a crime and to a degree I can agree with you. But what happens when the state clearly FAILS to carry out its mandate to care for and to protect the majority of voters? What then do you advise?
There appear to be 3 choices: suffer in silence, fight or to try and force the governments to act. But what if they refuse? What then? When does protecting yrself and yr family become civil war or rebellion?
Addendum....as for CAIR seeing all nonMuslims as haters of islam. Why is that a problem? Almost everyone here does HATE Islam and I certainly do.
Why the need to pander to a bunch of bigots who are quite happy to exploit our every weakness?
It is not as if islam does nothing to deserve hatred. This is exactly what they want: to see us as too scared to call a spade a spade or Koranic violence as ISLAMIC violence. If the media would also call a spade a spade they would not have a leg to stand upon.
IMO this is WHY they have the power that they do
which is well out of proportion to their number.
LET THE RIOTS BEGIN! "British muslim," oxymoron isn't it?
Regretfully, the backlash would most probably end up hurting females in burkhas, etc, not destroy every Mosque and Koranic school in the UK, or target the males in Islamic garb or those morans holding up placards with their hate. Normally a rising like this is completely unfocussed and misses its proper target, the innocent get hurt and the guilty sit there laughing at the fact that hate has been ratched up a bit more so they can manipulate it.
If there has to be a violent backlash then please target the Mosques when full of devout preening males at Friday prayers and not a poor down trodden female on her own who has not even worked out that she is a slave to Islam.
It is of course far superior to let the government do this sort of thing as they are not a mob intent on lynching anyone, the issue is that the government has failed us so this happans, as for me, well time to fasten down the hatches, it will get real stormy soon.
MisIslamist, you hit the point, people like me find themselves contemplating the fact that the government, the EU and Islam are our enemies, to deal with Islam requires forcing our government and the EU to do their jobs, its a heck of a nasty choice, I never thought that I would be in a position that I feel that the only choice is for people to rebel against their own damn country and could find themselves hitting one of the boyz in blue over the head with an iron bar when they attempt to protect a mosque, its a crazy world.
I suppose after this lot people like me will end up with more than just a speeding ticket to their name, go figure!!!
Marisol
What you've stated above makes perfect sense in a society where the rule of law is actually upheld by those responsible to enforce the law. Just as important would be the equal application of the law to all residents i.e. there wouldn't be one set of laws for the average Nigel Fletcher, and another set of laws for the average Wasim Akhtar.
The reason you are printing such news stories in the first place is the fact that the law is being enforced only on Brits - Whites most strictly regulated, then non-Muslim 'Asians', non-Muslim Blacks and (presumably non-Muslim) Jews; all this while, Muslims are getting away with anything, from violent demonstrations against the Pope, Denmark, Israel and the US, right down to things like all graveyards facing Mecca, commodes facing away from Mecca, et al. In the case of the cartoon rage, if you remember, the British police made sure to crack down on anyone videotaping the demonstrators and their vile signs, while whistling in the wind while they chanted their vile slogans in Urdu and Arabic. The average Nigel could be forgiven for thinking that this is the Shariah police, and that Britain is fast morphing into Fuckistan, if it hasn't already.
If you were unfortunate enough to live in a country like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan or Bangladesh, what would you do? There, not only do Muslims take the law into their own hands, but the law is one thing for them, and another for the Kafirs. So whenever I read items like, say, Dayaks massacreing Madurese Muslim colonialists in Kalimantan, I do what I normally don't do in such genocidal case: I congratulate them. Point being: what are Infidels in such countries supposed to do - pretend that the law will treat them on par with the faithful, when the very basis of those laws - Shariah - is hard coded bigotry against them? That would be insane. During Krystallnacht, a lot of Jews made it a point to illegally go into hiding, and eventually make it out of the Reich. If they had the numbers anywhere to riot against the Nazis, would they have been unjustified in taking the law into their own hands?
Now, we know that the country under discussion is the United Kingdom, and not an Islamic Republic. But here's the rub. These days, it's getting more and more difficult to distinguish between Britain and your average tinpot Islamic regime. Given that British Infidels - Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Jews, Blacks, Sikhs and Hindus - feel that both Muslims and the government are ganged up against them (a la Fuckistan or KSA), what exactly are they supposed to do when they know that those Muslims are in their face, shaking down neighborhoods, trying to convert churches into mosques, make public burial sites Muslim-only burial sites, while police and government at all levels do nothing.
I normally don't excuse vigilante activity either. However, given the choice between that, and Britain simply bending over because Muslims are too pushy while Infidels are too docile, I'd call on average Brits to do exactly what Dayaks would do in a similar situation. (Today, Indonesia doesn't try messing with Kalimantan, since a number of their dawa merchants have been handed their heads on platters. [Warning: grizzly photos]) Despite the calls on them to don suicide vests and enter that brothel in the sky, they somehow seem to forget it when offered that very option.
Between England and Britain, they have had rulers like Richard III, Henry VIII, Elizabeth I who have had no qualms about sending their enemies to the tower. Since there is unfortunately no such mechanism in present day England, and neither do they have an Oliver Cromwell, that's pretty much what they have.
This just has to look like becoming a trend, and Muslims will get the message. Hopefully, the government too will get the message, and the British police will react to Muslim tactics in the same way that countries like Uzbegistan or Kyrghistan do.
DafferD
I agree totally about targeting women and anyway you would have to have quite few problems to do that BUT what if one of their men attacks you and you deal with him and then she attacks you?
IMO if a woman attacks you and it is serious and not some mild domestic dispute where you simply said to much, what do you do?
If she uses a weapon she is no longer a woman but a combatant.
If there are more than one they are all combatants.
If her male companion was a member of a group trying to hurt you and she joins in she is a combatant.
Combatant should be treated with deadly force.
However some Muslim women walking past are hardly combatants even if they give you a mouthful on the way.
I am a Hindu. The Hindus have paid a heavy price for acceding to the Muslims' irrational demands every now and then. The riot factor hastens the complaisence.
My only caution to Britain is - don't accede to Muslims' idiotic demands just because of the riot factor, otherwise Britain will go the India way.
Today they will riot for the veil. Tomorrow, they will riot just because there are Britons in England.
Marisol, I agree with your beliefs and the reasoning behind it.
I do think that when the government abandons its duty and refuses to take action to protect its citizens, then the government must take responsibility for the response that follows. I will not be the one to go torching buildings or lynching, but without a doubt that is where things will head if our government refuses to even acknowledge what is going on. The more that Administration policies are disconnected from reality, the greater the danger for every one of us. Leaving this in the hands of individual hotheads is not the way to go.
Infidel Pride, you warned us that those were grisly photos, but I'm still very disturbed at seeing those, and wish I hadn't. I've got a son about the same age as that beheaded baby; sometimes this jihad gets to be too much. Our anger is growing, our patience has limits.
The Dyaks call a "spade a spade" and know aggression when they see it, be it political or religious or both. They also believe in only total war.
It is quite amazing that no Muslium group has complained nor that the Indonesian army has done nothing(unlike east timor) but it is a salutary lesson to those who advocate peaceful means for solving Islamic problems in the west.
Muslim "warriors" much prefer easy targets and this is why instead of taking the "hard" Constaninople they oozed to the east and west in search of easier loot. This is also why they like civilians targets and ambushes. They have MEVER had any honour in war or peace. No truce with them is ever kept , nor any treaty. The only thing that they understand is extermination.
Assalamau Laikum all,
May I wish all muslims/wuslims ...happy Eid. I want to extend this to all JW readers too...all of whom are potential converts and thus celebraters of a future Eid.
"Well Well Veil"....this is what the famous English saying has degenerated to. Many peoples here were talking about feeling sorry for muslimas... about the veil being forced upon them and how they are opressed.
Instead what do we see...we see that muslimas themselves are defending their right to wear it to the hilt. They don't feel that they are pressured to wear it, they say "it gives us freedom....it liberates us, the understanding is in one who wears it.
The British are ones for "walking in the midday sun", the ones for "trying out local cuisine in far lands" and in "seeing the wisdom for other cultures"...this is what has made them so successful over millenia.
So where has this British spirit gone to, I would have thought many girls particularily...the fat ones, the pregenant ones, the single mums, the spotty ones, the ones having affairs with married mens and the blonde ones who keep being harassed would welcome taking advantage of this veil custom to give them the he freedom from harrasment that they so desperately crave for.
Perhaps some should try it prior to complete dismissal.
I do agree that the school teacher took things a bit far...she must uncover her face during teaching childrens...anything else is just plain stupid.
I also see from the Kafur comments here that some peoples are desperate for riots to start (americaingermany is a case in point), she would be quite happy to see fires, violence and injury to peoples and security officers, while she is safe...watching from her lounge in Germany....because she is bored and has nothing to do all day.
I am sorry but this is not good enough...I do hope muslims remain calm and debate the subject as Jack Straw requested.
Many Muslims will see this as an attack on their culture...and perhaps to an extenet it is...but applying culture in the right places is the way forward...not riots as many of the Kafur have asked for ....shame on you.
Personally I think wearing a veil is a bit conservative...I have not worn it myself for quite a while, (the last time I did wear it was at my marriage over 20 years ago).
Lets hope for peace and less of this talk of riots.
No peace from this front while the cancerous wave of the Ummah still tries to spread its rubbish about the "perfect man" who murdered. lied, cheated and raped: some perfect man!! If that is an example of what you wish us to imitate
then you are at the wrong site although if islam keeps pushing we may have to imitate him to get rid of him for once and for all.
As for you Naseem I have no desire to convert you to Christianity( or similar) at all. I just feel pity that a rational woman like yourself still believes in the rubbish drilled into her by her madrassa teachers.
With Islam as the primary causal agent of much of the world's violence, just because your sect is peaceful, does not esclude you and your fellow sectarians from some of the responsibility for this.
Your religion was fostered in blood, evolved via lies and violence and still continues to demand acquiescence or blood or jizayha. You who look from inside of a cage with invisible bars cannot see this as it takes both intellect and courage to apostasise in Islam and I fear that you have neither.
However you seem a pleasant women and perhaps might be better off posting on "recipe watch" rather than wasting your time proselytising here.
Lets hope for peace and less of this talk of riots.
Posted by: Naseem
well Naseem the only hope for peace would be for islam to disappear from the face of the earth. that said, the road getting there will get more bumpy for muslims.
your son is smart leaving pakistan, and smarter than you if droops islam altogether that is if he wants to live peacefully with the Brits.
Awwwww!!! I wanted to see how Mr AR troll jumped out from under his bridge and answered my questions.
Also,there was NO need to delete my post as it almost seems as though he hit a sore spot and by deleting his and mine it makes me hesitate and wonder why when you allow blatant trolls like Naseem and Shia to continue undeleted.
Please explain...or am I going to be deleted here also for daring to question Herod?
The face veil cannot be worn at all in Italy, as it is illegal to cover the face fully for security reasons - presumably problems with rioting etc. We should introduce a similar law in this country, for the same reasons - that way Muslims could not claim they were being picked on. Muslim women on hajj can't wear the face-veil so they have absolutely no cause for complaint.
MisIslamist --
As for suggestions on what to do, there is no single answer that covers it all: Just as the jihad is being waged in different areas in different ways (slow jihad, fast jihad, propaganda and dissimulation, abuse of the legal system and courts, direct combat, suicide bombings, etc.), the response obviously needs to be tailored to what it aims to thwart.
There's a saying that goes something like "When all you have is a hammer, all your problems are nails." I'm probably mangling the exact wording, but I hope the main idea still comes through.
So what can one do as an alternative to lashing out in violent frustration? Plenty.
This is an ideological conflict, both with the jihadists and the Westerners they've hoodwinked into fighting their battles. There is no jihad without the ideology that drives it. Not everyone can join the Special Forces and do covert ops, but the ideological aspect is accessible to everybody. And you're in the right place for that, I'm sure you know.
Individual action may seem futile, but sufficient numbers of individuals starts to turn the tide among the population.
Do the unglamorous stuff -- write your congressmen/senators. Persistently. Write your newspapers. Talk to your family. Friends. Law enforcement.
Withdraw financial support from political parties (send some of that our way, it's tax-deductible). But do support candidates that "get it." Parties will take note.
And so on. There's plenty to do that is actually productive, where vigilantism is not.
MisIslamist -- nothing personal in deleting your response to AR. I only deleted the reply because I deleted the comment to which it referred -- trying to minimize confusion in an already long thread.
In truth, if a woman dresses modestly, be she Muslim or Christian, the veil is not needed. I see it as a divisive issue. I only wear a simple hat at Christian worship each Sunday. By dressing in a modest manner (in western clothes ), she is ( the Muslim woman ) in no need for the veil. The veil is a sign of wanting to live in the middle ages, not live in the 21st century.
So true bigcatgirl - so true. People in veils ARE aliens, and choose to BE aliens.
Riots in Great Britain ?
"Bring 'em on !" was my initial reaction.
Under the headline "French Cops Ambushed" was this sad news:
EPINAY-SUR-SEINE, France -- On a routine call, three unwitting police officers fell into a trap. A car darted out to block their path, and dozens of hooded youths surged out of the darkness to attack them with stones, bats and tear gas before fleeing. One officer was hospitalized, and no arrests made.
The recent ambush was emblematic of what some officers say has become a near-perpetual and increasingly violent conflict between police and gangs in tough, largely immigrant French neighbourhoods that were the scene of a three-week paroxysm of rioting last year.
One small police union claims officers are facing a "permanent intifada."
Ethnic integration and violence against police are both becoming issues in the campaign for the French presidency. Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy, the leading contender on the right, said this month that those who do not love France do not have to stay.
______________________
Is this what's next for the UK ? Crush these evil bastards now !
As for the veil issue, I worked for a major Canadian bank for 26 years. At Hallowe'en we all got quite nervous when people in costumes entered the branch. Who knew if the costume covered a weapon, if the mask disguised a robber ? The Muslim veil is the same thing, a threat to security. There could just as easily be a man lurking under the burka.
And those claims by Muhammad Abdul Bari regarding acts of violence against Muslims, is there any proof of these events ?
All things considered, pulling off a veil hardly qualifies as an act of violence when compared to wholesale beheadings.
I certainly don't agree with random violence - with the proper mobilisation of the people of the UK Muslims will just have to learn how to fit in and be "good neighbours". Once we mobilise the silent majority the politicians will have to serve the public instead of their own agendas.
Naseem, believe or not but Islam is not an attractive proposition. If you learnt more about your faith you would realise this.
"It's one reason why I was hoping the Toronto 17 actually succeeded in accomplishing their deeds, unfortunaetly likely (but not necessarily) at the high cost of innocent lives."
HardBody -- Eek! I take it you don't live in Toronto or, if you do, that you don't use the TTC. At any rate, I'm glad my family and I weren't murdered to prove anyone's point. I'm also glad our Prime Minister wasn't beheaded.
Yes the argument that it would be better if the terrorists succeeded sounds awfully like the arguments for the burning of the Reichstag or Gulf of Tonkin to me!!!
Hardbody, if news of jihadist attacks give you "hope", then please see here for a list of jihadist attacks against us infidels. Usually more than 1000 deaths per month. There, feel more "hopeful" now?
http://www.tribuneindia.com/2002/20020926/world.htm#7
Women Taliban’s new weapon
Kabul, September 25
Taliban fighters, still hunted by the US-led coalition 10 months after they were driven from power, are increasingly using Afghan women to carry arms under their burqas, according to US military officials.
Like “mules” used in other countries as drug couriers, women have effectively become the new secret weapon of the Taliban extremists in their clandestine operations.
Living “mostly” in total poverty, these Afghan women seem to have been “bought” for these missions. It is an apparently new phenomenon in this country where strict Islamic values prevail and under which any questioning of a woman is considered a serious misdeed.
“It proves that psychologically the Taliban, weakened by the anti-terrorist campaign, have decided to adopt more extreme solutions,” said a Kabul-based western military expert.
A US military spokeswoman, Lieut-Col Carla Sylvester, said at Bagram Air Base north of here, on Monday that US troops during raids on Sunday in central and eastern Afghanistan discovered weapons hidden under women’s burqas, suspected to have been concealed on behalf of the Al-Qaida.
“We have seen several incidents of this kind where women are used to hide weapons and other items under their burqas,” she said.
The burqa is an all-encompassing robe with a cloth grill over the eyes, which women were systematically forced to wear under the Taliban’s harsh regime from 1996 to 2001. AFP
"I also see from the Kafur comments here that some peoples are desperate for riots to start ...
but applying culture in the right places is the way forward...not riots as many of the Kafur have asked for ....shame on you.
Posted by Naseem.
Well I guess this is the proof that Islam is superior to the West. After all, Muslims would NEVER resort to violence. It prefers reasoned debate, as we all know.
I just caught the last 30 seconds of a veil debate on TVO's The Agenda.
Tarek Fatah was saying that, if he is talking to someone who is wearing a mask, that person is saying that he has the right to see Fatah but Fatah doesn't have the right to see him. He said something like, people have the right to practice their religion and dress as they like but if they cover their faces they are infringing on other people's rights.
A woman in a hijab said that it is legal for women in Ontario to walk around topless so it should be okay to cover one's face and she held a veil in front of her face in a kind of seductive or saucy way. Tarek Fatah said something like, "I knew it would get around to sex."
It's going to be aired again at 5:00 o'clock tomorrow morning, for anyone who gets TVOntario. I'm going to tape it.
http://tinyurl.com/yc8pjv
The Feature: Tarek Fatah
The founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress resigned his position with the moderate group he co-founded after receiving death threats this past summer. We'll hear his story.
The Debate: Muslim Women and the Veil
Some say it's an expression of religious tolerance and individual freedom. Others say it has no place in a secular society. Tonight, the rising debate over Muslim women and their veils.
Leila Ahmed
Homa Arjomand
Sheema Khan
Katherine Bullock
Tarek Fatah
Josephine, catlover and special_guest:
My point was not so much I wanted something bad to happen to unsuspecting and innocents. My focus was more toward the lack of "awakening" in Central Canada which is asleep at the wheel. Somebody must have nudged the driver for a second while the ISlamists tried to get their Dhimmi Sharia laws implemented in Ontario and Quebec. That is completely out of the ordinary for Ottawa and anything out of central Canada, which believe me peeves everyone in the west where I am from.
Even the Police chief couldn't bring himself to admit that the 17 were MUSLIMS! Please allow me to rephrase it in that updated context:
" I expect that one day Canada will have it's 9/11. At that point in time I hope that the victims (if any) would be those that allowed the perpetrators protection from public and security scrutiny while allowing them to fllow along a course which lead to the disaster. I HOPE that it doesn't have to happen for us to "wake up". But knowing Canada the lethargic comatose "nation" at the most alert of times, is guaranteed to become a casualty. The responsibility and the repercussions should be felt by those alone - although we KNOW that won't be the case. However my point being it will come to this, and the upside if there is one is that the "narcoleptic nation" may awake enough to open it's eyes and REACT.
DaffersD writes: "I never thought that I would be in a position that I feel that the only choice is for people to rebel against their own damn country and could find themselves hitting one of the boyz in blue over the head with an iron bar when they attempt to protect a mosque, its a crazy world."
I fear you'll have to consider far worse than hitting one of the boyz in blue over the head with an iron bar, DaffersD. You'll ultimately need to face the grim prospect of firing a 9mm hollow point into his or her head. For the sake of their pensions, or their salaries, the boyz and girlz in blue will gladly brutalize and murder the likes of you and your family, children included, because their treasonous paymasters have ordered it. If they are wlling to haul a young girl into jail because she complained about being assigned to a group of Urdu-speakers in school, they'll do absolutely anything. If they start taking some serious casulties for enforcing the Orwellian "hate crimes" laws, they might start to think it isn't worth it.
This is the state of things in the UK, sad to say. Unless by some miracle Nick Griffin is elected to PM and the BNP controls Parliament, or if General Sir Richard Dannatt should realize his ultimate patriotic duty and overthrow the UK regime of Tony Blair via military coup to become Britain's Lord Protector a la Cromwell, you and other British patriots will be facing some very hard choices ndeed. We aren't that far behind you here across the pond - despite the boasts of some. I am not a person who enjoys violence. I've killed animals to be eaten as food but take little pleasure in the act itelf apart from the quickness of the kill. I am especially horrified about the prospect of using lethal force against one of our own (like a police officer). It is a grim absolute last resort, to be sure. How sad it is that we're getting to the point that that it is the only resort left against our own treasonous ruling elite and their faithful employees. God help us all.
Hardbody, I realise what you wished for was a wake-up call/trip wire, hence my analogy with the burning of the Reichstag and the Gulf of Tonkin incident. It may well be true that more lives will be need to be lost for the governments to take firm action against Islamists, but the end doesn't justify the means - except for Muslims and Macchiavelli.
Hardbody - I had a feeling that's what you meant but it sounded harsh, especially since it seemed that you weren't writing from Toronto. If it's going to happen, I'd rather Canada learn a lesson elsewhere, of course.
It was ridiculous that the chief of police wouldn't come out and state that the accused were Muslim. Do you remember Christie Blatchford's column, in which she said pointed out that most of them were named Mohammed? It was funny but to the point. I think she got some flak for that.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper certainly gives me the impression that he is aware of the Islamic terrorist threat. We have to hope that voters keep him, or people like him, in office.
Yes, unfortunately I often sound harsh and have to restate myself. It's a curse, but I have to live with it :(
Curious as you're a Canadian:
Am I in trouble legally for that letter to Canadian CAIR? Am I going to be taken to the Human Rights tribunal or am I in the clear still. No answer from them yet.
http://www.alberta-autonomy.com/first_email_to_CCAIR.htm