Christians - Do not believe "promises" of Mohammedans.

End of story. No exceptions.

Reminds me of an old fable in which a snake entices a boy to come closer and pet it. The boy resists, but the snake continues it's entreaty, promising not to bite. So, the boy eventually decides to believe the snake, and, of course, immediately gets bitten. "Why'd you do that?" cried the boy. Replied the snake, "Why did you believe me - you knew I was a snake."

Posted by: darcy at October 23, 2008 10:27 AM

well its the sharia law that have been in place since the democratic elections. and who were in charge in the elections? let me remember....

is it the same people who where in charge in afganistan? they've got sharia law there too.

is it the same people who where in charge in kuwait? they've got sharia law there too.

something is wrong here....

Posted by: theygottago at October 23, 2008 10:34 AM

Finally, the prime minister promises that "the presence of Christians among the security forces and police will be increased, including at the officers' level": previously, the rank of officer had always been reserved for Muslims.
...........................................

I didn't know this was official Iraqi policy, but it hardly surprises me. After all, under Shari'ah, no non-Muslim is supposed to have any authority over any "Believer".

Why are we--a largely Christian country--propping up a government which actively discriminates against Christians? Why are we--an egalitarian, democratic country--propping up a government which actively discriminates against *any group*?

I wouldn't give a fig for the safety of any Christian Iraqi officer. They would always be at risk--of not being obeyed, of being resented, and--finally--of being attacked or killed by their own men. The idea that this would give Christians "more security" in such an atmosphere seems entirely unlikely.

Why does Maliki want the Christians to come back? Because he wants to minimize the threat, because it is something of an international embarrassment?

It hardly matters. His government will do nothing to protect the Christians. And, I fear--neither will ours.

Posted by: gravenimage at October 23, 2008 10:50 AM

The man's name escapes me at the moment, but wasn't one of the more prominent members of Saddam's government a Christian? It was seen as "proof" of Saddam's openness.

Posted by: PMK at October 23, 2008 11:07 AM

Welcome to my home (nest) said the spider to the fly.

Christians returning home can then be targeted when the exterminations resume...again...

Posted by: duh_swami at October 23, 2008 11:08 AM

The real odd thing is that we in the west give asylum to Mohammedans and simply overlook the plight of non Muslims who are persecuted in Islamic countries. What gives? How is it that the Christians in this case are not getting asylum into the west.

Knowing the criminal minds of Mohammedans they will pretend to be Christians inorder to get into the west, if the west decides to give asylum to the Iraqi Christians and ban Mohammedan immigration.

Posted by: savsiv at October 23, 2008 11:16 AM

If Christians leave Iraq then who will pay the jizya? OF COURSE Iraqis want them to stay.

If Christians leave Iraq then where is the opportunity for jihad? OF COURSE Iraqis want them to stay.

How about al-Maliki's choice of words?

Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki is calling on them to "stay" and to "collaborate in the reconstruction of the country."

No promise that they would benefit from said collaboration.

Al Maliki is asking the Christians "not to give in to the criminal plan," and to remain in Iraq in order to contribute to the rebuilding of the country...

Contribute; collaborate. And what have Christians gained from their support of the al-Maliki government? What will they gain?
Meanwhile al-Maliki has "given in" to the criminals.

Al-Maliki CONFIRMED that "the violence in Mosul is part of a precise political plan in the country," although he did not specify who is responsible for the attacks.
But Christians are supposed to believe those responsible will be punished?

Bit by bit, the land of Islam is being denuded of all other faiths. We are seeing what happens when Muslims drive others away. Will we let it happen here?

Posted by: PMK at October 23, 2008 11:17 AM

Obama Campaign Credit Card Fraud Alert

Posted by: Lumpy at October 23, 2008 11:21 AM

What?! This can't be right. Everyone knows that Christians are always the oppressors of other faiths.

Just like only white people can be racist, all conservatives are evil trolls, and all liberals fart perfume and rainbows.

Posted by: give me doughnuts at October 23, 2008 11:24 AM

This has happened before in the history of Iraq. The country, and the city of Baghdad, became so much less lively, less interesting, poorer in both the economic and non-economic sense, when the Jews of Iraq, who in the 1920s constituted one-third of Baghdad's relatively advanced and cosmopolitan -- by Arab Muslim standards -- population, were driven out or left for fear of the future in a Muslim state, where the pogrom of June 1-2, 1941 left hundreds of Jews dead in mob violence, and then the pogroms began again when, maddened by the ability of Israel to survive, the Muslims, unprompted by the state, let loose on their Jewish neighbors.

Now that Saddam Hussein, who because he used Ba'athism as a cover ("a party open to all") for Sunni Arab despotism, is gone, and he who cunningly understood that the Christians were never a threat to his regime, unlike the majority Shia, but in fact could be useful. And useful they were. Many of the tasters, the drivers, the cleaners, in short -- the household staff -- were Christians, for they could be relied on not to be involved in plots against him. (The Americans in the Green Zone, those higher up, inherited that Christian staff, and used them, relied on them, in the same way). And the odd Christian, such as Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz (his assumed, Muslim-sounding name), was as a Christian valuable, exploitable, as the public face, in the West, of the regime of Saddam Hussein. Indeed, Tariq Aziz, that tame court Christian," may be seen as a mesopotamian variant on the Egyptian Boutros Boutros Ghali, a Copt (his grandfather had been assassinated by Muslims), married to an Egyptian Jew, and a smooth operator whose talents were exploited by Saint Sadat, but whose arrival in high office did nothing to improve the lot of the Copts, much less the by-now-disappeared Jews, in Egypt. Boutros Boutros Ghali did make it harder for the West to undertand all the ways in which Copts suffered in Egypt, did help hide or disguise the fact that the government of Egypt discriminated against, and did little or nothing to stop attacks on non-Muslims -- but for the West, there was Boutros Boutros Ghali, and that was reassurance, that was comfort enough. Of such things do the idiotic politics and perceptions of the age apparently consist.

The Christians will not come back. Why should they? And when they leave, they who provided a great number of Iraq's doctors, engineers, and other educated professionals, will be lost to Iraq. And the people -- the Muslims especially -- will be the poorer. And wherever there has been an outflow of non-Muslims, the Muslims who by their inculcated attitudes and behavior, of hostility, or of tolerance for the attacks of other Muslims on those non-Muslims, has left the Muslims in a worse position. Look at Algeria, where the Muslim fanatics have slit the throats of French priests and Italian monks whose only vocation was charity, was ministering to the poor. Look at the Western aid-workers, including people who lived for decades in the country, helping out -- the Italian lady murdered in Somalia, the aid-workers in Afghanistan trying to help women. Look at how the Hindus have been steadily attacked, and driven out, of Bangladesh and Pakistan. Look at what the Bumiputra system has done to Malaysia, where at long last the Chinese and Hindus are revolting, publicly alarmed at the greater and greater islamisation ofthe country, and the attempts to make non-Muslims ever more insecure. If there were to be a mass exodus of non-Muslims, what then would happen to the Muslims left in Malaysia? Is Indoensia better off because it has allowed attacks on Christian Indonesians, in East Timor, in the Moluccas? Or done nothing to discourage hostility toward Hindus in Bali?

Without non-Muslims living in Muslim lands, whether they once served to provide the Jizyah on which so many Muslim states relied, or whether they simply provide an essential, quite disproportionate part of the very small educated class in any Arab or Muslim society, or without aid from Infidel countries, these places -- the ones without oil -- would fall apart.

Note, in today's news, that Pakistan, econmoically desperate Pakistan, having soaked the Americans for more than thirty billion dollars in aid and debt relief since 9/11/2001, now finds it must go elsewhere to replenish its coffers, having exhausted America's patience and generosity, and apparently is turning to the IMF, which is also funded by Infidel governments. Why? Well, because fellow Muslims, no matter how fabulously rich, will not give them a cent. Even Saudi Arabia, with its trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund, will give Pakistan nothing, not even concessionary prices on the measly 100,000 barrels of oil Pakistan imports daily from Saudi Arabia. No, it's the Infidel peoples and governments who keep oil-lacking Muslim states and peoples afload just as, within the welfare states of Western Europe, there has been, and it grows in size every day, a fantastic transfer of wealth from the non-Muslim indigenous taxpayers to Muslim immigrants, who so far have shown not the slightest diminishment -- if anything, they show an increase -- in their supremacist hostility to the legal and political instiuttions, and social understandings and arrangements, of the host societies within which they have -- for the most part (there are always a handful of heartening, but quite misleading, exceptions) so parasitically settled.

Posted by: Hugh at October 23, 2008 12:26 PM

Christians - Do not believe "promises" of Mohammedans.

End of story. No exceptions.

Posted by: darcy

Yes - I could not agree more! Darcy's comment bears repeating. Make no exceptions, as your life depends on it.

Posted by: champ at October 23, 2008 12:33 PM

"Al Maliki is asking the Christians 'not to give in to the criminal plan,' and to remain in Iraq in order to contribute to the rebuilding of the country: in order to do this, he expresses his hope that there may be "the help and collaboration of the entire society"

I could not even imagine attempting to do this with any real success. The Islamic apologists who frequent Jihad Watch are a hand full to talk to, and most of them are the "moderates" who comment here; so imagine trying to make things work with a more devout Muslim. Forget it, Maliki is living in a dream world if he thinks that there's any talking to that crowd, because there isnt'. Christians will not only lose their lives in an effort towards peace, but their minds as well.

Talking to Islamic terrorists is a complete waste of time, as is talking to certain moderate Muslims.

Posted by: champ at October 23, 2008 12:43 PM

PMK asks:

"The man's name escapes me at the moment, but wasn't one of the more prominent members of Saddam's government a Christian? It was seen as "proof" of Saddam's openness."

The man was General Sada, a member of Saddam's inner circle and one of the few men who openly defied him. He wrote an interesting book. 'Saddam's Secrets'.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 23, 2008 1:00 PM

What if the shoe were on the other foot and the Christian west was in trouble. What IF and I mean that very remotely, the Muslims decided to help us take back our country from a wicked despot only to find that we started to kill their fellow worshippers, even though they were still in our lands helping to free us and create a stable society?
The simple answer is they'd immediately pull out and have nothing to do with us. This is what we should do - pull out of Iraq asap and take from Iraq what we believe to be a fair cost for removing Saddam for them.
One thing about Iraq, when Saddam was in power was, the place ran smoothly, women could teach and rise in profession and Christians were safe to worship amongst a majority Muslim land.
I said from Day One that we should never have removed the regime in Iraq as it was not our business and certainly not our war. Look what we have created? A place where Islamism is ever closer to the gates and Christians persecuted for their faith, even though the Christian West freed their city from the man, many hated.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at October 23, 2008 1:05 PM

I should mention about General Sada's book that is self-serving and far-fetched. I believe he was another yes-man to Saddam and lies a lot. Saddam felt a minority Christian would be less likely and unable to organize a coup against him than the Islamists and others he feared.

Posted by: poetcomic1 at October 23, 2008 1:05 PM

poetcomic1,

I had never heard of Sada. The one I was thinking of was Tariq Aziz.

So that means Saddam had TWO Christians in his government. The man was a champion of diversity.

Posted by: PMK at October 23, 2008 1:47 PM

Note, in today's news, that Pakistan, econmoically desperate Pakistan, having soaked the Americans for more than thirty billion dollars in aid and debt relief since 9/11/2001, now finds it must go elsewhere to replenish its coffers, having exhausted America's patience and generosity, and apparently is turning to the IMF, which is also funded by Infidel governments.

If Obama gets elected, granted that he'll be ugly as far as Iran and the Palis go: however, one thing I do hope he does is simply cut off aid to countries like Pakistan and Egypt completely. Something he'll have to do in a financial crunch anyway, since it's programs like social security, medicare and other populist schemes that will serve his party, not foreign aid. If he does that, the one good thing that he'll be doing - which Bush hasn't - would be to dry up the funding for the ummah that doesn't come from the sale of oil.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at October 23, 2008 1:52 PM

Richard the Lionheart,
Should we have ignored when Saddam invaded Kuwait?

The one reason I found for removing Saddam was either we went all the way or we left the place entirely. That meant forgetting the no-fly zones and pulling out of Saudi Arabia and letting the Muslims figure out their own balance of power. It meant leaving the Kurds and the Shiites to Saddam and refusing to accept any and all responsibility for what happened to them in the future. Either he's the leader or he isn't. If Saddam was the leader then all responsibility fell on his shoulders.
It meant saying to the world: we buy oil. Whoever wants to sell it to us, we'll buy from them but we are not responsible for what they do within the borders of their own countries.
Forget the "moral responsibility" which the world tries to get the US to shoulder. It's not ours. We didn't create the world. Contrary to myth, we didn't put Saddam or all the other Muslim dictators of the world in power.
National sovereignty cuts both ways. People who want the US to butt out of their countries shouldn't expect us to butt in when life isn't fair. Freedom comes at a price - responsibility.

Posted by: PMK at October 23, 2008 2:00 PM

"The Iraqi government is asking Christians to remain in Iraq, but is doing nothing to stop them from being slaughtered"

So it's harder to slaughter Christians if they have a running start?

Posted by: tanstaafl at October 23, 2008 2:04 PM

Can we swap Iraq our Somalis for their Christians?

Somalis can live under sharia as they desire, Iraqi Christians can live in freedom to practice their religion without persecution as they desire, and the Iraqi Government can be rid of the "Christian problem" as they desire.

Win, Win, Win.

Posted by: walterc at October 23, 2008 4:59 PM

PMK,

I've always enjoyed your posts however, regarding Iraq, it's about Oil and always has been. Don't start thinking I'm a member of the left as I am most definitely not. I am like you, that is, from your posts you've written, you're a patriotic American and I am a patriotic Brit.
Answering your question of Iraq and Kuwait, it would be "Yes, we should have ignored Saddam when he invaded Kuwait." Kuwait is Kuwait's problem as Britain is Britain's problem along with America, America's problem etc etc. The only time we should have got involved with Iraq was when it directly threatened us or Israel and that simply was not happening.
Pur biggest problem in the West is Oil. We should have invested in alternative energy(Nuclear) a long time ago. End of. We should not be involved in the Middle East. Let them blow the crap out of one another, butcher one another all in the name of Allah for all I care. What I am concerned about is British and American lives dying for people who don't give a sh*t about them. Let Iraqi's shed the blood of Iraqis for Independence.
We have to make a choice and that is to 'get involved' and take responsibility for everything that happens or ignore them. I choose the latter. I would then go onto say that "if Iraq wants to continue it's war like regime, then they will be watched and all travel out of Iraq into the West will immediately be stopped. All involvement with the west will end". They will soon realise that they need the West more than we need them, especially that is if we're not buying their oil as we've found alternative energy.
I've always maintained that freedom comes at a price but really, we need to shut ourselves off from the East and stop all travel from the East to the West and that includes aid, medicine, finance etc etc.
We've moved off from the question PMK, but really, any fool, not Muslim that wants to go to Iraq and make it better faces a dangerous agenda. It's high time we started to say to Muslims that when you come to our lands you behave as we do - no burkhas/hijabs, no Halal meat, no Praying to Allah 5 times a day, no this, no that. When they realise that their freedoms are restricted to practice their religion, then they'll stop coming here, especially when we treat them as outsiders and make them pay for EVERYTHING with NO benefits whatsoever, regardless.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at October 23, 2008 5:33 PM

Richard,
I think we're on the same page. Hindsight is 20/20 - I mean mine and my question about Kuwait. It wasn't meant as a challenge to you. At the time Kuwait was taken over, I thought going in and getting Saddam out of there was a good thing.
It's taken a long time for me to see it but I think once we were in for the penny, we should have gone in for the pound. That meant marching into Baghdad. If we weren't prepared to do that then we never should have gone in.
In 1945 we weren't satisfied with moving German troops back into Germany. The allied armies marched to Berlin. The Nazis were vanquished. It's too late to worry about that now. It's done. Never let it be said we can't learn from our mistakes. We turn a deaf ear and a blind eye to future requests for help along those lines.
The problem today is globalism. Another problem is the United Nations. We need to get it out of the US and we Americans need to get out of the UN.
We have the ICC, which Europeans hold our not joining against us, and a lot of other organizations and groups formed for the sole purpose of limiting the power of individual nations. Everything that you or I want our leaders to do cannot be done while these treaties are in place.
We're off topic but not really, since everything that is happening today was put in motion by Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the world's answer to it. We need to learn the lessons of that incident, so that we don't repeat the mistakes we made with Iraq.

Posted by: PMK at October 23, 2008 7:18 PM

The Muslims don't want the Christians to leave.

Some Muslims will make a show of 'protecting' them - but will wink when the rapes, kidnappings and, finally, the vast riots and mass-murdering begins.

Ockham's Razor says: the Muslims don't intend for the Christians to escape, or to live. They want them dead, dead, dead.

Not allowed to leave; but, where they are forced to remain, not permitted to live.

They are Designated Sacrificial Animals: each Christian represents, as potential murder/ human sacrifice, a Ticket to Paradise for a Muslim jihadist. Can't let all those potential Tickets to Paradise get away...

The Muslims of Mesopotamia murdered or drove out all the Jews in the 1950s - "First the Saturday people".

Now it's the turn of the "Sunday people".

And the tragedy of it is that, if only one got a good look at the genetic markers, one would probably find that many of those now baying for the blood of the Christians, raping them, robbing them, threatening them, murdering/ human sacrificing them, would be themselves the descendants of people who were once Assyrian Christians and/ or of Jews, but who - a generation ago, a century ago, 400 years ago, 1000 years ago - simply could not endure, any longer, the grinding misery and day-to day bullying that was their lot as dhimmis, gave up, gave in, and joined the Muslim Mobsters, selling their souls to Mohammed the Prophet of Death.

And many may well be the descendants of young Christian or Jewish girls and boys, violently snatched from their families, as for example, Hannah Menashe was snatched, and then raped, abused, terrorised, brainwashed, 'converted' to the accursed cult of slavery and tyranny, the Un-law and Anti-Ethic of Submission.

Elves - transformed into Orcs.

Note to all non-Muslim governments with troops still in Iraq, and governments (such as those of Australia) who have left, but who were once there:

DO SOMETHING!

Give the Christians weapons with which to defend themselves while you get their evacuation underway, and while it takes place; and then begin a mass evacuation to safer, majority-Christian countries.

The so-called 'government' of Iraq, and any local Muslims who kick up a stink at the sight of their Sacrificial Victims/ Slaves/ Milch Cows/ Chew Toys/ Sex Toys/ Punching Bags/ Scapegoats being whisked out of their grasp, should simply be told: shut up; we're taking them all out, now, and there is not a damn thing you can do to stop it; if you try we will hammer you into the ground. And NO Muslim, whether in our own countries nor in Iraq, will be permitted anywhere NEAR the application/ checking process for these refugees.

Christian-majority countries - do what the Jews of Israel did for the Jews from Arab and other Muslim lands, in the 1940s-50s. Open your doors and take them in, these Christians from Mesopotamia.

But make it known, loud and clear, that any *Muslim* found to have posed as a Christian, in order to get into the West, will be booted right back to Iraq the instant that the imposture is detected.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 23, 2008 11:10 PM

Addendum to the above:

And once all the Assyrian Christians are safely OUT of Mesopotamia...then, all of a sudden, without warning, all the Infidel troops, with all their equipment, every last nut and bolt, bullet and roll of barbed wire, simply leave, also. And the money tap turned off, as they leave.

Leave Islam to be what Islam is, displayed for all the world to see.

Posted by: dumbledoresarmy at October 23, 2008 11:19 PM

DDA,
It's too bad but it really has come to that. It's time for sectarian cleansing. The Islamists would use violence. Our method is simply to pack up and move elsewhere.
Note how many Muslims (zero?) were kicked out of Israel in response to the Arab countries stripping all their Jewish citizens of all their possessions and dropping them off at Israel's door.
Of course your policy requires one more addendum: no Muslims from anywhere in the world can be allowed to travel to Western countries. I would include in that all British, French, American Muslims. Muslims living in the West should either stay where they are or leave with the full knowledge that they won't be allowed back in. This means anyone who does the hajj can stay in Saudi Arabia. Take their passports away from them as they board the flight to Mecca.
Why we say with a straight face that citizen x traveled to Afghanistan or Pakistan for training in a terrorist camp is beyond me. If we know he did that then why wasn't he put on trial for treason or else stripped of his citizenship and sent into exile?

Posted by: PMK at October 24, 2008 7:54 AM

PMK,

You are correct, we are on the same page. I do agree, we should have gone down the rabbit hole after the rabbit in the first Gulf War and smashed Saddam, his Baathist Party and Republican Guard. We should then simply have said to the Iraqis - "Your dictator is gone - now get on with it. this is the last time we do you any favours(of course making sure that substantial reparations were made to the Allied Forces for overall military costs).
We cannot expect to turn a Muslim Society into a Democracy. As much as Turkey is the closest we have to a Western Democracy, its population are still at odds with one another on Sharia, Islamism, Secularism and Democracy. The West knew that by dethroning Saddam, we would create a Sectarian Hell amongst the Shia, the Sunni and the Kurds, not forgetting the Non Muslims too.
I agree as well about Globalism. There should be no United Nations, League of Nations. We should still have Sovereign Countries, trading with one another and letting each other have control over their country and not others, especially much weaker ones. I'm sure Americans would be angry if Iceland for example decided what happened in America, like we have Brussels deciding for the UK.
The UN is a waste of space. They acheive nothing, it costs money and when war does break out that they have been unable to prevent, they are powerless to act(Rwanda, Former Yugoslavia and many more).
I've been reading a book on the Creation of the EU and the machinations behind the evolving of the United States of Europe/European Union of Socialist Republics. It's called "The Great Deception: Can the European Union Survive" by Richard North and Christopher Booker. In it, it outlines how a Frenchman by the name of Monnet outlines his plans in government to create a European Union with eventual control over all of Europe. Of course Churchill was totally against this as well as yet more British Politicians afterwards, not forgetting other Nation's Politicians too. Churchill wanted the UK to remain a Sovereign State, with control over its finances, borders, fishing fleets, agricultural/industrial production and to be 'in' Europe but only through Trade. Of course Monnet wanted the complete opposite and the creation of the EU President, with total control over all of Europe has always been hampered by the British - that is until NuLabour got into power. You may want to read it.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at October 24, 2008 8:40 AM

dumbledoresarmy wrote:

"......And the tragedy of it is that, if only one got a good look at the genetic markers, one would probably find that many of those now baying for the blood of the Christians, raping them, robbing them, threatening them, murdering/ human sacrificing them, would be themselves the descendants of people who were once Assyrian Christians and/ or of Jews, but who - a generation ago, a century ago, 400 years ago, 1000 years ago - simply could not endure, any longer, the grinding misery and day-to day bullying that was their lot as dhimmis, gave up, gave in, and joined the Muslim Mobsters, selling their souls to Mohammed the Prophet of Death......."

This is the point that I've been making since posting here. Although not quite eloquently put with history to back it up, the tolerance that is the Christian West now was identical to the tolerance that was the Assyrian Christians, who did not fight back against the bullying and instead took the motto "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em". The first time really that the West made a stand against Islamic oppression was a thousand years ago, with the creation of the Knights Hospitalers, protecting Pilgrims who journeyed to the Holy Lands in the East, from the Muslim hordes. How can the West expect to defeat a people who want to control us, stating that their religion is the only true religion and we are infidels? How can we expect to stop Islamisation when we are not prepared to stop the continued growth of our enemy within our castle walls?
It's odd, but the above reminds me of the Lord of the Rings by Tolkien. No doubt you've read the book and we all know that Tolkien was a staunch Christian, who no doubt the Orcs, the people of the East and of course Mordor, represented Islam. You may recall the words of Theoden King atop the battlements of Helm's Deep, looking across at the thousands of Orcs and saying "What can man do against such reckless hate"?

I agree with the rest of your posts and I've been saying for a long time to completely remove Islam from the West.
Knock down the Mosques,
close the Halal Meat Shops,
stop the wearing of Islamic dress publicly,
no holidays for Ramadan or other Muslim festivals,
Muslims not agreeing to handle western foodstuffs(alcohol/pork) be immediately cautioned and second time sacked,
remove Polygamy laws for Muslims,
no marriages from outside of the UK,
no benefits to be paid outside the UK,
no benefits for Muslims/immigrants unless they've lived here for a minimum of 15 years,
no free education/health,
employ people who only speak English perfectly

We can't move Islam out without causing problems with other European countries, but we can make our country an intolerable place for them to live in. The Human Rights Courts will be able to do nothing when we compare restrictions on Muslims as Iran and Saudi Arabia do with Christians/Non Muslims.
We should immediately send out the saying that we are welcoming all Christians from outside of the West, living in Muslim lands. We would also remove all Muslims from Council/Association Housing and put those people in. We would want Islam to leave on their own accord, realising that the West offers them a far worse off life than their Islamic lands. This way, not one arm need be raised in violence. All we would simply state to them is "When in Rome live like a Roman".
They are laughing at us because of our tolerance and they see that tolerance as our weakness.
Unless we implement the above changed, Islamisation is inevitable before the end of the 21st Century for sure.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at October 24, 2008 9:06 AM

PMK wrote:

It's too bad but it really has come to that. It's time for sectarian cleansing. The Islamists would use violence. Our method is simply to pack up and move elsewhere.

The west is behaving just like Christ did, he did not struggle when the Jewish guards came to arrest him, he did not defend himself when questioned by the governor Pontius Pilate and what happened? They nailed him to a tree. We in the West are like Christ and it will lead to our ultimate demise.
There is a problem with sectarian cleansing. It would be seen as 'ethnic' cleansing by the HR Courts. Look what happened in Yugoslavia? That was our biggest mistake, in allowing islamisation of Serbian Kosovo to happen and worse still the British and American leaders endorsed it!

Our biggest problem in the West is that we believe that we can 'reform' Islam. Let it stay in the west for time to come and our way of life, our democratic courts and tolerant example will show them that our way is better. They of course continue to ignore the blindingly obvious in the foundations of Islam and barbarity and bloodshed of their creator Muhammad.
AS in my above post to DDA, we should make life intolerable for Muslims to live here and you can see the list. This way, as explained, would not mean lifting one hand in violence against Islam. All we would do was simply suppress it from being allowed to grow. I would also add that we would as Muslims in the West if they were planning on staying in the West after one child was born to them. If so then they would be 'neutered' allowing no more children to be born in the West. They would of course be told this and it would be in their bet interests to move to Islamic lands if they wanted more children, but in doing so would immediately forfeit any citizenship to this country, regardless of birth. This is draconian no doubt, but then we are looking at the survival of the West and all it has to offer.

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at October 24, 2008 9:19 AM

Richard the Lionheart,

Thanks for the book recommendation. You also reminded me of a book written, I believe, by an American author and titled: The United States of Europe.

My use of the term "sectarian cleansing" may have been over the top. But it was more of a passive cleansing than an aggressive cleansing that was being called for. I was referring more to the result of such actions as are being called for by you and others. Make the West less welcome and fewer people will come. How many of us would move to Iran if the opportunity presented itself? How many Iranians would move here if the opportunity arose?
You don't see that many people trying to move out of Western countries and into Muslim-dominated countries.
I can't be sure but I assume that in the forty-plus years the Communists dominated Yugoslavia and in the eight decades that the Russians ran the "stans" in Asia, not a whole lot of people from those areas ever made the hajj.
That means Muslims don't HAVE to go to Mecca. (If the opportunity doesn't present itself they are excused.)
So why not put a similar restriction on Muslims living in the West? (see below)

Muslims living in the West should either stay where they are or leave with the full knowledge that they won't be allowed back in. This means anyone who does the hajj can stay in Saudi Arabia. Take their passports away from them as they board the flight to Mecca.

Posted by: PMK at October 24, 2008 11:59 AM

PMK,

You missed my earlier reply to you above I believe.....however, I will certainly have a look at the book - The United States of Europe, it sounds intriguing. I would like to see an American's viewpoint on Europe, although I am still waiting for my copy of "While Europe Slept" by Bruce Bawer. I've read bits and pieces already and it looks very interesting, although, it will be telling me what I already know, I do believe.

Maybe you should have used the words 'sectarian conditioning' instead as it doesn't sound so harsh. However, my only concern is, what happens when what we saw what happened in former Yugoslavia, happen here in the UK, Europe and the USA? I think it was the worst thing that the West did was to side with the Muslims on this, as it gave them a foundation to start building their Islamising of Europe with.
One thing I constantly say to many people is "How many Christians/Non Muslims are moving to Islamic Lands to live and settle?" The answer of course is very few. The only people I can think of are Christian Aid Workers, Left Wing Pro Palestine supporters and of course people working in the Oil Industry, especially in Saudi and the UAE. I wouldn't move there if they paid me a $million an hour.
Russia never had a problem with Islam becuase it crushed any uprising against it with brutal swiftness. The same can also be said for China, who are now having their problem with their Muslim population.
When it came to the Muslims in the UK, I would simply haul each one individually, scan them, take their fingerprints, retina scans, DNA and find out their loyalties. However, the first thing we have to do is completely break away from the Human Rights Courts and be prepared for war against the UN should they decide to send their "blue helmeted" cannon fodder to stop us.

Nations should continue for the simple reason that this way there would be no chance of destroying cultures and histories. Do not destroy Islam as it has as much right to be here as any other Cult or religion. However, the best way to sort all this out is to simply remove Muslims from the West and send them to their Islamic lands where they can live amongst their own people, their own culture and practice what they like without having any conflict with society as they very much do in the West. This way you immediately end all Islamic terrorism within the West. It won't end Islamic Terrorism in the Middle East, but then, as long as it's not in the West, then I couldn't care less quite frankly. This way also stops any possible wars as well as creates a safe haven for people, who do not want to live amongst Muslims and be persecuted for their Non Muslim beliefs. People call this oppressive, my way of thinking, but then like the dropping of the Bomb in Hiroshima, sure there were casualties, but it stopped hundreds of thousands of allied and Japanese deaths that would no doubt have occurred had America been entangled in a war with Japan.
It's called having common sense, thinking ahead and finding a solution that is best for all. We in the west don't like Islam and disagree with its ideology. Islam disagrees with Western Society, Ideology and Culture. Therefore, on that premise, why on earth do we continue to allow Islam to remain in the West. I really, really don't know. After all, as you said, no one's moving to live in Islamic lands now are they?

Posted by: Richard the Lionheart at October 24, 2008 12:59 PM