The fruits of botched up Commonwealth immigration of policy.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at April 4, 2006 5:52 PM

Wouldn't that be "the footprint of DOMESTIC terrorism"?

Posted by: Quijybo at April 4, 2006 5:59 PM

Theres a shock!

Posted by: km at April 4, 2006 6:04 PM

Still waiting for "fifty clerics to be deported..."

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 4, 2006 6:13 PM

What is to be done with British-born Moslems who: 1.) hate the majority culture, 2.) wish to impose Sharia on the U.K. , 3.) are willing to kill to make their wish come true? Is there a solution? If so, does Great Britain have the internal strength to implement it?

Posted by: MP at April 4, 2006 6:20 PM

"There are no terrorist free zones in the United Kingdom,the footprint of international terrorism is in every part of the country."

Make that every part of the world. Muslims are everywhere, they have spread like the bubonic plague. Perhaps Iceland is the last place left on the planet that could be considered free of the Muslim infestation.

Posted by: GFB at April 4, 2006 6:24 PM

Duh! The footprint of terrosism is islam.

Posted by: Havoc at April 4, 2006 6:33 PM

"Let burglars off with caution..." Police told in UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 4, 2006 6:48 PM

The US is no better. We have politicians here arguing that the Capitol Police have to memorize every face of every congressperson who passes-by their metal-detectors, because they cannot be bothered with such matters, and they cannot be bothered by police stopping them when they do.

This Cynthia McKenna idiocy is enough to cause my head to explode! She STRIKES a police officer, who called her THREE TIMES to stop when she by-passed the metal detectors (she was not wearing her pin that identified her as a member of Congress), and when the cop confronted her and stopped her progress, she assulted him, and has been told by her lawyer that she "acted appropriately."

It is going to get to the point in this country that liberal stupidity is going to get all of us killed. We're going to drown in a bottomless pool of political correctness, and nobody is doing anything to stop it.

Posted by: yohannbiimu at April 4, 2006 6:56 PM

To UK posters: on the same topic, is this article true? Not some kind of late April Fools joke?

'Let burglars off with caution', police told
08:08am 3rd April 2006

Burglars will be allowed to escape without punishment under new instructions sent to all police forces. Police have been told they can let them off the threat of a court appearance and instead allow them to go with a caution.
The same leniency will be shown to criminals responsible for more than 60 other different offences, ranging from arson through vandalism to sex with underage girls.

New rules sent to police chiefs by the Home Office set out how seriously various crimes should be regarded, and when offenders who admit to them should be sent home with a caution.

Some serious offences - including burglary of a shop or office, threatening to kill, actual bodily harm, and possession of Class A drugs such as heroin or cocaine - may now be dealt with by caution if police decide that would be the best approach.

And a string of crimes including common assault, threatening behaviour, sex with an underage girl or boy, and taking a car without its owner's consent, should normally be dealt with by a caution, the circular said.

The Home Office instruction applies to offenders who have admitted their guilt but who have no criminal record.

They are also likely to be able to show mitigating factors to lessen the seriousness of their crime.

The instruction to abandon court prosecutions in more cases - even for people who admit to having carried out serious crimes - comes in the wake of repeated attempts by ministers and senior judges to persuade the courts to send fewer criminals to jail.

The crisis of overcrowding in UK prisons has also prompted moves to let many more convicts out earlier.

It emerged last month that some violent or sex offenders, given mandatory life sentences under a "two-strike" rule, have been freed after as little as 15 months.

The latest move provoked condemnation yesterday from Tories and critics of the justice system.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis said: "Yet again the Government is covertly undermining the penal system and throwing away the trust of ordinary citizens that criminals will be punished and punished properly.

"In the last few weeks we have witnessed a serial failure of Labour to protect the citizen, with murders of innocent people by criminals variously on early release or probation, and now we're finding that ever more serious crimes are not being brought to court at all."

Criminologist Dr David Green, of the Civitas think-tank, said: "They appear to have given up making the court system work and doing anything about delays and the deviousness of defence lawyers.

"This is part of the wider problem that the Home Office has an anti-prison bias. But while they regard prison as uncivilised, they don't seem to care whether the alternatives work or not."

The Home Office circular to police forces has been sent amid a Government drive to reduce the number of cases coming before the courts.

A number of crimes - notably shoplifting - are now regularly dealt with by fixed penalty notices similar to a parking fine.

A whole range of offenders who admit traffic and more minor criminal offences will in future have their cases "processed" by new Government bureaucracies rather than by the courts.

At the same time judges and magistrates have been bombarded with instructions from the senior judiciary to send fewer criminals to jail.

Burglars and muggers should be spared prison more often, courts have been told, and last week sentencing authorities ordered a further "raising of the custody threshold" to keep out of prison more offenders who would in the past have been given up to a year in jail.

The new instructions to police on how to keep criminals out of the courts altogether are given in a 'Gravity Factor Matrix'.

This breaks down offences into four categories, with the most serious rated as four and the least serious as one.

For criminals over 18, who admit offences ranked at the third level of seriousness, the instruction is: "Normally charge but a simple caution may be appropriate if first offence".

Officers dealing with those who admit level two crimes are told: "Normally simple caution for a first offence but a charge may be appropriate if (there are) previous convictions or appropriate to circumstances."

The Home Office said the guidance had been circulated nationally because there had been regional anomalies in the way offenders were dealt with and these needed to be removed.

A spokesman said: 'Cautioning in individual cases is an operational matter for the police and Crown Prosecution Service.

"'The new circular firstly provides up to date guidance on the use of cautions to encourage consistency across the country.

"Secondly, with the introduction of statutory charging, the guidance needed to clarify what the effect would be on police responsibility for cautions. Finally the guidance was introduced to outline the practical process of administering a caution."

Cautioning was used heavily in the late 1980s and early 1990s, particularly for juvenile offenders under 18.

Tory Home Secretary Michael Howard cracked down on cautions in 1994 because young thugs and thieves were getting repeated cautions but no punishment.

But cautioning for adult offenders is now on the rise. Dr Green said: "The Home Office is missing its target to achieve a set number of offenders brought to justice. But it seems they regard a caution as an offender brought to justice.

"This is a nod and a wink to police forces - deal with your cases by cautions and we will hit our target."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=381799&in_page_id=1770

Posted by: treehugger at April 4, 2006 6:59 PM

Isn't it interesting that the country, Great Britain helped form, Islamic Republic of Pakistan, exports it's Jihadis to blow Great Brirain up!

Had Britain not supported formation of Pakistan, it would not have Pakistanis blowing up London.

Shows Western Government's ignorance about Islam! As for the thankless Muslims, well, nothing new there...........

Posted by: Alert at April 4, 2006 7:01 PM

The world is just short of being in as much turmoil as during the early 1940's.

Prepare, be armed be ready.

The Texican.
Freedom, the only choice at any cost.

Posted by: Texican at April 4, 2006 7:17 PM

Tree Huggers post sounds like a way to let shariaesque style life not be punishable even though still illgal.

Posted by: meredith at April 4, 2006 7:36 PM

From the article

We must do more to build our links into the Muslim communities, so that those who wish to reject extremism and expel the extremists and give information about them can have the confidence to do so.

You can build as many bridges you like but noone is going to cross them and tell you about Jihadis in their communities. These bridges are like that bridge in Arnhem - too far out.

Posted by: DP111 at April 4, 2006 7:48 PM

"What is to be done with British-born Moslems who: 1.) hate the majority culture, 2.) wish to impose Sharia on the U.K. , 3.) are willing to kill to make their wish come true? Is there a solution? If so, does Great Britain have the internal strength to implement it?"
-- from a posting above

Governments can pass laws that make life less Islam-compliant. Firmly resisting all demands, whether for implementation of Sharia family laws to Muslims, or to be exempt from school dress codes, or requests for prayer rooms in public places, or insisting that accommodation to "religious" practices be reasonable and that it is not reasonable to take time off, several times a day, either in a service or manufacturing job, to go off to pray -- not for a bus-driver, not for a teacher in an elementary school, not for all sorts of people. Individuals can make their own decisions as to whether or not they wish to buy from, or employ, people whom it is reasonable to think do not like them, do not wish them well -- because the Qur'an, the immutable word of Allah, tells them "not to take Jews and Christians as friends" and as for Hindus, Buddhists, agnostics and atheists -- well, don't even ask. It is an absurd situation.

Then there is the Benes Decree, mentioned many times at this website. Google "Benes Decree" and "Jihad Watch." That was the law by which the most liberal and tolerant of leaders, Tomas Masaryk (the son) and Eduard Benes, of the most liberal and tolerant state in Central or Eastern Europe, that is Czechoslovakia, decided to remove from the midst of that state, becuase of their pre-war and war-time experience with the Sudeten Germans and then with the occupying Germans of Nazi Germany, and the collaboration between the two, to end once and for all the permanent threat, as it was reasonably perceived, to the wellbeing and physical security of the Czechs and Slovaks in Czechoslovakia.

Within a short period, more than 3 million ethnic Germans, the Sudeteners, were forced to leave Czechoslovakia. Some were of course entirely innocent of pro-Nazi leanings, but many were not. The Czechs could not stop to investigate precisely who was and who was not, and they did not trust the existence of such a large group of ethnic Germans who might, at some time in the future, identify yet again with Deutschtum, with Germany and Austria. No Czech leader then, and none since, has expressed embarrasment, or dismay over that decision. On an official visit to Austria, it is true, Vaclav Havel expressed, in very guarded and limited terms, some dismay at the way the Benes Decree (or Decrees) was executed, but he did not apologize, he did not think the idea was wrong. Nor did any Czech. Not General Svoboda. Not the poet Jaroslav Siefert. Not Aleksandr Dubcek. Not the piercing Pavel Kohout. Not Milan Kundera. Not Havel himself, save for that state visit to Austria, where he expressed incompete support for the way it was carried out.

Why do I keep coming back, again and again, to the Benes Decree? Not in order to convince everyone it must necessarily be followed, but to do something else: to break down the notion that this is simply an unheard-of and intolerable thing. It is not. Mass transfers of people occurred in Turkey (Greeks) and Greece (Turks), in India (Muslims) and Pakistan (Hindus). The greatest practitioners of wholesale expulsions have been the Arab states, with Arabs who are not nationals. Saudi Arabia expelled, almost overnight and for the flimsiest of reasons, nearly a million Yemenis. Kuwait expelled the entire 400,000-strong community of "Palestinian" Arabs after the Iraqis were driven out; many of those "Palestinians" had taken the side of the invader, and the Kuwaits were simply not going to tolate a similar risk in the future. Libya has expelled Egyptians and "Palestinians." Iraq has expelled Egyptians (under Saddam Hussein).

Google "Benes Decree" and "Posted by Hugh." Ask yourself if, when you meet a Czech today, are you full of horror at what the Czechs did in 1946 to protect themselves? Or not? I'm not. Winston Churchill, De Gaulle, De Gasperi, Truman, all the leaders of the Western world, in all the years since, have never expressed any dismay at what the government of Czechoslovakia did. When revanchist Germans tried to make an issue of it, in order to block the Czech Republic's admission to the E.U., their views were simply ignored.

What is the moral of the Benes Decree? Does it have one, or does it stand for absolutely nothing? What can an individual, a family, a group, a country, a civliization, do to protect itself from those who quite clearly are indoctrinated, very thoroughly, in a belief-system that makes them, their country, their civliization, their family, themselves, the enemy, to be subjugated at best, and at worst, killed -- what are they, what should they, be allowed to do to protect themselves?

You tell me.

Posted by: Hugh at April 4, 2006 7:58 PM

Mass transfers of people occurred in Turkey (Greeks) and Greece (Turks), in India (Muslims) and Pakistan (Hindus).

Well India is an unfinished business. While Pakistan is shipped their Hindus and Sikhs over the border.. i.e those infidels who survived the orgy of death that overtook Pakistan in autumn of 1947, India RETAINED most of its Muslims because of Gandhi's delusional notions about Islam. Presence of 150 million Muslims in India is a testimony to Gandhi's folly that modern day Indians have to put up with. While Hindu-Sikh migration out of Pakistan was forced, Muslim migration out of India was largely voluntary (except ofcourse in Punjab where harrowed Pakistani Hindu-Sikh refugees exacted revenge upon the local Muslim populance.)

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at April 4, 2006 8:10 PM

treehugger posted: To UK posters: on the same topic, is this article true? Not some kind of late April Fools joke?

Oh were it just a April Fools prank. This is serious. The judicial system is all broke and the police are a joke. The judicial system now is all about raising cash for the governmnet. This is best done by harrassing the motorist with speed traps all over the place. A recent report quoted Home Office figures, that half of all drivers have been convicted of a speeding offence. Now this could be understood if British drivers were reckless. But this is not the case. Britain has the safest roads in Europe. Drivers for the most part are courteous, considerate and law abiding. However, the motorist, generally a law abiding person, is easy to pick on and to pick his pocket as well. Real criminals OTH are just a pain. They cause huge amounst of administration costs, court costs, and if convicted, costs in imprisoning them. Far more economical in the short run, to let them off with a caution.

Posted by: DP111 at April 4, 2006 8:12 PM

sheik yer'mami

PM Blair promised 500 to be deported shortly. NOT ONE SO FAR. Omar Bakri does not count as he left of his own free will.

Posted by: DP111 at April 4, 2006 8:13 PM

I welcome the additional information, offered by way of a gentle correction to my posting, from Vikrant Camberleykar above.

Posted by: Hugh at April 4, 2006 8:23 PM

"There are no terrorist free zones in the United Kingdom"
Thanks for letting us know guys!
*Ken nearly urinates with laughing so much*

MP,
If so, does Great Britain have the internal strength to implement it?

Of course we have!
What these people know and why they are so smug and enjoying themselves with all the "victories" they imagine and perceive in their narrow minds is that they are attacking a passive target.
Enjoy it while you can "brothers".
It is the same as walking in the park and being mugged.
The population of the UK is slowly waking up now.
When the bulldog wakes up and bites you, you only have yourselves to blame, then you will cry and proclaim to be the victims again, just like you always do.
You're a disgrace to humanity, all you muslims.
ALL OF YOU.

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at April 4, 2006 8:29 PM

Britain for its short sighted imperialist politics has given Islam and the Jihad by extension the power to overrun great swashes of the globe, kill and enslave millions, and as a result its chicken have came home to roost. The rule that Britain played Vis à Vie the Crimean war, its dealings with the Ottoman Empire and playing fast and loose with the lives of Armenians, the Greeks, and the Assyrians makes it in my opinion equally culpable in the holocausts of the late 19th and early 20th century.

Britain went on to found Pakistan which resulted in the death of untold millions of innocent Hindus, Sikhs, Jaines, Parsis and Christians, the enslavement and forced conversions of many others, and ultimately the Destruction of thousands of years of culture. Moving on to Africa where the British brought in thousands upon thousands of Muslims into regions that did not suffer from that scourge or was able to resist it in the past. Non-Muslim regions in the South of Sudan, Nigeria and many others were consolidated with Muslim regions bringing Millions of infidels under the sword of Jihad. Muslims using their tried and proven methods propagated Islam, enforced dhimitude and raised the battle standard of jihad.

The signature of the historical British tacit support of Jihad has bore its bitter fruits in Africa, Malaysia, Cyprus, the Subcontinent and all points in between where the union jack once flew and now is replaced by the flag of Islam in its many manifestations. If the Roman Empire, despite its early fervent persecution of Christianity, can be considered a benefactor by virtue of the logistical assistance it afforded Christian missionaries in terms of its roads, sea routes, safe passage across most of Europe, the middle East, and Asia minor, Britain on the other hand is the greatest benefactor of Jihad logistically and politically.

It is no wonder that Jihad will come back to nurse at the bossoms that sustained before.

Posted by: have_mercy at April 4, 2006 8:33 PM

Hugh,

If it's accepted by most of the world that uprooting all Jews is necessary for a "Palestinian" state, it seems odd they could complain when we return the favor to secure our freedom-loving nations from sharia, jihad, terrorism, honor killings, and the other trappings of Islam we've come to know and hate. Islam, to many, is more a system of government and medieval land grab than a faith. We have governments. Any Muslim who can't convincingly argue for secular law and our constitutional order, without the usual weasel words, should be sent back to the Dar-al-Islam. At least we'd send them back in one piece. They can't say the same for those they find unfit to live with the ummah.

I've found many self-described Muslims are compatable with our systems. But it's always inversely proportional to how much emphasis they place on literally interpreting the books.

Unlike some, I don't find it that difficult to interpret around much of the violence in the Qur'an, but I've been trained to, and have a knack for, wringing the ambiguity and confusion out of language.

The ulema is the problem. Scholars and individual Muslims vary a great deal, but those in charge seem fairly uniform as reactionary advocates of the "Prophet's Traditions" being implemented as if 1,300 years hadn't changed anything.

Posted by: Beagle at April 4, 2006 8:33 PM

A significant statement from the article: "There is not the wealth of intelligence that I would like coming from within the [Islamic] communities."

Perhaps a letter sent to each representative and senator, carefully and soberly detailing the ways in which Islamic immigration is different, and why it would be appropriate to respond to this situation wisely, before one of two events occur: (a) Muslim citizens create or allow jihadi violence, perhaps on a large scale; or (b) a violent anti-Muslim movement decides that heroism is in tearing down the (still existing) self-restriction on violence among the populace.

Am feeling kind of dark about all this. Some say that Russia will be majority Muslim this century. Russia of the Nukes.

Would be best to have our political process able to respond, undeterred by a fifth column.

Posted by: StillBreathing at April 4, 2006 8:34 PM

Have_mercy.
What nonsense.
Chickens coming home to roost!
Pure unadultreated rubbish.
What would you have done regarding the formation of Pakistan?
Where are you from?

Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem at April 4, 2006 8:37 PM

This morning I have seen a report on BBC about how the Canary Islands are being systematically overrun by black African mohammedans, who use that as a springboard to Europe. The idiot- reporter was (of course) more concerned with how 'dangerous' the 600 mile trip is (or was) and how many drown in the attempt.

Here are some links:
javascript:launchAVConsoleStory('4877978','news','ifs')

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-2094516,00.html

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 4, 2006 8:56 PM

Have_mercy.
What nonsense.
Chickens coming home to roost!
Pure unadultreated rubbish.
What would you have done regarding the formation of Pakistan?
Where are you from?
Posted by: Ken CleanAirSystem

If you were a school principle (headmaster) who wanted to keep your school in line because you like to have fun and only wanted to rob the school and use the funds to live it up… So, you bring the biggest most sadistic thugs to your school and you leave them in charge of the rest of the kids. You bring them free weights so that they cold bulk up and pay for them to take martial art classes so they can keep the rest of the maggots in your class in line while you enjoy your free time in the sun and savor the school funds.

In your absence the thugs brutalize the kids and their abuse gets worst everyday, but you do not care. The thugs, being thugs, escalate their behavior and finally they attack and kill one of your children. This is the parable of Britain, the world and Muslims.

Posted by: have_mercy at April 4, 2006 9:36 PM

Mr. Fitzgerald’s trenchant observations on the Benes Decree are a timely reminder to us all that our Governments are still not listening to us. I have gone on at some length about the workings of the EU and its democratic deficit on other threads on this site so I will not bore you further about that. However, it is the existence of an EU membership for any particular country that will always mitigate against any decision to expel all mohammedans.

Why? That’s easy to answer: because the unelected, corrupt people who run the EU (if it can be said to be being run) have, as I pointed out on many other threads here, in some detail, a vested interest in continuing the current state of affairs. Any country which wants to step out of line knows that it would face, potentially, draconian financial penalties which would be instituted by the EU power brokers immediately and that such penalties would could ruin its economy, practically overnight.

The government of such a hypothetical country also knows that its electorate, in the main, votes, primarily, about economic issues – pensions, house prices, wages, the cost of living, the cost of health, etc. Electorates are not, as yet, voting about the issue of terrorism – they still trust their Governments to keep them as safe as possible. No European Government is going to risk ruining the economic aspirations of its electorate in order to counter a threat which most of those in power, in common with a great majority of the electors, still do not really believe is likely, to lead, in the long term, to our destruction.

There is, also, the problem that many electors in Europe have first-hand experience of terrorism (we in Britain, for example, remember all too well the many years of the USA funded terrorist attacks, by the IRA, on us) and, therefore do not really worry about the jihad which has been mounted against us. Many believe that this is just another violent phase that will eventually pass. The politically correct nonsense which is taught in schools, colleges and universities, and is prevalent in the main stream media, about the so called ‘religion of peace’ merely reinforces that belief.

The concept of a Benes-style decree raised against the mohammedans in Europe is not, per se, illegal or immoral – unless one accepts the many silly pieces of legislation enacted recently by politically correct and corrupt incompetents who have driven these new, and, of themselves, suspect pieces of legislation through the various parliaments of Europe. However, it is a well established principle of International Law that the corrupt proceedings of a corrupt government seeking to further its own corrupt ends can be disregarded safely. If one is absolutely certain that such is the case then, as I said, a Benes-style decree would be legal and moral.

The execution of such a decree may lead, of course, to illegal or immoral actions or situations. However, our judicial institutions are sufficiently robust, still, to cope with any appeals against expulsion which we would all agree would seem to be manifestly unfair to any individual – as long as such a notional, for the moment, decree were to be framed clearly and in good language.

I long for the day when a European Government will stand up and say ‘enough is enough’ and enact such Benes-style legislation. We who read and post on this site can bring that day closer by never letting those in power get a moments peace to enjoy their wrong-headedness. Always write, always email, always ‘phone, always protest, always vote, always spread the word. Eventually the message must get through – or we are all doomed to dhimmitude.

Posted by: Certiorari at April 4, 2006 9:50 PM

Apologies for the intrusive comma in paragraph three.

Posted by: Certiorari at April 4, 2006 9:52 PM

USA funded terrorist attacks, by the IRA, on us
~ Is that from the BBC? Sounds like it.

Posted by: Borg at April 4, 2006 10:34 PM

the USA funded terrorist attacks, by the IRA, on us

Wrong. Sinn Fein collected private money from Catholic groups in places like Boston and New York. Just following Teddy Kennedy around and picking up the money he drops while stuporous probably funded a couple bombings in London.

I've never funded a terror attack on the UK. U.S. tax dollars have never funded the IRA.

If you'd like to argue someone should have stopped the pipeline of private Catholic donations which ended up going to the IRA, fine.

I'd like to stop the pipeline of European money going to kill our troops in Iraq. And please stop faking kidnappings with, and paying ransom to, terrorists as well. I'm not thrilled terrorists are openly recruiting in Europe for jihad in Iraq.

Posted by: Beagle at April 4, 2006 10:54 PM

The Muslims in Europe are like hyenas that smell a weak calf and are going in for the kill.

Europeans had better come to grips with their own history soon and remember who they are, or the mess is going to be to the point of no return in just a few short years.

It's better to fight than to just roll over and die.

Posted by: Foehammer at April 4, 2006 11:05 PM

If the little fuckers can't get through a day without conducting terrorism then deport them all and a terrorist free zone will be made. Sorry to all all the decent muslims but that's the way it is.

Posted by: Denver at April 4, 2006 11:08 PM

Certiorari-

If you mean that comma after "likely",[sic] apology accepted.

(Next time, try a zeugma.)

Some punctuation, turned on its side, like-

*~@:~{>

can transcend the source.

Posted by: profitsbeard at April 4, 2006 11:27 PM

profitsbeard -

Well spotted. My apologies. I am reduced to my second best laptop - for technical reasons which, I am assured, will be overcome shortly. Sometimes I suspect that this wretched machine is nothing more than Jihad for Windows 3.1 . Can satan infest a computer - I know not but I suspect that it can.

Beagle -
Borg -

Sorry. Please accept my apologies. You have the right of it. I was using a type of British shorthand. Of course we are all aware that a tiny minority of extremists in the USA contributed to IRA funds. D**n it, I was using that phrase entirely sincerely - I truly mean that it was a tiny minority of extremists. Sorry. Help! Will someone please give me an alternative phrase.

I'm just going to shut-up before I embarass myself, and everyone else, even more.

Mutter, mutter, mutter, what a fool I am, mutter, mutter, mutter ...

Posted by: Certiorari at April 5, 2006 12:01 AM

Peter Clarke, the national coordinator of terrorism also added that anyone who thinks terrorists were threatening us because of UK policy in the middle east replied, " NONSENSE! Check out the Koran, its all explained in there"

Posted by: mistyhymen at April 5, 2006 12:14 AM

mistyhymen -

Have you a URL for that? It sounds too sensible to be a Government official!

Posted by: Certiorari at April 5, 2006 12:20 AM

personally i think that adherence to things like the universal declaration of human rights are what gives the western world moral ascendancy over islam and any form of benes decree would undermine our position. Assenting to such declarations, howwever, could be made a necessary qualification for preaching (if not residence)while inciting people to deny them to others could be made an strongly enforced offence. I sometimes think western societies could be more pro-active in enforcing existing laws e.g. on bigamy, where muslims seek to flout them. In 1936 the UK passed a public order act forbidding the wearing of political uniforms, to stop fascists marching about in black shirts: somebody ought to think about applying this act to muslim schoolgirls who defy school uniform rules - as often as not there is a politically motivated person or group urging them on. Oddly enough it was the sikhs who objected to being compelled to wear motorcycle helmets who set the precedent of a particular religious group receiving preferential treatment under the law, in the UK.

Posted by: wallyUK at April 5, 2006 12:30 AM

Never-mind expulsion - immigration is the big problem - especially of undesirables.

Let's not forget that the second wave of failed London bombings, were carried out by mostly Somali refugees.

We do have a hostile Islamic population, as much as 40% +/- (possibly plus+) say they want Shar’ia law in some form in the UK. And have already been told - at least once - that they should go to a country where there is Shar’ia law in place.

Where a number of European countries have begun to act, is on immigration. Some have recently introduced selective immigration policies; these include Denmark, The Netherlands, France, the UK and parts of Germany (at present in two States). Holland and Germany, have set up, either tests or selective processes, which target the Islamic immigrant directly. But others like Britain and France are using the more covert selection process of only allowing in those with the skills which that country needs.

In addition, Britain is using the Foreign Office to wage a campaign against forced marriages, to weed-out this backdoor immigration - where girls (and boys) are forcibly sold into marriage usually to a first cousin from a Pakistani village and in effect trading on the EU passport.

http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/KFile/Forced%20Marriage%20Leaflet.pdf

This was a weak point - as a significant amount of the radical viewpoint is being imported and continually reintroduced, by way of these peasant marriages. It is also acknowledged as being one of the ways, which keeps segments of these communities impoverished. Here in the UK all the children go to school together and if allowed, often, will marry those from other races. Buy many times these children are tricked into going to Pakistan on holiday and then are married or left there with future in-laws. As these girls are considered British citizens – there are now squads in place to retrieve these girls and bring them back to the UK, if they wish to come. Many of the Asian women, who are forced to break off the relationship with their families, because of forced marriages, are now campaigning to make the practice illegal in the UK.

Denmark has also placed restrictions on marriages to those outside of the EU.

It is true, there are still a lot of people who believe the politically correct ‘religion of peace’ drool (though I think support of the idea is dwindling) - but the important thing is that the right things are now being done.

I think the UK government is realising that it has made a mistake and is even offering money and assistance to encourage some of these people/asylum seekers to return home and set up successfully in their own countries. We have recently had a large influx of those from the Afghanistan region, to the UK (at least I believe so, as they look like that Taliban guy at the Yale campus!!), a lot of their women are wearing the all-black with-slit-for-eyes.

This group is with out a doubt ~ the new worry.

We must learn to 'Just say No’!

Posted by: Pass It On at April 5, 2006 1:07 AM

"Europeans had better come to grips with their own history soon and remember who they are, or the mess is going to be to the point of no return in just a few short years."

How does a man love according to divine precept his neighbor as himself when, knowing that his Christian brothers in faith and in name are held by the perfidious Muslims in strict confinement and weighed down by the yoke of heaviest servitude, he does not devote himself to the task of freeing them? ...Is it by chance that you do not know that many thousands of Christians are bound in slavery and imprisoned by the Muslims, tortured with innumerable torments?

-- Pope Innocent III (12th-13th centuries)
http://www.crisismagazine.com/april2002/cover.htm

What's preventing Pope Benedict XVI from being as forthright, when in some ways, the situation is worse than it was in his predecessor's time?

Posted by: Television at April 5, 2006 1:23 AM

"A Muslim Baylor University senior of South Asian heritage who was active in Muslim-Christian relations was attacked on the school’s campus Saturday night, suffering multiple injuries.

Chief Jim Doak of the Baylor Department of Public Safety confirmed that police were alerted about the attack and that the incident is being investigated, but he refused to release further details. Neither Doak nor a university spokeswoman could immediately say whether the alleged attack will be investigated as a hate crime.

The Baylor DPS web site indicated that the attack occurred near Draper Hall between 8:45 and 9 p.m.

Rabiah Ahmed, a spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), said the victim called them Monday and said a man, thought to be in his 30s, grabbed her hijab, an Islamic head scarf, and threw the woman to the ground. As he did, the attacker allegedly yelled anti-Muslim and ethnic slurs at the woman including “Arabian (expletive)” and “(expletive) Muslims.”

When the woman screamed, her attacker reportedly slapped her and kicked her multiple times in the ribs, according to Ahmed. An emergency room examination found bruises and a dislocated shoulder, Ahmed said.

The victim, who was active in Muslim-Christian relations on the Baylor campus, went to her family home in Oklahoma after the attack. Ahmed said she was told the victim would stay home for about a week.

Ahmed said the victim “did not specify if she was afraid to come back (to school), but I’m sure if she was asked, she probably would say that she is because it’s not the first time that it’s happened.”

Ahmed said the victim told her that in the past people had harassed her on campus because of her dress."

way to go, folks....clearly you're making a difference in the world.

Posted by: jehana at April 5, 2006 1:31 AM

My hobby-horse alert

This is the parable of Britain, the world and Muslims. Posted by: have_mercy

have_mercy

You seem to imply that the Brits had the Muslims run India (presumably after 1857), and run roughshod over Hindus. It never happened after 1857.

There are things that can be placed at the feet of the Brits as far as their attitudes towards Muslims, particularly in India go. The first was in the 18th century, when their entry into India arrested its being reconquered by various Hindu/Sikh groups, like the Marathas, Sikhs, Rajputs and Jats. Also, by curbing the 1857 revolt, they pretty much destroyed the fighting power of all Indians, and that meant that anytime Muslims misbehaved, there were no repercussions.

But the real credit for Mohammedan belligerence deserved to be placed with the Indian Congress in general, and as Vikrant put his finger on it, Gandhi in particular. Folks here at J/W are not politically correct, so I can only assume that when they praise him, they are being genuine. Well, that admiration is ill deserved: Gandhi was the ultimate Dhimmi. In 1919, he started the Khilafat movement to protest the ouster of the Ottoman Sultan as Caliph. Result of that generous act of solidarity with Muslims: India is the only country in the world that has a Khilafat movement as a hangover from that party.

Gandhi's politics of pandering continued, and whenever there were Hindu-Muslim riots, he'd intervene to see that Muslims weren't slaughtered, but he never did any such thing for Hindus. As a result, the Muslims were emboldened, and Jinnah took his ambitions to their logical conclusion. If all that weren't enough, Gandhi blackmailed the Indian government (through his practice of hunger-strikes, euphemistically described as fasting) to pay Pakistan Rs550m for compensating what the Muslims had lost, without India getting anything for all the Hindus and Sikhs uprooted from Bengal, Sind and Punjab. Had it not been for his timely assassination, Kashmir, Hyderabad and Junagadh would also have ended up in the hands of Pakistan, and millions of more Hindus would have been slaughtered. Nathuran Godse was as justified as the Enola Gay.

If it weren't for a combination of all the above factors, Hindus would have given Muslims a good hiding in the 18th century itself, and there wouldn't have been any Pakistan or Bangladesh, and there may have been half a billion less Muslims than there are today. Imagine that! In the 18th century, they were conquering all parts of India, and the only Mohammedan holdouts were the Nawabs of Oudh and Bengal, the Nizam of Hyderabad and the remnants of the Moghul court in the Red Fort, outside which they had no power. For that, it is okay to blame the Brits.

However, as the Gandhian antics above show, don't put all the blame on the Brits. However, they do have themselves to blame for letting in so many Pakistanis into their country that if Banes decree isn't implemented, a day will come when the only way Anglican infidels can be saved would be partition.

To those who think I'm riding a hobby horse about Gandhi (I won't say, "Neigh"), I apologize; however, if there is one thing I'd like J/W and D/W contributors to recognize, it's this - Gandhi was the best ally that Mohammedans ever had among the Kafirs, and that any admiration he receives amongst the enlightened ones here who know Islam well is totally undeserved. If one wants to appreciate the message of non-violence, there were several practitioners of this throughout history both within and outside India, who are worth admiring. But please, recognize that the reason that the Muslims got away with what they did was the existance of Gandhi.

So the next time anybody feels like praising Gandhi for whatever reason, please don't. For me, for one, it's flame bait. Had Gandhi been alive today, it's not ridiculous to assume that he would have had India support al Qaeda in the name of Hindu-Muslim unity. He would also have despised sentiments expressed on these fora, regardless of whether they are about Islam or about Muslims.

Something that all of us on J/W and D/W should be proud of.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 5, 2006 2:05 AM

Jehana

Taheri-Azar 9, Infidels 1.

Mohammedans still way ahead on the score.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 5, 2006 2:11 AM

Were Jehana to create a "Crusade Watch" that monitored all the hate crimes perpetrated by non-Muslims against Muslims in the West, she would, in-between the rare (and credibly verifiable, as opposed to the fishy reports by CAIR) entries that might come in, have more time on her hands than the Maytag repair-man.

Jehana should be thankful that the Americas, Europe and even Australia (with only one outburst of public violence, infinitely tamer than any outbursts that occur throughout the Muslim world whenever Muslims lose their sensitive tempers) are 1,000 times safer for Muslims than are Muslim countries for both Muslims and non-Muslims alike. If the sandals were on the other foot and the West behaved like Muslim countries, we would have had mass riots in the streets of every major Western capital, lynching, burning, looting and mass-murdering Muslims after 911, Moscow, Bali, Madrid, London, etc.

Posted by: Television at April 5, 2006 2:27 AM

Beagle,

"If it's accepted by most of the world that uprooting all Jews is necessary for a "Palestinian" state..."

That's odd. Is this really the view of "most of the world"? If so, then "most of the world" has it wrong. The Jews will not be uprooted unless we do it to ourselves. In fact, as this is written the Jews are bringing more Jews into Israel, and a larger percentage will be coming from the UK.

Sharon's Gaza expulsion was a gross mistake, and certainly not to be compared to the Czech transfer of Sudeten Germans, but rather to shooting oneself in the foot. If anyone needs to leave Israel, it's the Arabs, and this is position is indeed comparable, in fact even more justified, than the Czech transfer. Its time has not yet come, however.

Posted by: HaMalach at April 5, 2006 2:29 AM

Infidel Pride, if what you say is correct, it sounds like Ghandi was taken in by the same starry-eyed PC ignorance of Islam that currently hamstrings us. I can see him sitting cross-legged in his white cotton pagne, bowing his bald head over his protruding clavicles to read the Holy Qur'an and finding himself, through his rose-tinted John Lennon spectacles, deeply impressed by the godliness, peace and tolerance therein.

Posted by: Television at April 5, 2006 2:40 AM

TV

I believe that Gandhi had actually read the Quran - I saw it in a feature film about him during his stay in South Africa. He probably took the Meccan verses to be the religion, and the Medina part about Mohammed's jihad, he equated with his own struggle against the Brits.

And he wasn't ignorant about what Hindus had to go through over 800 years either.

Which makes it worse.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 5, 2006 3:15 AM

TV

I believe that Gandhi had actually read the Quran - I saw it in a feature film about him during his stay in South Africa. He probably took the Meccan verses to be the religion, and the Medina part about Mohammed's jihad, he equated with his own struggle against the Brits.

And he wasn't ignorant about what Hindus had to go through over 800 years either.

Which makes it worse.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 5, 2006 3:15 AM

HaMalach

"Most of the World", like the international community, is a meaningless phrase. If you were to stop an average person in the street from, say Malawi, Uruguay, Costa Rica, Korea or Belarus, and asked them what they think about a Pali state, what do you think are the chances that they'd want Israel to disappear?

The "International Community" is at best a myth. At worst, it is a bunch of left wing or Islamic elites in any country who think that it's the in thing to hate the Jews and wish for the demise of Israel.

I found the explanation for this very beautifully spelt out in the Pipeline of Hatred theory, which I first spotted on Netanyahu's website.

http://www.conceptwizard.com/pipeline_of_hatred.html

It explains it well.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at April 5, 2006 3:24 AM

Since I am probably the only one who has actually opposed Hugh's repeated appeals to the Benes Decree in these columns - at least, I cannot remember anyone else doing it - I think it is incumbent on me to respond. The fact is that Hugh's account of the Decree is loaded and unhistorical. Masaryk and Benes's Czechoslovakia HAD BEEN a highly democratic and tolerant country in the twenties and thirties; and the Masaryk in question was the father of the one who was the enfeebled and puppetized "leader" of a Communist-occupied Czechoslovakia in 1946. The Benes Decree was not Benes' invention, but a part of the colossal removal of German and Italian populations from Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, Transylvania and (the Italians) Istria and Dalmatia - all countries in which they had lived for centuries; most of which, indeed, had never been Polish, Russian or Serbian at all.

This removal was engineered from Moscow. It was typical of Communist politics under Stalin, who had cut his teeth as "commissar for nationalities" and was in the habit of shifting nations and tribes around like a late Roman Emperor. The Benes Decree testified to nothing else but that Czechoslovakia was ready and ripe for Communist takeover (the Minister of the Interior who carried it out was a Communist), and punctually, two years later, Gottwald removed the remaining rags of democratic legitimacy from Russian occupation and Masaryk mysteriously died by falling out of a window (a frequent kind of misfortune, it must be admitted, in the history of Prague). To finish with, anyone who, after all this, wants to use Masaryk II and Benes as heroes should pay attention to the fact that Finland, in the same circumstances and at the same time, broke an attempted Communist coup and jailed the Communist Minister of the Interior - and Stalin did nothing. In effect, the success of the Prague Coup of 1948 was the direct result of Benes having allowed Stalin to set his domestic policy for him in 1946.

Of course, in 1946 nobody was disposed to say anything in favour of murdering Germans or their Italian allies. You have a nerve quoting De Gasperi as one of the statesmen whose silence, you claim, validated the so-called Benes Decree (why not be true to facts and call it the Stalin-Benes Decree?). In 1946, De Gasperi was struggling to hold together a devastated country riddled with armed Communist units, occupied by unfriendly Allies who had just destroyed its currency by overprinting AM-Lire, and overran with refugees; at the same time as he was trying to negotiate a peace treaty that would not be too disastrous for Italy. There were rumours that Britain, which had already taken almost the whole of Italy's former colonial empire, wanted Sicily, and, sure enough, a "Sicilian Independence Army" appeared out of nowhere, staffed mostly by Mafia men, some of whom had been sent over from the States in 1943 to open the road for invasion. That being the case, for De Gasperi to say anything about the Benes Decree or any act of the victors would have been not only officious, not only useless, but positively dangerous. What he felt, we can only guess; but he was a German speaker and had grown up in the old Austrian Empire, where Prague and Budapest were as much part of the country as Vienna and Innsbruck. (And that continued to be relevant after World War I; it was because of continued trade and political relations established long before that Italians, especially from the north-east, were hugely involved in business in Czechoslovakia and Hungary.)

It was not until early 1948 that De Gasperi felt strong enough to throw the Communists out of the government; and meanwhile Tito and his murderers had had three years to clear Italy's former eastern provinces of Italians. 300,000 fled to Italy; most of the rest stayed - six feet under. When Italian authorities recovered the city of Trieste after a single month of Yugoslav occupation, they found that 5,000 out of 200,000 Triestini had been murdered, their bodies thrown into neighbouring caves ("foibe"). For efficiency of murder, this beat anything even the Nazis had managed, - 2.5% of the population destroyed in thirty days - and gives you an idea of how the "population transfer" from Dalmatia and Istria was managed. As for the much larger one that took place east of the Oder-Neisse line, I think it is fair to say that the German population paid dearly for every drop of Jewish, Polish and Russian blood shed by their armed forces. In all of this picture, the Benes Decree is only a small detail; and the only reason why we hear of it at all, is, a), that it is the only part of the huge crime that can be ascribed to someone who is not Stalin or Tito, and, b), that this figurehead or glove puppet for Stalin's crimes had earlier been a democratic leader.

Nobody, after the war, dared to speak of these things; they have only recently resurfaced in Italy, and I would not be surprised if the same were true in Germany. But everybody knew about them. And when it turned out that, in spite of that, the USA (in 1954) were minded to hand Trieste over to the Yugoslavs to reward Tito for his revolt against Stalin, Italy exploded. There were riots all over the country, and the US drew back, since they risked literally being expelled from Italy.

Apart from Stalin's crimes, the only "population transfers" Hugh mentions are in areas where Muslim war was taking place - the Balkans and Anatolia before and after World War One, India in 1947-48. I do not think that even he would want to defend those as models.

You cannot force a person to leave the place where his family is living, without violence; let alone force a whole population out. It is as simple as that. But above all, I think this is simply a false solution. I have said it before, I will say it again: the notion of forcing every last Muslim to live in a Muslim reservation comprising only Muslim-majority countries will not work. It is, in my view, an impractical fantasy of liberation from one of the most intractable of the problems of our modern world. These people are unpleasant, so remove them. Take them away from our own world so we can live in peace. "They say peace, peace, but there was no peace." And if you ask me what I propose in lieu of mass expulsion - simply to enforce the law, at all points and in all circumstances, to use all legitimate force and to be determined to go on doing so for as long as is necessary - until Muslim pride is broken. We will not live to see it. But it will happen. Islam is not a faith for the real world; it does not make its adherents capable of coping with reality. And therefore - however many children they bear, however destructive they become - it must lose.

Posted by: Paolo at April 5, 2006 3:29 AM

HaMalach

Well, I screwed that pooch. What I meant was, "..uprooting all Jews (in the Disputed Territories) for a 'Palestinian' state..."

The point I was TRYING to make is that uprooting Jews from the Disputed Territories amounts to "ethnic cleansing" or some other such loaded term in some cases. But in the case of Jews, it's accepted by many as justice. The Benes Decree moved ethnic Germans (whatever those are) out of Czechoslovakia and gets a somewhat moderate treatment, between "ethnic cleansing" and "justice."

It's hypocrisy to call third-generation Arabs, living in apartment buildings with park areas, "refugees," while at the same time dismissing the claim of Jews who live on historically Jewish land, and live there today. What do they become when booted off the land? Collateral damage? Why doesn't the Jewish claim from 700 BC (or whatever) have primace over the "Palestinian" claim from 1947?

But why stop there? DNA testing could allow us to push claims back much further.

At some point the claims need to stop. Like musical chairs, where you are when the music stops should count for something. Historical claims are neverending, confusing, overlap, and almost always lead to violence.

If Muslims are going to treat all land ever conquered by any Muslim as sacrosanct Muslim-only land, while opposing the claims by any other group, it's incumbent upon people serious about survival to get those Muslims out of our nations as soon as possible.

Posted by: Beagle at April 5, 2006 4:00 AM

primace = primacy

(or a new volcanic rock)

Posted by: Beagle at April 5, 2006 4:01 AM

Beagle: it is, I believe, a principle in both Roman and English Common law, that "It is good for the Commonwealth that litigation should have an end." This implies that, to some extent, even to allow a certain amount of what one party would call injustice is better than to have a suit-at-law that never ends. And this is what the Muslim world promotes: a continuous series of everlasting claims, never to be either shelved or quite satisfied.

Posted by: Paolo at April 5, 2006 4:10 AM

"Of course we are all aware that a tiny minority of extremists in the USA contributed to IRA funds. D**n it, I was using that phrase entirely sincerely - I truly mean that it was a tiny minority of extremists. Sorry. Help! Will someone please give me an alternative phrase."

Certiorari, I think the phrase you are looking for is Noraid.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at April 5, 2006 4:35 AM

Paolo,

Exactly. The preference for settled claims finds full flower in the doctrine of adverse possession. It's counterintuitive unless you think about the real "ownership" of land, which is to say only a tenancy for your life and those to whom you devise the land. Losing land can be as simple as not paying the taxes or ignoring a strip your neighbor fenced 22 years ago.

The idea a religion can possess land should be familiar to all of us. We called it Christendom. Don't hear that mentioned in court much these days. But Turkey is filled with lawyers ready to kill for the Dar-al-Islam, however modern factors would impact the land.

Simply treating Muslims here the way they treat kufr in Afghanistan should go a long way to bridging the gap of cultural understanding, yadda, yadda, so on, so forth.

Posted by: Beagle at April 5, 2006 4:39 AM

Well, Beagle, up to a point. If we treated Muslims as they treat kufr in Afghanistan, we would not be any better than them - and that would indeed bridge those famous gaps, but not in any way that is of advantage to us. Not that I disapprove of making special legal provision against Islam: many Western countries have done just that in times of need, against Fascists, Nazis, etc. But let us not sell ourselves down the river. Moral equivalence is the dream of our enemies; it should be our nightmare.

Posted by: Paolo at April 5, 2006 4:52 AM

Paolo,

That was a bit of a joke on the one-way nature of our dialogue with Islam. They talk, we listen or cower.

Posted by: Beagle at April 5, 2006 6:13 AM

Certiorari

It's hardly a "tiny minority" if you include all Catholics, but most probably don't contribute. The Kennedys do, thus the joke at Drunk Ted's expense.

I have no idea how much money was transferred to the IRA from the U.S. Nor how many contributed knowingly, with suspicion, or were duped. Most of the fund raising happens in pubs. Perhaps "drunk Mr. Potato Heads" would do it?

I just want to make it clear it wasn't me. As far as I know it wasn't the U.S. government.

One of my friends has a Sinn Fein tattoo, to my everlasting discomfort when I'm seen with him in public. Orlando is loaded with tourists from the UK. I've been giving him grief about advertising for a terrorist organization ever since he got it. Some Irish-Americans seem to think it's a game if it happens overseas. He also has a Celtic cross and a shamrock. I had to explain what he'd just made permanent on his arm. Now I call him "watch list."

I'm a Polish-???-American. The Polish side was lapsed Catholic at best. Irish neutrality in WWII and their raging anti-Semitism today are the two thoughts I have when I think of Ireland. Never been there and don't plan to go.

I've been to London. Nice place. You should learn to speak English though. :D

Posted by: Beagle at April 5, 2006 6:36 AM

jehana,

Strange you find the reporting of jihad attacks to be more significant than jihad attacks themselves.

Your linkage of Jihad Watch to an isolated event by what sounds like a drunk is some of the worst causal analysis I've ever seen. Perhaps you should become a plaintiff's attorney?

I'd never advocate for or attack a Muslim woman. But it's very common in places like Pakistan, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, and the rest. They don't stop at nasty names.

Posted by: Beagle at April 5, 2006 6:40 AM

"...if we treated Muslims as they treat kufr in Afghanistan, we would not be any better than them - and that would indeed bridge those famous gaps, but not in any way that is of advantage to us..."

Do we have to be 'better than them?'

We want to get rid of them, that's all. Whatever it takes.

Don't forget: Infidels cannot even e buried in Saudi Arabia since that would 'desecrate' the soil. Why do we allow Mohammedans to bury their cadavers in the soil of the dar al harb?

Just so that they can claim it 'rightfully?'

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at April 5, 2006 8:03 AM

Beagle:

Irish neutrality in WWII ... Never been there and don't plan to g

However, there were many Irishmen from both north and south fighting Hitler. One of the founders of the SAS, which did a huge amount of damage to Axis forces in the Western Desert in WWII, was an Irishman.

And I can't afford holidays much myself, but I'm told it is a wonderful place to visit. There's a slower pace of life in the country than many of us are used to - cars even stop to let pedestrians cross the road. And there's a lot to see in the way of monuments and remains and artifacts.

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 5, 2006 8:20 AM

cars even stop to let pedestrians cross the road.

Well they its same here in Britain. But dont try that in France.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at April 5, 2006 9:41 AM

here's a thought, just a simple thought....
Me - "how about looking within to the muslims in your own country."
British Investigator - "WHAT??!! are you serious? We just got done with them protesting and calling for the deaths of innocents..we don't want that again. islam is the RoP!"
Me - "I don't think you're hearing me, investigate them and then deport them, if they're not here then no bombs!"
B.I. - "oohhh, but I don't want to be called a racist, I'm a very open minded individual.."
Me - "well you've got the open minded part right, when they blow off your head..."
B.I. - "now listen, I pride myself on being respectful [i.e. - Dhimmi] to other's religions [i.e. islam], and I will not make british muslims feel like second class citizens.
Me - "not a problem, they don't view themselves as citizens but as martyrs for some nut job/murderer/rapist/war monger/genocidal maniac/hateful leader and his dreams."

Christ - "...it is for freedom that you've been set free..."
Mohammad - "...it is for peace that you are being slaughtered..."

Posted by: Erik at April 5, 2006 11:04 AM

"I'm told it is a wonderful place to visit."
-- from a posting above

No implication, I trust, of "but I wouldn't want to live there."

After all, where else can you kiss both the Blarney Stone and Dark Rosaleen, or at least those who currently represent her?

Posted by: Hugh at April 5, 2006 11:10 AM

No implication, I trust, of "but I wouldn't want to live there."

I hadn't thought of that - though I doubt they'd take me. :-)

I just know plenty of people who've enjoyed holidays there.

Probably safer for tourists than Paris, too - some German visitors were stoned there just the other day on account of their clothing.

Good God - I just tried to find the link and got this. Ruins the mood raised by thoughts of dark beer in quiet stone-built pubs with green fields.

I never knew:

FRANCE * Growing reports indicate over 100 incidents in France. Below are 59 of the most serious to date:

1 Oct. Attempt to run over worshippers during "Tashlich" ceremony outside the Synagogue in Auberviliers, a Paris suburb (first of two incidents at this site)

1 Oct. Jews threatened and shoved by Arabs outside Ohalecha Yaakov Synagogue in Paris (first of two incidents at this site)

1 Oct. Stoning of Creteil Synagogue by Arabs (first of two attacks at this site)

1 Oct. Arabs riot outside Creteil Synagogue

1 Oct. Spate of pro-Arab Antisemitic graffiti in Lille

2 Oct. Firebombing of Rue Gresset Synagogue in Paris

2 Oct. Bomb threat against Nice Synagogue

3 Oct. Firebombing of Villepinte Synagogue

4 Oct. Telephone threat against Tenoudji Jewish school in Paris (first of three similar incidents at this site)

5 Oct. Yeshiva student attacked by Arabs while leaving school in Paris

6 Oct. "Death to the Jews" painted on two Synagogues in Marseilles

6 Oct. Stoning of Jewish children leaving Tenoudji school

7 Oct. Firebombing of Aubervilliers Synagogue during evening prayer service

7 Oct. Firebombing of Kosher restaurant in Paris. Several Arab youths attempt to attack other Jewish restaurants in the same area

7 Oct. Stoning of worshippers by Arabs outside La Duchere Synagogue, a suburb of Lyons

7 Oct. Group of Lyons Moslems calls for the burning of Synagogues

8 Oct. Antisemitic threats daubed on Marseilles Synagogue

8 Oct. Failed attempt to set Marseilles Synagogue Sukkah on fire

8 Oct. Firebombing of the Petach Eliyahu Synagogue in Lyons on Yom Kippur

8 Oct. Three firebombs thrown at Clichy sous Bois Synagogue in suburban Paris during Yom Kippur "Kol Nidrei" prayer service - worshippers exit in panic

9 Oct. Bullet shot at La Victoire Great Synagogue in Paris. A Tunisian citizen was arrested

9 Oct. Fire bombing of a Synagogue in the town of Creil (1st of two incidents on this site)

9 Oct. Fire bombing of Tenoudjio Jewish high school

9 Oct. Desecration of the Trappes Jewish cemetery near Versailles

9 Oct. Attack on Rue Crimee Synagogue in Paris. Torah scrolls destroyed

9 Oct. Stoning of worshippers by Arabs at Manget Synagogue in suburban Lyons

9 Oct. Arabs curse worshippers exiting Strasbourg's Great Synagogue

9 Oct. Arabs stone Ohaleicha Yaakov Synagogue in Paris

10 Oct. Three firebombs thrown at Les Ulis Synagogue, south of Paris. The Rabbi escaped through a second floor window

10 Oct. Chief Rabbi of France receives telephone bomb threat against Tournelle Synagogue in Paris

10 Oct. Trappes Synagogue near Versailles burnt to the ground.

11 Oct. Attack on Jewish students in Paris' Sorbonne University by Arab sympathizers from the extreme right movement GUD, shouting "Paris - Gaza Intifida"

11 Oct. Arabs carrying baseball bats surround Paris' Henri Murger Synagogue during services

11 Oct. Firebombing of Colombes Synagogue, in Paris suburb

11 Oct. Firebombing of Creil Synagogue

12 Oct. Firebombing of Seyne sur Mer Synagogue near Toulon

12 Oct. Telephone threat against Rue Copernic Synagogue, Paris on 20th anniversary of terrorist bombing of the same Synagogue which killed four in 1980

12 Oct. Stoning of Jewish children's school bus in Paris suburb

12 Oct. Orthodox Jew injured in attack by four Arabs in Paris

12 Oct. Firebombing of Bondy Synagogue near Paris

12 Oct. Firebombing of Julien Lacroix Synagogue in Paris

12 Oct. Firebombing of St. Ouen Jewish bookstore in Paris

12 Oct. Torching of two Jewish families' private homes in Orly suburb of Paris

12 Oct. Antisemitic graffiti in Le Blanc Mesnil near Paris

13 Oct. Firebombing of Toulouse Synagogue

13 Oct. Firebombing of Synagogue in Strasbourg

13 Oct. Firebombing of Longjumeau Synagogue near Paris

13 Oct. Firebombing of Garge Les Gonesses Synagogue in a suburb of Paris

13 Oct. Stoning of La Courneuve Synagogue in suburb of Paris

13 Oct. Firebombing of Chevilly La Rue Synagogue in suburb of Paris

13 Oct. Gun shots fired at Jewish car and store in Paris

13 Oct. Stoning of Kosher restaurant in Paris

13 Oct. Firebombing of Noisy le Sec Synagogue in suburb of Paris

13 Oct. Firebombing of Bagnolet Synagogue in Paris suburb

14 Oct. Car drives into Les Minguettes Synagogue of Venissieux Rhone, destroying building facade

15 Oct. Firebombing of Meudon la Foret Synagogue in suburb of Paris

16 Oct. Firebombing of Kosher butcher shop in Toulon

There are incidents listed there in other countries - 14 for the UK; 9 for the US - but France is by far the worst.

This is a total breakdown of law and order. I'm aghast. I don't understand how this can be tolerated.

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/nl/content2.asp?c=bhKRI6PDInE&b=296323&ct=350239"

Posted by: Yojimbo at April 5, 2006 12:18 PM

Mr. Pride:

violent acts towards others do not constitute a win in my book. I hope they don't in yours, either.

Posted by: jehana at April 5, 2006 12:42 PM

And in spite of all this I am willing to bet dollars to doughnuts much of the European Union STILL blames Israel and the United States for all this Islamic-instigated violence.

Posted by: pythagoras at April 5, 2006 3:04 PM

I'd like to see the Brits blame America for THIS!

Posted by: pythagoras at April 5, 2006 3:05 PM

You cannot force a person to leave the place where his family is living, without violence; let alone force a whole population out. It is as simple as that. But above all, I think this is simply a false solution. I have said it before, I will say it again: the notion of forcing every last Muslim to live in a Muslim reservation comprising only Muslim-majority countries will not work.

Posted by: Paolo at April 5, 2006 03:29 AM

I think Paolo that your argument holds no water, western democracies have interned and expelled whole populations in the past. The issue is not that it can’t be done but rather in what situations such a solution would be deemed the most prudent form of action.

The United States interned Japanese and German individuals during the last war under the pretext that they had the potential to be a danger to the United States and its constitution. For the moment the doctrine of Islam as I understand it means that the individual’s priority both physically and spiritually is to the Umma and the Umma alone. As a consequence of this Muslims are obliged through the concept of dawa and jihad to convert or subjugate all those that are not Muslim through any means possible, including by the sword.

So in effect Islam has already declared a state of war against the infidels and their nations. This state of war is obvious to anyone who pays close attention to past history and the current meltdown of the multicultural societies of Europe. By utilizing this fact and changing ones perspective of the problem from one where the dawa is merely a sociological problem which can be solved through application of laws to one where it is recognized as an aggressive force bent on destruction of the host culture, the argument for a internment and expulsion can easily be made.

I would argue that your reluctance to see the problem in such away is because you fail to realize the implications of the demographic change which is currently occurring in Europe and how this directly affects you. Europe has tried an integrative solution for the last 40 years and the current mess is merely the results of this solution. A failure to recognize that those that are Muslim are at war with you and their end goal is your subjugation will just compound the problem. Wars are not won by allowing the enemy to sit on your territory and compete for your resources with an ever expanding population, especially when your own population is in a terminal downward spiral.

Posted by: km at April 5, 2006 3:24 PM

Yojimbo

The French do not report this type of violence too frequently, being the pragmatists they are, they realise that it would instill a reaction from the real French.

What is strange is that all of the colonial countries who have accepted immigrants from their once large colonies, have had problems of a violent nature.

The Germans , British and French probably haven't realised that allowing people from a country which they pillaged wasn't a very good idea.

Must be a European thing...

As for the British;

If some other country gave away large portions of your own country to another people for helping to subdue you , I think you would be pretty angry.

The Irish have every right to fight for what is (or was )theirs.

The Northen Irish think they are British, this is a bit like claming that the stolen car you have been given is yours by right because the thief said so.

The Palastinian/Isreali problem was started when the British agreed to an Isreali state in Palastine in 1922.
At that time they also controlled what was called Trans-Jordan.

The bottom line, is this, the U.S has had to help clear up this mess and we seem to always get lambasted for it.

gets pretty dull after a while.

Posted by: Peter at April 5, 2006 5:33 PM

The Northen Irish think they are British, this is a bit like claming that the stolen car you have been given is yours by right because the thief said so.

Historic injustices aside, most people who live in Ulster DO want to remain in UK. Marginalisation of catholics is another matter.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at April 5, 2006 7:12 PM

km - such a nice world you live in. A world in which, once you have put someone away from your nice neighbourhood, this person cannot come back, cannot do you harm where they are, cannot provoke trouble, and where what happens in foreign countries (such as the Muslim Reservation you postulate) does not affect you in any way. What do they call your country, Flyingpigsland? (This for the insulting implication that I am a coward unwilling to contemplate the results of demography. If you want to discuss facts, do not resort to insults.)

At any rate, you are not as bad as Peter. This twit does not even seem to realize that what we are all talking about is Islamic violence, which has nothing to do with past colonial episodes. He also is wholly unaware that Germany only briefly had a few small colonies, and that its main immigrant community - Turks - were never colonials of Germany or of any other nation. Can someone please tell this Europe-hating, ignorant troll to go away?

My point, km, is that there is no dodging the issue of Islam wherever you go. It will pursue you into Antarctica, in the Marianas Trench, and on the Moon. Therefore Muslim pride must be broken ACROSS THE WORLD. It is a cultural battle. Muslims must unlearn their violent stupidity. It is comparatively irrelevant whether the battle takes place in Paris or in Peshawar, and chasing a few million Muslims from Europe will do nobody any good or make any difference. The Roman Empire chased the Jews from Rome in 47AD. By 56AD they were back.

Posted by: Paolo at April 6, 2006 2:15 AM

chasing a few million Muslims from Europe will do nobody any good or make any difference.
Posted by: Paolo at April 6, 2006 02:15 AM
-------------

It depends on how many survived.

Posted by: Texican at April 6, 2006 10:37 PM

I have read all the postings above and I have some questions despite, despite the fact that I have indicated that a process of removal would, or could, be legal.

Simply put,
Would it be moral?
If so, why so?
Would it solve our current problems?
Would it create new problems?
Where's my lighter?

Posted by: Certiorari at April 7, 2006 1:08 AM

OK, that last one was pure frustration.

Posted by: Certiorari at April 7, 2006 1:09 AM