-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Proud and Prejudiced
- Thread starter elltrev
- Start date
LutonSpurs
Eric Dear
As a msulim from Luton it made me very sad, these 2 represent about 150 people each out of the whole town and C4 have given them the exposure they wanted. To me it felt like they were both working for the same agenda - social disorder.
It's simple for me. Anyone who wants to cause harm to this country and the people in it should be deported back to where they originate from. Benefits stopped immediately and deported. It ain't difficult. Let's stop to think about the human fudging rights of the people they want to kill eh??
Leeds Spur
Banned
The ironic thing in the film is that those who propose Sharia in the UK, (even though only 3% of the population are Muslim) always quote their democratic rights and their right to free speech.
Hootnow
Jermaine Jenas
Sharia law isn't even meant to apply to non-Muslims. The idiots who call for it in the UK have also clearly missed the bit in Islam which says you must abide peacefully by the laws of whichever country you happen to be in. macarons.
Its not that simple Roy because you can't deport a person who was born in the UK and whose parents may actually have been born in the UK too, just because their grandparents originate from Pakistan or India and we don't agree with their views.
Hootnow
Jermaine Jenas
@braineclipse
My point is that with Bin Laden given an international platform following 9/11, his rhetoric started to resonate with some Muslims worldwide when they saw the West invade two Muslim countries within 2 years and perform drone strikes on another. Did he solely cause them? No (though I don't think we'd have given a fudge about Afghanistan otherwise actually). He accelerated them and was able to successfully use them as evidence for his flawed logic.
Sorry mate, I'm still a bit confused. You've wrapped it up a bit but you still seem to be saying to me that Muslims in Islamic countries need to be oppressed by dictators or the West and that, if we are to keep our own values, we must fight the Islamic world at some point?
Yes but we're not doing that. What we're doing is repeating the exact same stupid mistakes of the past. The analogy there is that we go to war in 1939, defeat Nazism in a strange alliance with Communism and then, repeating the mistakes of 27 years past, impose yet another extraordinarily harsh set of terms on Germany. Instead, the US got more involved this time and, unlike in WWI, where they allowed the UK and France to dictate terms, pumped money into West Germany and the rest of Europe under their sphere of influence. What we're doing is repeating the mistakes of the past. We are supporting dictators that oppress their populations (which in the process pushes the population further towards religion and in some cases to extremism), we are invading these countries and attacking them (perpetuating the theory that the West is on a new crusade) and we are more and more aggressively pushing ourselves into them.
Really? How's that working out for us in Iraq? Invade and destroy a whole country. 8 years of civil war, crushed only by a huge troop surge. Bubbling along again now with troop removal. Now run by a man that seems to be re positioning himself as a dictator. And with a vice-president currently in hiding in the Kurdish areas after allegations by Maliki that he is funding and running a guerilla organisation. Who knows whether he actually is? Either way, its a mass. Stellar job. There have to be the foundations of a democratic state there first before you waltz in there. Japan and Germany were completely and utterly defeated, as a military and people. And Germany had basically had a democracy just 10-15 years earlier. It was a cold war only for those in North America and Europe. For the rest of us, it was anything but cold, as the forces of NATO and the Warsaw pact fought it out amongst themselves in our countries. And Russia isn't a democracy now. Iraq's democracy won't hold up, its already breaking apart.
We've seen just what removing Saddam did. The numbers in the Iran-Iraq war are horrific (made even more horrific by the fact that basically the whole world supported Saddam in that little endeavour) but the body count after the West's little incursion is hardly small. The West is not the world's policeman. Especially not when they're not wanted or desired by anyone in the region. Can I ask, when is the world launching its invasion of the UK, USA, Israel, Sri Lanka etc etc? Why, rather than invade Iraq in the 80s after the Iran war, did the West, China and the Arabs support Saddam rather than removing him then? Because those laws are flimflam and we pick and choose as we wish.
I will reiterate again that Saddam was not a theocratic dictator. Not even close. He was a secular Arab nationalist, possibly more secular that Western forces in how he ran his country. Just because he happened to be a leader of a Muslim country does not make him a theocratic fascist. Saddam doesn't even feature on the West-theocratic dictator sliding scale. In fact, probably the most theocratic dictator in the region is currently wedged rather far up Western asses, funneling as much oil as is needed to them.
4 of the 5 most populous Muslim countries have elected a female leader and the majority of Muslims worldwide have lived under a female leader. Is there a problem with female rights in Islamic countries? Yep. Is it mostly linked to culture? Yep. Is there a problem with female rights in Western countries? Yep. I'm not sure how any side has any moral legitimacy whatsoever on this issue, we all treat our women like brick and its time we made this a global issue and attempt to remove all negative consequences of having two x chromosomes, rather than get all uppity because we give our women marginally more rights in the grand scheme of things.
Course I'm happy. My wife's dad fought in the second world war for the Allies, despite having never set foot in Europe and not having any link to Europe whatsoever, other than being colonised. For the UK, it was a war to protect the UK. Our politicians just weren't stupid enough to wait until Hitler actually invaded, having by that point conquered the whole of Europe and Russia and therefore rendering our Islands basically helpless.
The rules on Jihad are clear. You must not resort to unscrupulous methods or indiscriminate killings. You must not drag innocent parties into your conflict (ie children, women and men who are non-combatants). You must not damage the environment. You must not pillage. Force can only be used as a final resort and must always be proportional. Nukes break just about every one of these. From what I can see, the closest any Islamic country has come in the recent past to attempting to 'colonise the world' is Iraq. Led by a secular nationalist. Where are all these wars started by Islamic states to colonise even their surrounding area first? Colonise is quite an unfortunate choice of term too considering the West's very very recent history along this thread.
The whole world is at odds with the small number of extreme Muslims. Contrary to this belief held by some in the West that it is the West leading the valiant fight against these groups, it is actually the Islamic world which has had to do most of the fighting and the Islamic world which has had to bear the brunt of the attacks and deaths. It has nothing to do with some wider clash of civilizations and it really has little to do with religion either.
My point is that with Bin Laden given an international platform following 9/11, his rhetoric started to resonate with some Muslims worldwide when they saw the West invade two Muslim countries within 2 years and perform drone strikes on another. Did he solely cause them? No (though I don't think we'd have given a fudge about Afghanistan otherwise actually). He accelerated them and was able to successfully use them as evidence for his flawed logic.
Sorry mate, I'm still a bit confused. You've wrapped it up a bit but you still seem to be saying to me that Muslims in Islamic countries need to be oppressed by dictators or the West and that, if we are to keep our own values, we must fight the Islamic world at some point?
Yes but we're not doing that. What we're doing is repeating the exact same stupid mistakes of the past. The analogy there is that we go to war in 1939, defeat Nazism in a strange alliance with Communism and then, repeating the mistakes of 27 years past, impose yet another extraordinarily harsh set of terms on Germany. Instead, the US got more involved this time and, unlike in WWI, where they allowed the UK and France to dictate terms, pumped money into West Germany and the rest of Europe under their sphere of influence. What we're doing is repeating the mistakes of the past. We are supporting dictators that oppress their populations (which in the process pushes the population further towards religion and in some cases to extremism), we are invading these countries and attacking them (perpetuating the theory that the West is on a new crusade) and we are more and more aggressively pushing ourselves into them.
Really? How's that working out for us in Iraq? Invade and destroy a whole country. 8 years of civil war, crushed only by a huge troop surge. Bubbling along again now with troop removal. Now run by a man that seems to be re positioning himself as a dictator. And with a vice-president currently in hiding in the Kurdish areas after allegations by Maliki that he is funding and running a guerilla organisation. Who knows whether he actually is? Either way, its a mass. Stellar job. There have to be the foundations of a democratic state there first before you waltz in there. Japan and Germany were completely and utterly defeated, as a military and people. And Germany had basically had a democracy just 10-15 years earlier. It was a cold war only for those in North America and Europe. For the rest of us, it was anything but cold, as the forces of NATO and the Warsaw pact fought it out amongst themselves in our countries. And Russia isn't a democracy now. Iraq's democracy won't hold up, its already breaking apart.
We've seen just what removing Saddam did. The numbers in the Iran-Iraq war are horrific (made even more horrific by the fact that basically the whole world supported Saddam in that little endeavour) but the body count after the West's little incursion is hardly small. The West is not the world's policeman. Especially not when they're not wanted or desired by anyone in the region. Can I ask, when is the world launching its invasion of the UK, USA, Israel, Sri Lanka etc etc? Why, rather than invade Iraq in the 80s after the Iran war, did the West, China and the Arabs support Saddam rather than removing him then? Because those laws are flimflam and we pick and choose as we wish.
I will reiterate again that Saddam was not a theocratic dictator. Not even close. He was a secular Arab nationalist, possibly more secular that Western forces in how he ran his country. Just because he happened to be a leader of a Muslim country does not make him a theocratic fascist. Saddam doesn't even feature on the West-theocratic dictator sliding scale. In fact, probably the most theocratic dictator in the region is currently wedged rather far up Western asses, funneling as much oil as is needed to them.
4 of the 5 most populous Muslim countries have elected a female leader and the majority of Muslims worldwide have lived under a female leader. Is there a problem with female rights in Islamic countries? Yep. Is it mostly linked to culture? Yep. Is there a problem with female rights in Western countries? Yep. I'm not sure how any side has any moral legitimacy whatsoever on this issue, we all treat our women like brick and its time we made this a global issue and attempt to remove all negative consequences of having two x chromosomes, rather than get all uppity because we give our women marginally more rights in the grand scheme of things.
Course I'm happy. My wife's dad fought in the second world war for the Allies, despite having never set foot in Europe and not having any link to Europe whatsoever, other than being colonised. For the UK, it was a war to protect the UK. Our politicians just weren't stupid enough to wait until Hitler actually invaded, having by that point conquered the whole of Europe and Russia and therefore rendering our Islands basically helpless.
The rules on Jihad are clear. You must not resort to unscrupulous methods or indiscriminate killings. You must not drag innocent parties into your conflict (ie children, women and men who are non-combatants). You must not damage the environment. You must not pillage. Force can only be used as a final resort and must always be proportional. Nukes break just about every one of these. From what I can see, the closest any Islamic country has come in the recent past to attempting to 'colonise the world' is Iraq. Led by a secular nationalist. Where are all these wars started by Islamic states to colonise even their surrounding area first? Colonise is quite an unfortunate choice of term too considering the West's very very recent history along this thread.
The whole world is at odds with the small number of extreme Muslims. Contrary to this belief held by some in the West that it is the West leading the valiant fight against these groups, it is actually the Islamic world which has had to do most of the fighting and the Islamic world which has had to bear the brunt of the attacks and deaths. It has nothing to do with some wider clash of civilizations and it really has little to do with religion either.
If they have extremism in them they shouldn't be allowed in this country. They're in our country not vice versa.
In the programme he went on about how his mob wanted to stomp out homo sexuals, prostitution and gambling. I mean who does he think he is? He is living in our country if there's a problem our government will address it. Seriously needs to fudge off.
In the programme he went on about how his mob wanted to stomp out homo sexuals, prostitution and gambling. I mean who does he think he is? He is living in our country if there's a problem our government will address it. Seriously needs to fudge off.
monkeybarry
Dimitar Berbatov
although all the above is correct in principle - the "our country" bit is where it falls down.
anyone with a UK passport is a UK citizen and therefore they become part of the "our" and you cant exactly get rid of UK citizens that dont abide by UK law and values, you can only send them jail etc
clownfoot
Allan Nielsen
Watching this programme, I found both individuals that it focused on utterly detestable. The most poignant image for me was the Muslim child, stood next to who I presume was his father, while he was arrested. Kid looked scared. How is he going to grow up and not be affected by stuff like this? His fathers extremism will reverberate through his views in later life no doubt. It was pathetic.
The programme made it look like the whole world is either one side or the other. But in all seriousness, who gives one? Do the general public actually care? So what someone wants Shariah law in this country? How is a religious ideology going to overtake the political system, set in place in a country that most of the public aren't religious. Both needed to grow up.
The programme made it look like the whole world is either one side or the other. But in all seriousness, who gives one? Do the general public actually care? So what someone wants Shariah law in this country? How is a religious ideology going to overtake the political system, set in place in a country that most of the public aren't religious. Both needed to grow up.
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
But the white ones were pretty extreme as well where should we deport them, australia? i agree with you about the nutty muslim ones but i really think it is such a small section of the muslim community as to not really worry about from july 7th the security services have done well stopping them.
We can of course look at ways to stop those sort coming in but what do we do about the english defence league? fudge im starting to sound like a liberal.
What I don't get told constantly that these extremists are only a minority and that most Muslims have no time for them and don't like them etc fair enough yet how come this idiot was allowed to preach openly in 'their area' and not be confronted? That's my main issue 'moderates' claiming they're against the extremists and doing diddly squat about it hence why the edl exist
Danishfurniturelover
the prettiest spice girl
It is a fair point but i think the media like to focus on the bad ones not just muslim but also white right wing politics. Im white and right wing but i hate how anyone who belives in the dealth penalty and thinks we should pull out of the EU is made out by some sections of the media to be a nutter. The media like to make out muslims and right wing people are nutters.
Not that i watch it but the was some muslim lady who appeared on that apprentice show and i read an interview she did absolutely slating the nutty muslims and saying they should tinkle off to the middle east, she did not get much air time after that which is odd because she seemed to have an actual opinon(rare today) the was a labour peer another lady who is a muslim who had a pop at some of the nutty ones, so they are out there.
Hootnow
Jermaine Jenas
How do you know? Perhaps they have confronted them in the past and have gotten fed up with trying to change their views.
And the media in this country have absolutely no interest whatsoever in reporting what the overwhelming majority of moderate Muslims do or think. And they and the government do a great job of pushing them into thinking its an 'us vs them' scenario.
I can't remember the exact context now but there was an event a few years ago which received the support of some idiot like Choudry. The media went into overdrive to give this figure coverage; national tv, national papers, radio etc. People on here asked where the Muslim condemnation was? Why weren't British Muslims condemning this? As a matter of fact, they were. At both the highest level (the Muslim council, top sheikhs etc) and the grassroots. Did the media care? Of course not. They gave them no airtime whatsoever.
So the media get what they want. Driving a wedge in between the 'indigenous' population and the Muslims.
monkeybarry
Dimitar Berbatov
thats why i think we need a series of big TV debates - give everyone a voice, not just "he who shouts most controversially"
Perhaps they have tried perhaps they haven't who knows cant help but think if people within their community at all levels wanted rid of them preaching hate you wouldn't hear about them anymore
Hootnow
Jermaine Jenas
Really? Do you think the majority of people in Luton want the EDL? Yet we still hear about them as well.
monkeybarry
Dimitar Berbatov
ive never been really nationalistic - the concept of a nation is little more than administration imho
ive never quite got the whole "britsh and proud" stance that suggests brits all have the same set of values etc
most brits are british because they were born here, nothing more than that
there is actually quite a compelling arguement that a foreign national that settles here and then becomes a citizen is more british than someone who was just born here
ive never quite got the whole "britsh and proud" stance that suggests brits all have the same set of values etc
most brits are british because they were born here, nothing more than that
there is actually quite a compelling arguement that a foreign national that settles here and then becomes a citizen is more british than someone who was just born here
Leeds Spur
Banned
As someone who knows Bradford very well it IS the most divided city in the country.
The south is truly multi-cultural......the north has Ghettos
The south is truly multi-cultural......the north has Ghettos