Watching the news today… Islamic protestors in Britain spark rioting during a military homecoming celebration.
I’m an American, and I’m trying to understand the whole dynamic going on in the UK, of radical Muslims immigrating (in seemingly large numbers) to the United Kingdom. At first blush, it appears that either one of two things, or possibly both, is happening.
The radicals are 2nd generation, the children of mainstream muslims.
Muslims are immigrating to the UK in some sort of long-trend invasion, whereby they hope to eventually become an ethnic, political, and religious majority. Sounds conspiratorial, I know, but there is that whole “world caliphate” thing…
I guess I just don’t understand the reasoning of someone who immigrates to a country whose policies, values, and culture, they are vehemently opposed to. As an American WASP, I wouldn’t immigrate to Saudi Arabia or Iran, even for a good job, because I am opposed to the policies and religious culture of those countries.
Can anyone, especially Muslims or Brits, enlighten me?
I suppose one of the issue might be that the country in which most of them were born invades and occupies Muslim countries on entirely bogus pretexts contributing to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings/Muslims.
Ftr, even after 9/11 there was effectively no Islamic militancy in the UK - certainly not against the UK - until Blair decided to go along with Bush’s state-based acquisition of Iraq’s natural resources.
In all honesty, how can you not be angry at what was done in the name of the people by Bush and Blair?
Are Christians or athiests who protest against the war “radical Christians” or “radical athiests”? Cause its not like being against Britains participation in Iraq in Afghanistan is some fringe position held only by British Muslims.
The UK has a large number of ethnic Pakistanis (Pakistan, via old India, was a former colony) who are, IIRC, largely working class. Working class + ethnically different + second generation = disaffected youth. France has a similar situation with North Africans.
The Muslim immigrants to the US tend to be the more educated people. Or at least that was the case until recently.
The “war” between the Islamic middle-east, and the west didn’t begin on 9/11, or with the policies of Bush and Blair. Anglo-American foreign policy has been decidedly anti-Islamic since at least the 1940’s, and many would say much longer.
I didn’t post my question to create a vehicle for the debate of Bush/Blair policy, but since it’s been brought up, it’s only fair to point out that Obama has carried forward the Bush war plans and policies with incredible fidelity, and has actually expanded the war to include Pakistan and Yemen.
So… Getting back to the OP, why would this group of people immigrate to a country whose policies, values, and culture, they vehemently oppose?
Muslims who peacefully protest and exercise their right to free speech and political dissent, are simply Muslims. Muslims who attempt to blow up the London Underground as an act of jihad, are radical Muslims. Emphasis on the word radical.
Never said it was. Refer to the question in the OP.
A scuffle is not a riot. Nor is being a bunch of loud-mouthed gits a riot.
What the hell are you on about?
Seemingly large numbers?
You derive this from 25 young wankers yelling stupidities?
The big wave of Indo-Pak immigration was about 30-40 years ago, most of these kids are 2nd, even 3rd generation. Some of them are pretty rootless. Others are just young gits.
Some kind of long terend “invasion”???
When you used loaded, crazy phrases like this (and the whole riots thing and large numbers and long-trend invasion) I can’t help hearing someone with BNP leanings talking as this is all utter tripe.
Making money. Been done for hundreds of years, see e.g. Catholics to originally very Protestant USA.
Of course some may be following family.
But then almost all those kids were doubtless 2nd or 3rd generation.
Shrug. Given the thousands of long-term Anglo expats in Saudi and the Gulf, your thinking is hardly that usual.
[quoteCan anyone, especially Muslims or Brits, enlighten me?[/QUOTE]
Given the following interaction, there is a significant doubt as to that.
Ehhhhh. That’s not true mate, People weren’t talking about “Londinistan” for no reason, there were a number of radical mosques (although pretty tiny numbers relative to UK Indo-Pak muslim pop), but you’re right, wasn’t aimed at the UK at all.
Nope mate, there’s a very integrated and diverse population in the wealthier south of England, London especially, and then there’s the poor bastards that went to the Northern cities, and like the native Anglo population, are suffering badly from de-industrialisation and lack of economic opportunities (although they do make a huge portion of the shopkeepers).
No it hasn’t and don’t drag the UK into American idiocies.
First adjust your assumptions then one can have a conversation, and 75% of your comments are based on utter tripe.
Some of them probably are radicals, some are just young gits (like the long haired one).
True regarding disaffected youth, but there’s still a difference between the UK and France. For instance, there has been a survey showing that amongst Muslims in Europe, those living in the UK were amongst the most likely to identify first with their community (as opposed to, for instance, identify first as UK citizens), while French Muslims were amongst the less likely to do so.
France also has the lowest percentage of Muslims actually practising their religion (about 12% regularly go to the mosque).
The two main reasons for this difference IMO are : the fact that the UK has a long-standing tradition of communautarism, while this word is almost banned when discussing immigration or Islam in France. Second and more importantly, French Muslims come from countries where radical Islam is rather rare, and religion in general not nearly as important than in Pakistan (from where a lot of Muslims immigrants in the UK come from) to begin with.
So, there are disaffected youth in France burning cars and rioting, but they aren’t much motivated by religion or politics. In fact, from a number of cases I read about, French Muslims who turn radicals and end up in bad situations (going to Afghanistan or whatnot…) commonly first moved to the UK to find extremist religious leaders whose teaching are more to their liking. The UK is often perceived in Europe as being “Muslim Extremists Central”.
Yeah, like we don’t practice racial discrimination, while ostentatiously talking about universal values like the French.
In fact, we are a lot better on integration.
That is, UK has a long tradition of religious liberty and letting various groups do what they like within the bounds of law. In France the government tries its level best to obliterate all kinds of regional and other identities.
that’s a fair cop.
True, but Londinistan was mostly as far as I ever read the loony “refugees” / asylees crowd.
The radicals themselves were mainstream and mostly apolitical a decade ago. The wars on Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine, the demonisation of everything Islamic, the profiled security clampdown on civil liberties radicalised them.
Britain colonised the Indian subcontinent, which had a sizeable if minority Muslim population, and most British muslims emigrated gradually a long period, which occasional leaps like in 1972, when 30000 British passport Asians were expelled from Uganda by Idi Amin.
Today curry is voted Britains favourite meal, but the first recipe for curry was published in Britain in 1747, the first Indian restaurant opened in 1810, each new restaurant requiring chefs and waiters, and the first British mosque followed in 1889. In the Netherlands by contrast Indonesian cooking and Indonesian Muslims are far more prevalent because Indonesia was a Dutch colony.
The demonisation of Islam began soon after the Iron Curtain collapsed. There was brief talk of the ‘peace dividend’, and the west had to fill the Soviet Union sized hole in it’s justification for ‘defence’ expenditure.