Joel Mowbray picks up on the latest example of egregious New Duranty Times obfuscation.
In what must have come as a shock to its readers, the New York Times reported that the July 7, 2005 terrorist attacks in London brought “home to Britain fears of homegrown terrorist attacks among its disenfranchised South Asian population.”Imagine the surprise of many to learn that Britain is now under attack from “disenfranchised South Asian” people, not those who murder in the name of their Islamic faith.
Cruelly ironic is that in the course of attempting to avoid offending Muslims, the Times managed to defame two larger groups of people—all in a single sentence.
And that’s setting aside the fact that the deadliest 7/7 bomber was not even “South Asian.” Germaine Maurice Lindsay, who changed his name to Abdullah Shaheed Jamal after converting to Islam at age 15, moved to the UK from Jamaica.
A plain reading of the silly Times sentence would suggest that the British discussions of terrorism for the past two years have revolved, in large part, around fears of Indian Hindus, the single largest South Asian demographic in the United Kingdom. (According to the last UK census, immigrants who trace their ancestry to India, over 80% of whom are Hindu, are the only population of South Asian descendants topping one million in the country.)
Presumably, the Times was seeking a gentle way of pointing the finger at ethnic Pakistani Muslims, or perhaps even Muslims hailing from Bangladesh. But the self-proclaimed “paper of record” couldn’t bring itself to write anything more specific than “South Asian population.”
Read it all.
They had a debate on Fox on if we should ban or curtail Muslim immigration. I was disappointed that most said no even if it was curtailed to countries like Syria and Iran. One said it was unconstitutional. Yeah buddy, stick by the constitution as Muslims immigrate here seeking to replace it with Sharia law. I wish one of them would have used Europe as an example of the result of Muslim immigration and if thats what they would want here.
MY God, Wayne Rogers is a moron. Timothy McVeigh = Jihad around the world.
I have been reading a translation of the Qu'ran for the past several months. I think all of us in the West should read what Muslims consider the sacred word of God. If the staff of the Times read it, they would have no problem correctly identifing the bombers.
I understand that up to 80% of all Muslims do not speak Arabic and have been encouraged to memorize the Qu'ran. I encourage them to read the Qu'ran and discover what they have signed on for. It isn't pretty.
I have been reading a translation of the Qu'ran for the past several months. I think all of us in the West should read what Muslims consider the sacred word of God. If the staff of the Times read it, they would have no problem correctly identifing the bombers.
I understand that up to 80% of all Muslims do not speak Arabic and have been encouraged to memorize the Qu'ran. I encourage them to read the Qu'ran and discover what they have signed on for. It isn't pretty.
Correct me if I am mistaken; but doesn't "disenfranchised" mean someone whose right to vote was taken away? It seems that British Muslims vote. I'm also at a loss as to how doctors making over 100 quid a year could possibly be described as "disenfranchised."
The “please don’t hurt us" pacifiers feel much safer calling these Moslem terrorists, "South Asians", because in America most people think of the Orient when the word Asian is used. The only time these cowards grow balls is when it comes time to attack Christians and/or America.
Greetings:
Another example of why we need a "malpractice" law for journalism.
Thursday night, a local TV station, KPIX, reported on the CAIR
report on the increase in anti-muslim violence without mentioning that the US Dept. of Justice had named CAIR as an "un-indicted co-conspirator.
"disenfranchised" means not allowed to practice Sharia law in a non Muslim country.
disenfranchised? so the muslims are deprived of power? marginalised? really? how so? the british people are literally getting slaughtered by these people and have giving up vast swarthes of land, resources and money to islamic immigrants and they state that they are still "disenfranchised".
Like an ostrich burying its head in the sand as a hungry lion approaches.
No wonder the Times is in dire financial straits.
tanstaffl stated:
Mr. Spencer is making that task ever more convenient:
Introduction by Bryan Preston
Introduction by Robert Spencer
Sura 1, "The Opening"
Sura 2, "The Cow," verses 1-39
Sura 2, "The Cow," verses 40-75
Sura 2, "The Cow," verses 75-140
Blogging the Qur’an: Sura 2, “The Cow,” verses 141-210
One of the worst things about liberal PC is that it is unable to stop, even when heading into the abyss.
The logic of liberal PCness drives the political and media elites to racism, as in this case where they stygmatise an entire race, south Asians, and thus being actually racist, though they will be horrified to be deemed so.
desertdawg29palms
You are right. Not only do they vote, but they vote multiple times. Muslms have been engaged in massive fraud in the last elections. This is documented.
The postal vote system set up Blair is easy to manipulate. Who the hell knows who is in the burqa, and in any case, it is the dominant male who makes the decisions in a Muslim family.
Damn those Hindus. You don't know what it's like over here, with all these sacred cows. There's a rumour that they're trying to persuade one onto an airliner and then provoke it to run amok. The fiendish swine.
I'm personally afraid that they will unleash that god with all the arms and swords. What a trial for everyone that will be.
The airports will have to check everyone, no matter how many arms they've got of course.
This will really snowball, I can see it. I'm waiting for the jews to unleash a Golem upon our unsuspecting Western ways.
I could go on, but I digress.
It's incredible that they would rather falsely accuse a whole ethnic group (isn't that racism?), than examine islamism.
It's time other 'South Asian' groups stood up and complained, very loudly, reminding the media not to tell nasty lies about them.
"One said it [restrictions on Muslim migration] was unconstitutional."
-- from a posting above, describing a program on Fox during which "experts" discussed restrictions
Nonsense. On what theory? "Equal protection of the laws"? How does that apply to foreigners? Any country is entitled, or should be entitled, to decide for itself who it wants to settle within it. The citizens and government of that country have a perfect right to consider the Total Belief-system, where such exists, of those who wish to enter the country. They have a right to examine the behavior of the adherents of such a system in many other lands, now, and in the past, and are entitled to draw conclusions from the lengthy historical record, as well as today's news and tomorrow's headlines.
In the last (2001) census 3.1% of the population (of England) put themselves down as Muslim, 1.1% as Hindu, 0.7% as Sikh, 0.5% as Jewish and 0.3% as Buddhist (Wales, Scotland and N. Ireland not included.
Both the MCB and Ken Livingstone have recently bandied about the figure of 2 million Muslims in the UK.
Bizarrely, the Census webpage on religion for the general browser refuses to give an exact figure: it says there are 661,000 Pakistani Muslims and 261,000 Bangladeshi Muslims. Presumably the Turkish community are all freethinkers.
We are being colonised. Our government encourages it. No need to read between the lines.
davemate
i feel encouraged to keep replying to your posts as you are spot on each time. this is colonisation and the british, european peoples do not recognise this. only a handful of brits, spanish, french and americans realise this. we are being colonised by saudi wahabbism. within one generation my friend, we have been invaded and colonised faster than anytime in our history. even the romans suffered heavily. we on the other hand opened the doors, pay for their health care, rape huge swarthes of ancient forset and pasture to house them, put their families in front of indigenous housing welfare waiting lists to put a roof over their heads, give and provide them free health care. yet still they are "disenfranchised", "victims" of "racism" and "islamophobia". we will lose the uk if we continue down this road.
They had a debate on Fox on if we should ban or curtail Muslim immigration. I was disappointed that most said no even if it was curtailed to countries like Syria and Iran. One said it was unconstitutional.
Posted by: Elric66 at July 7, 2007 11:29 AM
Unconstitutional?! There is nothing in the Constitution that says we must allow our avowed enemies to immigrate to America! Prior to the disastrous 1965 immigration fiasco, written and sponsored by none other than the traitor Ted Kennedy, we were extremely selective about who came to America because nobody wanted to see this country turn into the mess it is today. Our Constitution does not mention multiculturalism and diversity but it clearly calls for our borders to be protected. The Constitutional problems arise after the fact, when we have awarded citizenship to people who don't deserve it. Unfortunately, they have the same rights and privileges as those of us who were born here and getting rid of them is next to impossible. Muslims know this and take full advantage of it.
We have every right to determine who will and will not migrate to the United States. Muslim immigration should be stopped immediately; it should have ceased after 9-11. In fact, it should have never started! Imagine how wonderful America would be without muslims. As soon as there are a few million more, the party will begin in earnest and we will experience the horrors that Europe is enduring as we speak. I just can't wait. The most exasperating, infuriating aspect of the impending islamic nightmare is that it could have easily been avoided.
tanstaafl - 'I have been reading a translation of the Qu'ran for the past several months.'
This is where the invaluable Muslim cop out 'It was taken out of context' comes into play. I have been informed by several Muslims that the many koranic verses calling for hatred and destruction of the 'infidel' do not really mean what they say - the verse invariably applies to some given situation and we have got it all wrong. Muslims and their apologists say this - and presumably write it - with straight faces. Even when confronted with the truth in front of their eyes, they deny it.
davemate - 'We are being colonised. Our government encourages it. No need to read between the lines.'
Exactly. It is Western countries - and ONLY Western countries - that are forced to accept hordes of Muslim savages. ONLY in Western nations have laws been enacted to silence people who may object to their country and way of life being given away to invaders. This is happening to varying degrees in every Western country although every poll taken demonstrates that citizens want a halt to Muslim immigration and an end to the problem of illegals. Western governments are deliberately acting against the interests and wishes of the people who elected them to office.
This makes them traitors, doesn't it?
Well, I wouldn't say "traitors", but they certainly don't respect and reflect the wishes of their constituents.
And that means they need to be booted out.
I'd say! Traitors! All the way!!!!
One hopes that everyone understands these euphemisms for what they are. But the euphemisms still get my goat. The other day I heard WABC radio news refer to the doctor jihadists as "Indian born." No mention of Islam. That infuriated me. Those damn Indians. I always knew Mahatma Gandhi and Paramahansa Yogananda weren't really about non-violence and cosmic love. Sri Chinmoy in meditation with that otherwordly smile on his face -- it was all a front to cover up his violent ambitions. And who was that Indian guy spreading Transcendental Meditation to the Beatles and trying to use group meditation to reduce violence in hot spots around the globe? Well, whoever he was, I guess he was doing that as a cover for diabolic violence. And those archaeologists who claimed they had unearthed a remarkably non-violent ancient civilization in India -- what was it called? The Harrapan? I guess that non-violence was all a huge sham. Those darned Hindus...what? You mean brave, intrepid, honest, WABC wasn't talking about Hindus?
Well, WABC, how's this for a euphemism:
$&%$#*! WABC! Now translate my euphemism and repeat it to yourself many times, WABC.
I'm fed up with the weasel words.
Susanp said:
I would also like to stop Muslim immigration to this country, but I think you underestimate the constitutional obstacles. The First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion and prohibition of establishment of religion come to mind. I think a more realistic U.S. approach to stopping Muslim immigration is to prohibit immigration from terrorist nations, without regard to religion. Such a prohibition might permit non-Muslim refugees to come as exceptions. Spencer talks about requiring Muslims who are would-be U.S. citizens to sign documents affirming they do not support the introduction of sharia law to the U.S., do not support jihad or Islamic supremicism, etc. Such signed documents could be grounds for deportation if the person in question were found in any way supporting those things later on.
I also understand your utter rejection of multiculturalism, but find that utter rejection as unwise in you as in Fjordman, whom I nevertheless admire a lot. It is unwise to unnecessarily divide Left and Right in the West, when such division is precisely what will give aid and comfort to the global jihad. Wouldn't it be more useful to seek to unite Left and Right, by seeking to alert the Left that it is precisely Islam that is making multiculturalism more and more impossible? Remember that multiculturalism has a good side. The good side used to be called liberty, tolerance, pluralism. I realize that multiculturalism also has a bad side, and that the Left has too often used that bad side in a way that, inadvertently or not, aids the global jihad and the creep into Europe of sharia law as the Muslim population grows by leaps and bounds. That bad aspect of multiculturalism should be opposed. But Right can and should seek to unite with Left to defend the good part of multiculturalism against the totalitarian ambitions of Islam. Without non-Muslim unity, Islam's chances improve greatly.
Oh, I saw that word "disenfranchised" used. I e-mailed the "NYT" reporter and asked, "What in heck do you mean by "disenfranchised?" You mean they can't vote? Define "disenfranchised" by what you mean in your sentence, please."
No reply. I don't think he knew.
traeh
I disagree. Multiculturalism, as envisioned by the left and Western European elites, is not desirable. It is, as a matter of fact, a disaster and a curse upon any civil society.
The reason America has had such success with incorporating a diversity of ethnicities and cultures is that it's got, at its very foundation, a concept that transcends the race/ethicity/culture determinism: it's called "citizenship" and it comes out of the thinking of the Founding Fathers and of the people of the English colonies. It's a rational concept arrived at and understood and freely embraced thru the exercise of intellect, reason, historical experience as well as a benevolent disposition towards fellow human beings, whatever their creed or ethnic makeup.
Which means that, if I decide to settle in the U.S. while my Ruritarian ethnic and cultural background allows me to use children as domestic slaves, I'm aware that I would have to renounce that "right."
Disenfranchinsed South Asian?? Huh???
Tell that to the Hindu Indian girl from London I met who argued she had more of a right to be in and stay in Britain than those "lazy and stupid" English people whose families have been there for thousands of years.
What about disenfranchised native Brits, aka the WHITE people who have been there for thousands of years and are now the target of scorn from both Muslim and non-Muslim immigrant groups!!!!
All non-Muslim immigrants in the West should be quickly and forcefully distancing themselves from Muslims, otherwise they'll be getting the boot as well. This type of remedial "we're ALL immigrants/brown people and you Westerners have no right to kick any of us out" mentality, as shown by the Hindu Indian girl I met, is going to get them caught in the crossfire, and make it harder on everyone to win this war against Islam.
And if they fail to make it clear to us whose side they're on in this struggle, they'll deserve to get the boot.
No country in the world has a duty or responsibility to let foreigners into its lands, for ANY damn reason. And no foreigner in the world has the RIGHT to visit or live in our country.
Disenfranchinsed South Asian?? Huh???
Tell that to the Hindu Indian girl from London I met who argued she had more of a right to be in and stay in Britain than those "lazy and stupid" English people whose families have been there for thousands of years.
What about disenfranchised native Brits, aka the WHITE people who have been there for thousands of years and are now the target of scorn from both Muslim and non-Muslim immigrant groups!!!!
All non-Muslim immigrants in the West should be quickly and forcefully distancing themselves from Muslims, otherwise they'll be getting the boot as well. This type of remedial "we're ALL immigrants/brown people and you Westerners have no right to kick any of us out" mentality, as shown by the Hindu Indian girl I met, is going to get them caught in the crossfire, and make it harder on everyone to win this war against Islam.
And if they fail to make it clear to us whose side they're on in this struggle, they'll deserve to get the boot.
No country in the world has a duty or responsibility to let foreigners into its lands, for ANY damn reason. And no foreigner in the world has the RIGHT to visit or live in our country.
Disenfranchinsed South Asians?? Huh???
Tell that to the Hindu Indian girl from London I met who argued she had more of a right to be in and stay in Britain than those "lazy and stupid" English people because she had a "good job" and that "none of the English have the good jobs anymore...it's all Russians and Indians and foreigners."
Quote: "Why should WE have to leave instead of some lazy, stupid, uneducated English #@*!s???"
Follow the immigrant logic here:
educated, with good, high-paying job = right to stay in adopted country NO MATTER WHAT
poor, uneducated, with shitty job = not as much right to be in one's own country as new, rich immigrant, regardless of thousand-year family history in said country.
What about disenfranchised native Brits, aka the WHITE people who have been there for thousands of years and are now the target of scorn and disrespect from both Muslim and non-Muslim immigrant groups!!!!
All non-Muslim immigrants in the West should be quickly and forcefully distancing themselves from Muslims, otherwise they'll be getting the boot as well. This type of remedial "we're ALL immigrants/brown people and you Westerners have no right to kick any of us out" mentality, as shown by the Hindu Indian girl I met, is going to get them caught in the crossfire, and make it harder on everyone to win this war against Islam.
And if they fail to make it clear to us whose side they're on in this struggle, they'll deserve to get the boot.
No country in the world has a duty or responsibility to let foreigners into its lands, for ANY damn reason. And no foreigner in the world has the RIGHT to visit or live in our country.
The NY Slimes is pathetic, they're just trying to copy the Brits, they think they're so sophisticated in their appeasement.
From now on we should just call Islamist Terrorism 'Christian Terrorism' or 'Religious Terrorism' or even something absurd like 'non-Islamic Terrorism'. Everybody will know what that really means, in fact it will make people think and talk about it more too...
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
don't call a spade a spade
Islamist terrorism
not related to Islam
absurd thought -
God of the Universe says
never declare war
against terrorists
they are simply criminals
absurd thought -
God of the Universe thinks
all Christians are terrorists
killing everyday
justified by the Bible
.
Right vashine
But then most of us Hindus and Sikhs are Dhimmi's like you.
The first problem is that Muslim Moderates, yes, even the moderates - have immense stamina to waste time fighting and arguing, and have no moral compunction in ignoring acts of violence commited by the fanatical extreme within them .
We Hindus have one life - we are not interested in wasting our time or risking our security getting involved in conflicts with them.
Another problem is that we concentrate on temporal issues like making money, and friends, and living life. We leave our religion in our house. We might irritate you by not fully blending into your culture, but we blend into your laws. We are to busy living our daily rotine.
But then - we have only ourselves to blame if we don't wake up. If we 'other' South Asians don't find the time to unite, create public opinion amongst ourselves, and distance ourselves from Muslims, then God help us. I think some realisation is creeping in though. Some time back, some prominent Hindus wanted to scrap the word ' Asian ' saying it was to generalized.
lets wait and see........
ovidius_naso said:
Are you talking to yourself? Anyway, whoever said multiculturalism is desirable, it wasn't me. Neither did the rest of your post respond to what I wrote, though you addressed me. How would you judge someone who calls you by name, and then talks to himself?
I never said "multiculturalism is good." I said that multiculturalism has a good side and a bad side. The good side is what used to be called pluralism, tolerance, liberty. And I pointed out that it is a mistake to indulge one's anger at the democratic Left, at the expense of forging unity against totalitarian Islam. The notion that the Right or the Left, or some other party, has a monopoly on truth or righteousness is a totalitarian and utterly provincial notion that motivates a lot of partisan acrimony. And excessive acrimony of the very fallible Right against the very fallible Left is a sign of intellectual dwarfism that only helps Islam advance its totalitarian project. Unnecessary disagreements among potential non-Muslim allies have played a critical role in the success of Islamic domination during the course of history. The bad side of multiculturalism should be criticized and resisted, but at the same time it should be possible to forge some consensus with the democratic Left about Islam if the Left is persistently alerted to the fact that Islam will destroy multiculturalism, both its good and bad side. But go on, if you want, and freight the struggle with totalitarian Islam with the weight of the much less important and smaller struggle against the democratic Left. Islam will rejoice at our confusion of squabbles among ourselves with the battle against religious totalitarianism.
"Any country is entitled, or should be entitled, to decide for itself who it wants to settle within it. The citizens and government of that country have a perfect right to consider the Total Belief-system, where such exists, of those who wish to enter the country. They have a right to examine the behavior of the adherents of such a system in many other lands, now, and in the past, and are entitled to draw conclusions from the lengthy historical record, as well as today's news and tomorrow's headlines.
Posted by: Hugh "
..HEAR! HEAR!.....ALL Immigration lawyers and simple minded politicians...take note....
OH MY GOD the racism from the Times, tarring the whole population of South East Asia with the brush of terrorism. Do you think it was because they are not white? I'm white, I wouldn't want that happening to me, tarred with the same brush just because of my colour, or something that was done by someone of my colour. Oh my, I hope no one thinks we all think like the times. Not in my name Times, not in my name. OH THE HUMANITY, WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!
And I'm spent....
/sarcasm off