Ah that's some really good detective work you've done there Cagan, well done! Thanks for informing us of this impending disaster :|

Originally Posted by JacquesMagique

Ah that's some really good detective work you've done there Cagan, well done! Thanks for informing us of this impending disaster :|

Thanks for the sarcasm, but remember this thread when it happens, because it will, and no doubt you will still be posting on here telling us all how wonderful the Muslim community are and how only a few radicalists have spoiled it all !!

Originally Posted by CAGAN

At some point the East will rise and there will be a war to end all wars. This war will primarily be the Muslim states attempting to take over the world. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, however as Muslims tend to breed like rabbits, it won't be long after. The problem is that they have already infiltrated most major western countries and when it all kicks off they will have bombs strapped to their waist and be ready to go.

Regrettably I don't have an answer to the problem as no government either here or in any other country would have the bottle to throw them out because the left wing liberals would get on their soap boxes and start shouting about their human rights. No doubt most people with any sense can this happening, but have any of you got an answer to this impending disaster ?

It wouldn't really surprise me if something along these lines did occur, or at least an attempt at something like this was made at some future date, hopefully long after I'm gone too. Although thankfully the number of fanatical Muslims is very small, the very nature of Islam itself would tend to encourage many more moderate Muslims to follow the dictates of their religious leaders should a holy war ever be declared against a western country. Experience has already shown that Muslim fundamentalists have no respect whatsoever for the recognised rules of war, and I think that suicide bombers could be the least of our worries if this did ever come to pass. If you can get hold of a copy, the late 1970s novel "The Aleph Solution" by Sandor Frankel presents a rather grim picture along the lines of what we could well expect - it's a good book though, well worth reading into you're into thrillers.

Originally Posted by CAGAN

At some point the East will rise and there will be a war to end all wars. This war will primarily be the Muslim states attempting to take over the world. It probably won't happen in my lifetime, however as Muslims tend to breed like rabbits, it won't be long after. The problem is that they have already infiltrated most major western countries and when it all kicks off they will have bombs strapped to their waist and be ready to go.

Regrettably I don't have an answer to the problem as no government either here or in any other country would have the bottle to throw them out because the left wing liberals would get on their soap boxes and start shouting about their human rights. No doubt most people with any sense can this happening, but have any of you got an answer to this impending disaster ?

You mean like how the christians took over the world through violence?

The vast majority of muslims like the majority of most groups in society are very good people (unlike you you bigoted ****).

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

You mean like how the christians took over the world through violence?

The vast majority of muslims like the majority of most groups in society are very good people (unlike you you bigoted ****).

So because the Christians took over large parts of the world thousands of years ago it makes it OK for the Muslims to do it now ?

Yes, the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful, but so were the vast majority of Germans in the 2nd world war, however I am sure people like you would have adamantly protested against our bombing of the father land. It's no good looking at Islam and judging it by Abdul who runs the corner shop, you must look at the bigger picture !!

Originally Posted by CAGAN

So because the Christians took over large parts of the world thousands of years ago it makes it OK for the Muslims to do it now ?

Um, in most western nations Muslims are a minority. If people wish to be religious that is their choice.

and more likely, given the relative immaturity of the religion, Islam (like Judaism and Christianity before it) evolves into an ever more "secular" version with small sects being marginalised (largely by their refusal to succumb to human nature and the desire for wealth, sex, alcahol etc , over that for Allah or God).

For what it's worth, in my opinion, the forms of militant Islam are following a pattern that christianity did, as a religion islam is considerably younger than most and i think that it is probably going through the same sort development as we did during the likes of the crusades, ( which were religious wars) and up to the point of the inquisition. There were early christain sects that were horrendously cruel to non believers.

This doesn't however mean that we should back off from tackling extremism, that needs to be tackled, but it does need to be led by moderates from the Islamic faith and not necessarily by the Government.

Terrorism is another ball game though, Islamic terrorists, have shown that they prefer not to attack the structures of the governments that they oppose, they prefer and enjoy the mass slaughter of non military civillians, so the fight against them must be hard and it must be brutal where needed, Thatcher is a maligned character, but she understood the theories behind low intensity operations, you must look after the civillain populace whilst attacking and killing the terrorist elements. In the eighties she did this with the IRA, she turned loose the SAS, terrorist incidents slowed, recruitment for the paramilitaries slowed, it allowed the more moderate elements to come through and be heard. The whole tactic is a balance though you must do enough to make a terrorist think about his commitment, but also know when to call the dogs off before you go to far.

Of course, those nice peaceful Muslims have to be very careful what they say.
Muslims Confront Islamism, Get Targeted by Islamists :: Islamist Watch
Or the not so peaceful ones get all upset and nasty.

Did I miss a meeting?

The muslims I know are busy getting on with their life. In fact the ones closest to me could have been C of E for all I know except for when their son got married and I was invited

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Um, in most western nations Muslims are a minority. If people wish to be religious that is their choice.

Yes, it is, absolutely. But what's not acceptable is when that minority try to force their religion on other people and insist that they be given special rights and legal privileges over and above the majority. That is what's happening here, and that is why the majority of indigenous people see them as a threat.

Originally Posted by Midas

Yes, it is, absolutely. But what's not acceptable is when that minority try to force their religion on other people and insist that they be given special rights and legal privileges over and above the majority. That is what's happening here, and that is why the majority of indigenous people see them as a threat.

This is the second time I ask this question, but please provide specific laws in the UK that give Muslims more privileges.

If you don't like people forcing their religion on you, why only complain about your perception that Islam is being forced upon you. Many christian groups try to force their religion on people, I have had Christians attempt to "save" me. It is far more common than Muslims as you stated "forcing".

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

This is the second time I ask this question, but please provide specific laws in the UK that give Muslims more privileges.

If you don't like people forcing their religion on you, why only complain about your perception that Islam is being forced upon you. Many christian groups try to force their religion on people, I have had Christians attempt to "save" me. It is far more common than Muslims as you stated "forcing".

I think he's probably referring to the sharia courts and the burkha issue, neither of which I have a problem with provided there are certain conditions. You're right though Kiwi it is more of a perception problem than one in reality, especially when the newspapers print outright lies about it being easier to get planning permission for a mosque than a chapel etc. Of course things like the Cherie Blair decision to let a man go on religious grounds don't help.
What we need is a codified bill of rights which enshrines the equality before the law of minority and majority.
Oh and Midas does plenty of complaining about Christians trying to force there beliefs on him too !

Originally Posted by Opinionated

I think he's probably referring to the sharia courts and the burkha issue, neither of which I have a problem with provided there are certain conditions.

Isn't there some Christianity in the laws in the UK?

Originally Posted by Opinionated

Of course things like the Cherie Blair decision to let a man go on religious grounds don't help.

As far as I understand, the Cherie Blair issue. She let him off because he was religious, not because he was a muslim. So that is not a Muslim issue.

Originally Posted by Opinionated

What we need is a codified bill of rights which enshrines the equality before the law of minority and majority.

I agree

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

This is the second time I ask this question, but please provide specific laws in the UK that give Muslims more privileges.

If you don't like people forcing their religion on you, why only complain about your perception that Islam is being forced upon you. Many christian groups try to force their religion on people, I have had Christians attempt to "save" me. It is far more common than Muslims as you stated "forcing".

I wasn't aware you'd asked before; sorry if it was directed to me and you thought I'd ignored it. I can't give you specific statutes as such, however there are several clear cut instances I can provide, such as the fact that Sikhs don't have to wear crash helmets when riding motor bikes; the burqa issue of course where women with covered faces don't have to remove it when other people with a face covering would; in employment law a person of an ethnic minority can challenge a non-appointment to a job on racial grounds but a white person can't; ethnic minority only associations are allowable under the law but white only ones aren't; Muslims can take time out for prayers during work hours but a white person can't..... There are also many 'allowances' made by the authorities which favour ethnic minorities in situations, such as marches and demonstrations, where they'd be far harder on white marchers, where I don't know what, if any, legal basis there is. However public perception, whether factually based or not, is a very powerful thing.

On the forcing religion issue, I'm not talking about small groups proselytising, which I think we've probably all been subjected to, but the wider issue of instances like the repeated attempts to get various aspects of Sharia law incorporated into British law, but only to be only applicable to Muslims, and of course the very way that threats of violence and death are used by Islam against people who challenge it.

The whole culture is one of discrimination and unfairness, and as Op says, a codified bill of rights giving everyone exact equality in everything and favouring no-one, is the only way to counter this creeping imbalance in favour of minorities.

Originally Posted by Midas

I wasn't aware you'd asked before; sorry if it was directed to me and you thought I'd ignored it.

You got angry at the fact that I could give examples of special treatment for minorities in the UK.

Originally Posted by Midas

I can't give you specific statutes as such, however there are several clear cut instances I can provide, such as the fact that Sikhs don't have to wear crash helmets when riding motor bikes;

Well maybe some enterprising chap should create a Turban helmet.

Like that women who created the Burkini, for women (Muslim and non-Muslim) who wished to swim and keep covered up.



As far as I know, the Turban is not mandatory for Sikhs. Simply to cover the head (mainly the hair) is the rule. Though I am hardly an expert on the Sikh faith.

Originally Posted by Midas

; in employment law a person of an ethnic minority can challenge a non-appointment to a job on racial grounds but a white person can't; ethnic minority only associations are allowable under the law but white only ones aren't; Muslims can take time out for prayers during work hours but a white person can't.....

Making a statement like "Muslims can take time out for prayers during work hours but a white person can't" is rather stupid Midas, contrasting a race and a religious group. Their are white Muslims you know Midas. If you don't want employees from praying, then don't hire religious people.

If they challenge a non-appointment based on racial discrimination, they should fail unless you stuffed up like say "I don't hire coloured people". Unless you give some obvious bias, no competent authority will tell them to stop wasting their time.

Plus Midas don't forget that all minorities are discriminated against in most societies.

Originally Posted by Midas

There are also many 'allowances' made by the authorities which favour ethnic minorities in situations, such as marches and demonstrations, where they'd be far harder on white marchers, where I don't know what, if any, legal basis there is. However public perception, whether factually based or not, is a very powerful thing.

Public perception is often along way from fact. Many of the public are stupid enough to listen to the lies on both sides that come out of the media etc.

Originally Posted by Midas

The whole culture is one of discrimination and unfairness, and as Op says, a codified bill of rights giving everyone exact equality in everything and favouring no-one, is the only way to counter this creeping imbalance in favour of minorities.

Considering that not that long ago many minorities in many countries had institutionalised discrimination of minorities. Not that long ago it was a crime to be gay in most western nations.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

You got angry at the fact that I could give examples of special treatment for minorities in the UK.




Well maybe some enterprising chap should create a Turban helmet.

Like that women who created the Burkini, for women (Muslim and non-Muslim) who wished to swim and keep covered up.



As far as I know, the Turban is not mandatory for Sikhs. Simply to cover the head (mainly the hair) is the rule. Though I am hardly an expert on the Sikh faith.





Making a statement like "Muslims can take time out for prayers during work hours but a white person can't" is rather stupid Midas, contrasting a race and a religious group. Their are white Muslims you know Midas. If you don't want employees from praying, then don't hire religious people.

If they challenge a non-appointment based on racial discrimination, they should fail unless you stuffed up like say "I don't hire coloured people". Unless you give some obvious bias, no competent authority will tell them to stop wasting their time.

Plus Midas don't forget that all minorities are discriminated against in most societies.





Public perception is often along way from fact. Many of the public are stupid enough to listen to the lies on both sides that come out of the media etc.




Considering that not that long ago many minorities in many countries had institutionalised discrimination of minorities. Not that long ago it was a crime to be gay in most western nations.

Ok Kiwi, turban helmets and Burkinis do not change the culture of discrimination at government level in the UK, discrimination directed at UK born white people.I would be arrested if i walked into a bank wearing a Balaclava, but a Burka is acceptable?

There has been very little official govnt discrimination against minorities ubntil Nulab made white hetrosexual males the minority( and they are look at how the special interest groups add up).Women, Blacks, Asian, Moslem, Gay.....Add them together and you have a majority(that explains why Nulab bribe them with special rights and privelages).

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Making a statement like "Muslims can take time out for prayers during work hours but a white person can't" is rather stupid Midas, contrasting a race and a religious group. Their are white Muslims you know Midas. If you don't want employees from praying, then don't hire religious people.

I wasn't referring just to Muslims as a religious group, I was using that as a valid example of legally backed discrimination in favour of minority groups.

If they challenge a non-appointment based on racial discrimination, they should fail unless you stuffed up like say "I don't hire coloured people". Unless you give some obvious bias, no competent authority will tell them to stop wasting their time.

The trouble is the law is weighted in favour of the ethnic minority. Having had our business face a tribunal on this one I know exactly the lengths you have to go to, to 'prove' it wasn't a racially motivated act. Why should someone with black skin think they should receive preferential treatment over someone with a white skin based on no other factor than their colour - that's what's increasingly happening, aided and abetted by government funded ethnic minority 'support' groups too!

Plus Midas don't forget that all minorities are discriminated against in most societies.

Quite so, including white people living in a non-white country, but it's no excuse for tipping the scales the other way so that the minority get preferential treatment, which is what we're talking about.

Public perception is often along way from fact. Many of the public are stupid enough to listen to the lies on both sides that come out of the media etc.

Absolutely, however perception is often more powerful than fact as regards how the public react to situations, and that's something which does have to be taken into account.

If the Governments equality Bill passes, then it will be codified racism, making it easier for minorities to achieve beneficial rulings by making it more difficult for employers to prove they haven't been discriminatory. Secondly the fact that members of the BNP are barred from being part of the police force, among other things, is also discriminatory based on political ground. Irrelevant of whether you're racist or not, simply being a member of a particular political party means you are therefore excluded from certain careers.

Originally Posted by Midas

The trouble is the law is weighted in favour of the ethnic minority. Having had our business face a tribunal on this one I know exactly the lengths you have to go to, to 'prove' it wasn't a racially motivated act. Why should someone with black skin think they should receive preferential treatment over someone with a white skin based on no other factor than their colour - that's what's increasingly happening, aided and abetted by government funded ethnic minority 'support' groups too!

Unfortunately some people who spend their lives being discriminated against form a victim mentality.

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Unfortunately some people who spend their lives being discriminated against form a victim mentality.

Discrimination by our government appears to be against it's own indigenous people. Oh, and let's not have another discussion on the meaning of indigenous !!

Originally Posted by Kiwi 1691

Unfortunately some people who spend their lives being discriminated against form a victim mentality.

Then what they need is a good kick up the ase.