You have to break into their house and steal the toaster oven back.
As a Londoner I wish I knew where these no-go areas were so I could avoid them. They sound terrible.
The EDL are a bunch of right-wing weekend warriors draping themselves in the flag to legitimise their quasi-fascist idiocy. Yes, they’ve got an Asian guy as a member. Who commutes in from Glasgow. To support the English Defense League. Seriously, the EDL are like the retarded brother of the BNP, and that’s saying something.
Well to be fair to Valteron he is correct in that 95-97% of Pakistanis are muslim.
As for no go areas for white people, well here’s a non partisan link written by an asian correspondent.
As for Sharia law, well. Although I admit that the Daily Fascist is hardly an unbiased source.
I assumed it was “Taqiyya”, the word he was “admonished” for in post #89.
Mate, from the very text you should be able to divine that the "Pakistani"author is either not Pakistani at all or is simply plagiarising the British National Party: “according to local residents who have asked the **BNP’s News Team **to raise the issue that the commercial media refuse to touch.”
That clearly shows the slovely git couldn’t be arsed even to disguise the actual writer / source of what is not at all a non-partisan source, BNP News [sic] Team. Jaysus, bloody read the thing.
In any case, yeah, right. BNP has all the credibility of the KKK in talking about violence.
It’s very simply absurd bollocks being put forth by racists.
Shrug… we’ve talked about this silly hysteria before.
And indeed mine asking you to name specific alleged “no-go” areas for non-Muslims.
ETA: bonus - you can also take the opportunity perhaps to distance yourself from the aforementioned fascist group you cited, now you know what they actually are.
That really made me laugh.
Ummm, mate you may not like his analysis of Pakistan, but it is at least as colourable as yours. Perhaps you should merely agree to disagree, as from where I sit, Pakistan has no great claims to ‘stability.’ Anyway, hardly core to this … discussion.
Oh it was pretty clear he was trying to insinuate (rather comically) that you’re a fellow-traveller with the Scary Muslims aka Terrorists or dissembler via Taqqiya and actually one of them.
In the annals of unintended own-goal comedy, this is a good one.
I stand corrected, I only scanned the link quickly and missed the (obvious) link to the BNP. As wmfellows said, this is a weak attempt by the BNP to whip up hatred.
On the subject of Sharia though I remain concerned that this will beocme part of British life, even the Archbishop of Canterbury is convinced of this.
Whether we like it or not Sharia is becoming part of British life and is biased against women. Cite.
The Guardian sums up my views on Islamophobia quite well. Cite
I’m imagine there is some truth to it, but they’re playing Valteron’s game of blaming bad actions of Muslims exclusively on their faith, but excusing similar acts from non-Muslims. E.g. the reported attacks appear to be gang violence, full stop. If there’s validity in the reported incidents, they have indeed perpetrated by people who are probably Muslim - but crucially that doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re perpetrated because they’re Muslim. IMO they’re perpetrated because they’re young thugs.
Which is pretty much the BNP’s [del]raison d’etre[/del] (oops, sorry - that’s French) reason for existing.
And yet we don’t complain about the Amish or Orthodox Judaism, both of which have an additional set of values-based rules to which they adhere which lay atop the existing laws of the land, and neither of which are particularly friendly to women. Hell, there are parts of New York (or so I hear) and London which have actual demarcation for zones to which strict Jewish laws apply to those who choose to follow them.
Of course, no one is being forced to follow them if they don’t want to. It’s still legal to eat a bacon sandwich in Golder’s Green, and will continue to be so.
That’s quite an entertaining article all around, if only to watch the extremely liberal Guardian headspinning over the fact that the Conservatives have a Muslim woman as their leader while Labour and the Lib Dems are still run by rich white guys.
Eh, seems to me pretty marginal, and so long as there are safeguards, I am not particularly worried.
[Edited to add: Gyrate said it better than I did.]
Yeah, I don’t know the park, but the spin is clear enough. And re BNP, had the situation been reversed for any given incident, well of course it’s just young defenders of the Nation…
Apparently you don’t live in North America, then.
I am no fan of the sort of unfounded declarations to which Der Trihs is prone, but his summary you quoted is pretty accurate for the level of discourse in this thread.
The indigenous North Americans suffered massive population loss due to European disease and warfare. The Europeans, on a number of occasions, expressed the desire to convert those people to Christianity as a reason to invade the continent. “Christian” societies were in the habit of removing children from their parents to raise them in “Christian” schools as late as the 1950s. Similarly, slaves imported from Africa were subject to conversion and there are many records of slave owners and slavery defenders expressing the good benefits of bringing Christianity to those people.
I am not sure what nitpick you believe would dismiss the statement you quoted, but your blanket denial is simply wrong.
I knew, upon reading the quoted demolition job (go ahead and click on the little arrow next to jjimm’s name to read it all), that there was no way in the world Valteron would address it directly.
I appear to be correct.
Has he addressed any refutation at all?
Well, he said it was pointless, “…simply because refuting them as they would need to be would be a waste of an entire day or week.”
So, it could be he knows he hasn’t got a leg to stand on.
In any event, I don’t really get the point of these Valteron anti-muslim threads. He repeatedly starts from a premise that, by itself, hardly anyone would dispute (that there are radical, violence-condoning elements within Islam who choose to wrap themselves in the cloak of religious edict to justify what are primarily political actions), as if he was the first person on this board to ever notice this. He then cherry-picks some data, from any source, to try and build a case that this is majority muslim behavior, then spends the rest of the thread yelling at anyone who disagrees with this undeniably extreme viewpoint.
Thing is, he never seems to propose any concrete actions that are not already being done to limit the effects of muslim extremism, so it ends up seeming like pointless bitching. After having this theme roundly and nearly universally rejected numerous times, why does the OP think that the response to this thread would be any different? It’s decidedly odd.
As far as I can tell he’s a drama queen, so the shouting and theatrics are part of the affair.
Still, “truth in advertising”-wise, his thread title is a shining example of clarity and candor.
If I wanted to nitpick I could complain that Der Trihs used “genocide” as a verb when it’s actually a noun. On more substantial issues: (a) disease is not genocide, but an unfortunate result of biology. Native Americans had no immunity to many diseases from the old world and those diseases would have decimated them when the two worlds came in contact regardless of religion. (b) The Catholic Church opposed the establishment of slavery in the Americas. (c) Many Native Americans who were victims of aggression were Christians. For instance, the most famous example of expulsion in the USA was the Trail of Tears, and the Cherokees who were forced to move to Oklahoma were Christian. (d) I am told over and over that America was definitely not ever intended to be a Christian nation and that we’ve quite certainly had a secular government from the start, so how can government policy be blamed on Christians?