96 2 mins 13 yrs

British Muslims are helping the Taliban in their war against UK soldiers in southern Afghanistan, according to the former commander of Britain’s forces in Afghanistan.


UK forces have uncovered evidence that British Muslims are actively supporting the Taliban and al-Qa’eda in attacks on coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, Brig Butler said. He said: “There are British passport holders who live in the U.K. who are being found in places like Kandahar.” Earlier this year, it was revealed that RAF Nimrod spyplanes monitoring Taliban radio signals in Afghanistan had heard militants speaking with Yorkshire and Midlands accents

Here we have a situation where British Muslims have travelled to Afghanistan (No doubt via Pakistan) and are assisting those who would kill British soldiers. These people are traitors and one hopes that they are dealt  with on the battlefield, permanently. However many will not be apprehended or killed and so we have a serious problem. These people should be banned from returning to the UK, end of story. If they love Afghanistan so much, let them stay there. They can provide target practice.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

96 thoughts on “THE PROBLEM WITH BRITISH MUSLIMS…

  1. Say it ain’t so.

    Still, there’s a demonstration of how low and degraded we’ve been brought. Within living memory William Joyce was executed for treason. We even managed to shoot him in the arse first. The charge by which he was executed was:

    William Joyce, on the 18th of September, 1939, and on other days between that day and the 2nd of July, 1940, being a person owing allegiance to our Lord the King, and while a war was being carried on by the German Realm against our King, did traitorously adhere to the King’s enemies in Germany, by broadcasting propaganda.

    The day after Pierrepoint did the necessary on Joyce, a British soldier – Theodore Schurch – swung also, this time for treachery after spying for the Jerries.

    But then we were a serious and patriotic people and aiding our enemies was rather frowned on. It’s unlikely that many of these muslims would be off helping their fellow barbarians if we still were serious and patriotic, but they know Britain today is a joke, with a ruling establishment which hardly recognises our nationhood and is doing everything it can to banish it.

    How can you hang the traitorous and treacherous when you regard Britain as nothing more than a geographic entity in which all are entitled to live? To hang would be to imply that we are a distinct, sovereign entity under Crown law, and that’s so reactionary.

    They know that they can come walking out of Afghanistan at any time with the dhimmi ruling establishment, in and out of government, waiting with a bunch of flowers and and an army of scumbag lawyers ready to do their best by them.

  2. These muslims are not traitors and cannot be traitors because they are not of the British people. Their loyalty is not to the UK but to the ummah – the nation of islam i.e. fellow muslims. Nonetheless, there are traitors involved and these traitors are the clique which let them into this country, facilitates their activities, supports them in their advancement, and ensures that when they are caught in flagrante delicto, they are released (from Guantanamo – because they’re ‘British’). It is almost the entire leftist establishment – legal, political, educational.

    Muslims have no place in Britain because they are not British: they should and must be repatriated to their land of origin before they turn our country into their own ravaged lands. Those nominal muslims who would like to leave islam but dare not because of the penalty (what’s the penalty, friends of islam?) are a different matter and should be given all protection under law.

  3. "There are British passport holders who live in the U.K. who are being found in places like Kandahar."

    And Here’s a picture of one of them.

  4. Yes Allan, that’s the other side of the coin. But let’s have both sides, eh? They could not kidnap British muslim soldiers if there weren’t any, and there wouldn’t be any if your earlier statement were accurate.

  5. Are British Muslims overrepresented, underrepresented or represented at appx the same rate in the forces as compared with the general population? That may a relevant question.

  6. Frank, my earlier statement is accurate. Any soldier in the British Army who has muslim origins cannot be loyal to both the UK and the ummah. So any British soldier of muslim origins who has served loyally in Afghanistan is loyal to the UK and his former co-religionists would want to kill him.

  7. They are muslims, Frank. And as you know, muslims fight muslims quite a lot when they can’t find anyone else to fight with. One thing is for certain – I don’t want that lot over here.

  8. Maybe Submariner is right and that all those Afghans should be over here. However, I can’t think of any essential skills they would have that this country really needs. Not too many engineers, doctors and skilled tradesmen there – after all, it is Afghanistan which is just a few short steps away from the stone age.

    Submariner, why don’t you explain why they should be here? Of course, if they get here, they get to stay thanks to our intrepid UK Borders Agency.

    http://www.pressandjournal.co.uk/Article.aspx/769394

  9. I was referring to your opening post that Muslims have no place in Britain or have i misread you.?

  10. Errr Submariner, the phrase which you linked the Sieg heil to was:

    One thing is for certain – I don’t want that lot over here.

    Saturday, August 2, 2008 at 04:02PM | allan@aberdeen

    and as you could see for yourself, it was directly linked to a load of Afghans who were still in Afghanistan, which is exactly where they should be.

    There is no such thing as a British muslim. Islam is absolutely alien to this country and incompatible with the core freedoms which we have retained through wars and threats. Muslims should be returned to their own lands before they achieve their aim of turning our land into (the same primitive mess as) theirs. Those who wish to leave islam but currently fear the penalty (what’s the penalty, Submariner?) shall be given full protection of the law whilst their former co-religionists are sent home.

  11. Allan,

    " Islam is absolutely alien to this country and incompatible with the core freedoms which we have retained through wars and threats. "

    Many of your posts including that one are absolutely alien to this country and incompatible with the core freedoms which it has retained through wars and threats.

    Where should you be sent? In a time machine to 1930s germany perhaps, or to 1960s Mississippi.

  12. Nazi Germany – which attempted to wipe out its compatible and patriotic Jewish community and those of Europe? Mississippi – discrimination based on race?
    It’s the views of islam which are incompatible with what we fought to retain. You don’t defeat nazism/communism and then hand over your country to a similar ideology. Muslims have their own lands – let them stay there instead of colonising mine.

    And a key question remains unanswered: what is the penalty for apostasy? Is it compatible with western values?

  13. I’ve just been watching Dirk Bogarde in ‘Doctor in Distress’. I love films from the fifties and sixties.

    To see Britain as it was then – free from niqabs, hijabs, jilbabs, other jabs, other babs, mosques, multi-culti PC, silly beards, riots, ethnic ghettoisation, minority-inspired laws and customs, chips on shoulders, arrogant Asian youth, multi-lingual signage, fundamentalism, terror-supporting interlopers, book burning idiots, fatwa-decreeing lunatics, imported dieseases, involuntarily circumcised females – and to see it as it is now, makes you want to weep……

    …….but not before you hang the treasonable bastards in successive governments who have encouraged that sick transformation from the way it was in 1963 and the way it, alas, is in 2008.

  14. Some of the conversation may be too harsh, but can the question even be asked- has British society benefited in any way by large scale Muslim immigration?

    We know that the immigrants in question have gained–but has the host country gained? For the Brits here, if you spun back the clock forty years, would you do it again [ let these immigrants in ] and why?

  15. ‘…but has the host country gained?’

    NO!!

    ‘if you spun back the clock forty years, would you do it again?’

    ABSOLUTELY NO!!

  16. Frank and Submariner, what is the case to be made for having muslims in the UK? What particular skills and attributes do they endow us with by their presence?

  17. I notice that apart from Andrew, no one has asked me simple 849 question above. And some of the immigration fans are normally so talky!

    I repeat ( and have slightly revised ) my questions, and would like to hear from the let ’em in crowd, if they have any arguments to make on the subject.

    Has British society benefited in any way by large scale Muslim immigration?

    How has Britain gained by their presence? Has it been a net gain? If you spun back the clock 40-50 years, would you do it again [ let these immigrants in ] and why?

  18. Britain’s silence: ammo for a sharia run future..

    Strange, the apparent lack of public alarm in Britain over an extensive new poll showing that significant minorities of Muslim students at some of Britain’s better colleges and universities embrace the most threatening aspects of Islam. These include the conviction that killing in the name of religion can be justified (32 percent), belief that men and women shouldn’t mix freely (40 percent), support for Sharia (Islamic law) in Britain (40 percent), and support for a global caliphate (33 percent) based in Sharia, among other repressive tenets.

  19. I will hereby impose a deadline of midnight Greenwich mean time today for immigration fans to answer my questions as to how Muslim immigration has benefited Britain in any way.

    I don’t think that Britain has benefited in any possible way, and the mysterious silences here from the usually loquacious indicates that they actually agree with me, though it probably kills them to do so.

    Here, let me try to help yiz:

    Provided better class of halal fast food places in Birmingham

    Increased passenger loads on British Airways flights to Karachi

    Helped England become a world leader in hijab manufacturing

    If there are any more substantive arguments to be made, make ’em boys. You have about eight hours. Surely long enough to come up with some reasons….

  20. Phantom, anybody who questions whether muslims have brought benefits to this country is a nazi – that is the ‘argument’ as you have seen from the preceding comments from Frank and Submariner.

  21. Phantom,

    Why don’t you tell us what benefits some other vaguely and arbitrarily defined group have brought Britain – the Irish, the Methodists, the Hindus, the Buddhists, BNP members, people over 6 foot in height, materialists, economists, politicians, folk singers, banjo players and tap dancers – so we can see what kind of answer you are looking for.

    In your answer be sure to mention everything negative and everything positive, so that you can fully appreciate how your question is bullshit.

    If not I will be happy to explain it to you for my usual fee.

  22. Frank

    I should have expected the old soft shoe.

    How about answering the question? You do understand the question very well.

    No need for whataboutry, just an answer will do.

    Less than seven hours remain.

  23. Frank and Submariner, what is the case to be made for having muslims in the UK?

    The way i see it anyone born in Britian has a perfect right to be there whether they are Muslim Christian or Jew.The Link provide by David specifically mentions British citizens.

  24. Submariner

    The question was whether this immigration was a good idea, and if it has offered any benefit to the UK

  25. Phantom,

    How about answering mine? Your question is impossible to answer for any group, as you will see when you try it yourself.

    I expect from you a full balance sheet of the benefits and drawbacks of doctors and nurses on my desk by tomorrow morning. Good luck with that as some of them have been celebrated murderers and serial killers. And of course many doctors and nurses are Muslim.

    Some other points that have escaped your attention, but which I suspect are relevant:

    1) Islam is a group of ideas not a group of people, which is why Islam didn’t arrive in Britain via immigration.

    2) The idea that ideas can be stopped at borders is an exceptionally stupid one. And even if they could you would also have to stop people from leaving.

    3) It is individuals that immigrate and not groups

    4) Even if the net benefit to the host country is nil (and how would you compute that since nobody is tracking the good things these groups do, especially you?) – there is no doubt that it is positive for the immigrants themselves. Why don’t they count?

    By the way any comment on Allan’s proposal for forced mass population transfers of civilians? Would that be a good or bad thing for Britain or the people concerned (who are not all immigrants)? How has that kind of thing worked out when it has been tried elsewhere?

  26. Come on now, Frank. You understand the question put to you and Submariner by Phantom. In a similar manner, I asked:

    What particular skills and attributes do they endow us with by their presence?

    Any answer, or is it beyond you?

    On your points, I’d reply:
    1. islam is carried by those who are adherents. If there were no muslims in this country, there would be no islam.
    2. the people who carry the particular set of beliefs can be stopped, particularly as the set of beliefs is not indigenous to or compatible with the countries of the west to which muslims seem strangely attracted.
    3. groups are composed of individuals which appear to have formed ‘communities’ in our cities. Indeed, 37 individuals from Bolivia just walked into the country at Aberdeen Airport as a group.
    4. the net benefit of muslims to the UK is less than nil – they impose a burden on the welfare state greater than their contribution in taxes (take child benefit as an example) and they cause enormous strains on security. For example, muslim doctors tried to murder children at Glasgow Airport so new security systems had to be put in place all over the UK at great expense. If there had been no muslims in the country, there would have been no attempt at mass murder and no consequent costs.

    Frank, how about trying to answer the question above?

  27. Allan,

    "What particular skills and attributes do they endow us with by their presence?"

    Which muslim are you referring to? I linked to a photograph of a muslim immigrant up there – was he a net benefit to the UK or not? How would anyone assess that?

    "If there were no muslims in this country, there would be no islam."

    But there were no muslims in this country and there was Islam. No, they didn’t all immigrate. There were once no muslims anywhere on the planet. See if you can figure it out.

    "the people who carry the particular set of beliefs can be stopped, particularly as the set of beliefs is not indigenous to or compatible with the countries of the west"

    ‘indigenous belief’ is self-serving bullshit and unadulterated nonsense of the highest order. Why don’t you list the indigenous beliefs of the UK and tell us how long they have been around.

    As for stopping people with incompatible beliefs, how do we stop you?

    "the net benefit of muslims to the UK is less than nil – they impose a burden on the welfare state greater than their contribution in taxes (take child benefit as an example) "

    Where’s the proof for that claim and what is the relevance? What about individual muslims who do contribute?

    What is the net benefit of the Northern Irish to the UK?

    What is the net benefit of the Scots to the UK?

  28. Frank, muslims are being discussed as a group who immigrated here. I’m asking about the benefits they brought to the UK because if it can be shown that the UK has benefited by their presence, then I would change my mind about their right to be here. After all, there is a bit of a democratic deficit concerning their presence (2 million known cases) in the UK. As for the net benefit of N. Irish or Scots to the UK, N.Irish and Scots are of and indigenous to the UK but you, Frank, are not.

    So Frank, what benefits does the UK get from the presence of 2 million muslims, mainly of Pakistani origin? You might want to compare it to the benefits which might have accrued from having 2 million Hong Kong Chinese – just a suggestion.

  29. Allan,

    "Frank, muslims are being discussed as a group who immigrated here"

    No I’m not. I’m discussing muslim individuals.

    Once you have answered my question about the net benefit of one (1) muslim that immigrated here, maybe someone will be able to understand what you mean by ‘net benefit’ and how to apply that to 1000s of them.

    So far you have offered the issue of whether they contribute more in taxes than they take from the state. Well, I can’t answer that for the taxi driver outside the local train station, never mind 2 million Muslims.

    "As for the net benefit of N. Irish or Scots to the UK, N.Irish and Scots are of and indigenous to the UK"

    Just like the British Muslims you want to deport. And that prevents you from answering the question how exactly? What is the net benefit of them?

    "but you, Frank, are not."

    And still you demand I answer a question Phantom posed to the Brits!

  30. "What is the net benefit of the Northern Irish to the UK?"

    We spend more money than we put in so I would ask all cost cutting British people out there to do the right thing and just sever the Union between Northern Ireland and Britain.

  31. Seamus, and the ROI should learn from that experience and not be tempted to make the same mistake :p

  32. Well, Article 3 of the Bunreacht says they have to create a Unified Nation so I think they will.

  33. Frank, groups are composed of individuals and it is impossible to take one as being representative of the group. Taken as a group, then an assessment can be made of the attributes and characteristics of 2 million Pakistani muslims as compared with 2 million Hong Kong Chinese or 2 million Scots. The criminality rates of orientals are very low in the UK, certainly lower than the white norm whereas the criminality rates for Pakistani muslims are significantly higher. Yet the criminality rates for Hindus and Sikhs (of same race) are also lower than the white norm so something cultural is causing the difference between Pakistani muslims and Hindus/Sikhs.

    The beliefs of muslims allow them to kill any co-religionist who would wish to leave islam which is not compatible with the UK’s system of law. But then, large numbers of muslims wish to impose their own system of law which is incompatible with the UK’s system, particularly as concerns its treatment of groups such as women and gays. Given this incompatibility and the evident dangers to large numbers of Britons if such a system were ever to be implemented, it is in the interests of civilised Britons to return muslims to their own countries and back to their own systems. As I made clear, those who are legally British and would wish to leave islam would be given leave to stay and be fully protected from the death penalty which their former co-religionists would impose until islam is expelled. White converts would be exiled to Pakistan as they have made clear where they stand.

    Churchill got it right, as he always did when recognising totalitarianism:

    "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property – either as a child, a wife, or a concubine – must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

    "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science – the science against which it had vainly struggled – the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

    There you are, Frank – "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die;…"

  34. ‘the Irish, the Methodists, the Hindus, the Buddhists, BNP members, people over 6 foot in height, materialists, economists, politicians, folk singers, banjo players and tap dancers’…..

    have not, inter alia, ghettoised large parts of urban Britain, sought demographic supremacy, or have demanded that our laws increasingly accommodate their theological caveats.

    As for the Irish Constitution, some people need to be better appraised of its legal standing in relation to what is fact and what is rhetorical aspiration.

  35. Allan,

    "Frank, groups are composed of individuals and it is impossible to take one as being representative of the group."

    And your problem is you want to take the group as being representative of the individual.

    And you can’t even get that much right. For example you say Muslims immigrated here. But they didn’t. Many were born here. Nor were they all born to Muslim immigrants.

    You also claim they all believe the same thing when that is demonstrably false.

    [snip racist bollocks]

    "The beliefs of muslims allow them to kill any co-religionist who would wish to leave islam which is not compatible with the UK’s system of law"

    No they do not. Whereas, your beliefs allow you to forcibly deport millions people, citizens or not, and that is not compatible with the UK’s system of law. It is also incompatible with international law and with western civilisation.

    What should be done with you?

    "But then, large numbers of muslims wish"

    Oh now it’s large numbers. Before you spoke of the beliefs of Muslims. Do you want to talk about all Muslims or just the Muslims who actually do wish what you claim?

    "it is in the interests of civilised Britons to return muslims to their own countries"

    In many cases their own country is Britain.

    Anyway you’ve told us what civilised Britons want. You’re not civilised, so what do you want?

  36. Frank, I think that your failure to engage in the matter exhibits a backwardness which I associated with adherents of islam though not hitherto with you. I made clear why islam is dangerous to British society and especially to apostates, women and gays – you have not disputed this. I made clear that there is no racial aspect to my argument as explained above – you have not disputed this. I then cut an extract from Sir Winston Churchill’s book, River Wars, which gave a perfect description of islam and the effects of that belief system on those infected by it – SWC did write that it "is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog…" No comment from Frank there either. Instead, all one sees is a seething, disjointed rant.
    When it came to ‘large numbers’ wanting sharia and death for apostasy, did it not occur to you that those larger numbers who did not want sharia might actually be those who would wish to leave islam but dare not – why not? No comment from Frank there either.

    Now Frank, what benefits have muslims brought to the UK? Try, please try to answer it. I’m not demanding an answer – it’s just a polite request. If you can’t/won’t answer, then just say so and I won’t ask again.

  37. Allan,

    "I think that your failure to engage in the matter"

    You’re projecting. You haven’t addressed anything I have written above as is evident from the fact you quoted none of it.

    Allan, is your proposal for forced deportation of millions of civilians, many of them British citizens, compatible with UK law, international law, and western civilisation? Yes or no please. I will interpret your failure to answer this as proof that you only pretend to care about what is compatible with these things.

    "did it not occur to you that those larger numbers who did not want sharia might actually be those who would wish to leave islam but dare not "

    Did it ever occur to you that those larger numbers who do not want sharia might actually be the proof that you are full of shit when you talk about what ‘muslims believe’?

  38. The record will show that noone was able to provide any reasons why Muslim immigration has benefited Britain in any way.

    Frank attempted some heroic diversionary tactics, but even he could not or would not answer with straight talk.

    Which unintentionally does answer the question, by the way!

  39. Phantom has failed to provide any reasons why doctors and nurses are of net benefit to the UK.

    Also conspicuous by its absence is any remark on Allan’s proposal for forced mass population transfers of civilians, a crime that appeared on the charge sheet at Nuremberg. Silence gives consent.

    Shame on you Phantom.

  40. It may be that trends, even common trends among immigrants or even native born of a particular group should be subject to some scrutiny, but a wholesale dismissal of an entire race or religion strikes me as a bit much.

  41. Nuremburg dealt with expelling peoples from their own lands whereas I am making it clear that I want adherents of a dangerous ideology which wages aggressive war to be returned from my country back to their own lands. It is a necessary defensive measure and is entirely compatible with the national right of self-defence.
    Race, Mahons? Which race am I expelling? As for islam being a ‘religion’, it’s not quite like Christianity, or Buddhism, or anything normally associated with religion. Islam is a dangerous, murderous creed aptly described by Sir Winston Churchill whom I quoted above. You may like to read it as you clearly have not yet done so.

    Well, there we are. Frank is unable to state the benefits of having muslims in the UK as compared with having the same numbers of, say, Hong Kong Chinese.

    Here’s an idea, Frank. If you would be good enough to explain the qualities and attributes of Pakistani muslims and the benefits to the UK of having them here, then I’ll do likewise for Hindus. I can make a very good case for having Hindus in the UK so why don’t you attempt the same for muslims?

  42. Sixteen Chinese policemen have been killed in an attack on a border post in the restive Muslim region of Xinjiang. Take out conflicts involving Muslims and the world would be at peace.

    Darfur, Somalia, Eritrea/Ethiopia,Nigeria, Iraq, Israel, Sri Lanka, Thailand,Indonesia, Philippines, China, Russia and others.

    Islamic groups are also by far and away the main source of terrorism in the world not to mention the violent protests that are the response to perceived offences by artists, film-makers, cartoonists and writers.

    This is an issue for the world that will continue long after our lifetimes. Islam is growing in strength and becoming more radical.

    There is no way the West would even contemplate mass deportations so that is hardly worth discussing even if it was possible. 30% of under 18s in France are Muslim. The future is here.

    Nor should we draw false comfort from figures which show some opposition to Sharia law in Muslim communities. Islam is not democratic and those who wish to impose Sharia won’t wait for a vote. The raw numbers are a snapshot in any case and the trend is towards fundamentalism.

    Throwing in immigration demographics and conversion the odds are that Islam will take over.

    In Turkey an aggressive secularism backed up by the army and the courts still holds the line against the democratically elected government. That may be part of the solution for Europe. Establish legal and constitutional rights that cannot be easily overturned by votes. And above all demolish the Welfare system. It is unsustainable anyway but right now it is working mainly for single mothers and Muslim families thus producing (with many wonderful exceptions) criminals and fanatics.

    Taxpayers are paying to raise their own enemies. Why should they?

  43. Frank wrote:

    "Phantom has failed to provide any reasons why doctors and nurses are of net benefit to the UK."

    What a clown O’Dwyer is! This just pops up out of nowhere because he (O’Dwyer) is utterly incapable of engaging Phantom or me in stright-forward discussion on the merits or otherwise of having a substantial muslim population. I explained why I consider them to be dangerous, a real existential threat, yet Frank just comes back with drivel such as that above.

    Frankly, just pathetic.

  44. Frank can be the best debater here, and often has been. But on this thread, he has punked out.It would have been a far better thing to have said nothing at all than to make these very weak diversionary responses.

    Again, his silence indicates that he has conceded the point entirely. He could not think of a single reason.

    He can have the last word here, about why its good for there to be doctors in a country or whatever.

  45. Allan,

    "Nuremburg dealt with expelling peoples from their own lands"

    No it dealt with forced population transfers of civilians. There is no justification for such based on ‘own lands’, which is in any case just the usual self-serving bullshit from you as all recognised legal concepts of ownership refute your case. Your argument is no better than that of Mugabe.

    In the civilised west that you claim to want to protect, there are laws to decide who has a right to be where and who owns what, and what are the limits of redress. The fact is that you have no more respect for those traditions than the most deranged Wahabbist.

  46. Phantom,

    "very weak diversionary responses."

    Declare victory, and run away. You have failed to address any of the responses I gave.

    Your question is posed as if the issue before the immigration officer is to allow 2 million people in or none. It is not. In each case there is an individual seeking entry.

    The reason you pose the question as you do, and the reason Allan poses the question as he does, is he wants the officer to ask the question ‘Are you a Muslim?’ and then send the individual home if the answer is yes. Spare us the bullshit concern about ‘net benefit’, because even if the muslim individual has the patent for an engine that runs on air in his pocket, home he will go.

    Anyone who would try to list ‘benefits’ in such a case is a fool. Take off the shit colored glasses first.

  47. OK, will continue

    You still have not answered the question

    And no one was framing it as if it were a decision that any immigration officer would be asked to make. The question was framed in a very macro basis.

    If you can’t deal with the issue, then fine, then talk about the "pride" parade or whatever.

  48. Phantom,

    I never offered to answer your question (which incidentally was posed to Brits – I am not British). Nor have you answered any question of mine.

    "And no one was framing it as if it were a decision that any immigration officer would be asked to make. The question was framed in a very macro basis."

    Why?

  49. Because that was not the nature of the question. As you knew.

    Muslim immigration has had catastrophic consequences for Britain. Maybe it cannot be reversed, but there is no sane Briton that, given a chance, would ever repeat what can only be described as a grave historical error, one of the worst in that country’s long history.

  50. Frank wrote:

    "The reason you pose the question as you do, and the reason Allan poses the question as he does, is he wants the officer to ask the question ‘Are you a Muslim?’ and then send the individual home if the answer is yes."

    That’s exactly correct, Frank. I want to send them home – back to their own lands and away from mine for reasons made perfectly clear.

  51. That’s exactly correct, Frank. I want to send them home – back to their own lands and away from mine for reasons made perfectly clear.

    Where do you send all the Muslims born in Britian Allan?

  52. Back to the lands of islam, dar-al-islam. Apostates of islam who are born in Britain may stay here under full protection from the muslims who shall be returned home.

    Check this out – it’s a useful site for non-believers to see why they should remain non-believers.

    http://islamselect.com/en/

    From here –

    http://islamselect.com/en/mat/65405

    – is found

    2- Apostasy is a kind of treason to the state which the person lives in, it threatens its stability and strength, therefore Islam calls for killing the apostate to protect Islamic societies, as all states execute traitors to death.The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “Whoever changes his religion, execute him.”Also the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “It is not permissible to shed the blood of a Muslim who bears witness that there is no god except Allah and that I am His Messenger, except in one of three cases: a soul for a soul (i.e., in the case of murder); a married man who commits adultery; and one who leaves his religion and splits form the jamaa’ah (main group of Muslims).”

    Taking this snippet from the sadly deluded O’Dwyer:

    "The beliefs of muslims allow them to kill any co-religionist who would wish to leave islam which is not compatible with the UK’s system of law" (- Allan)

    No they do not. – O’Dwyer

    From the above, I’d say that Frank is wrong.

  53. Phantom,

    "Because that was not the nature of the question. As you knew."

    The question is why pose it at a ‘macro’ level.

    What does the ‘macro’ level tell us about the many decent muslims living and working here? As you’ve already seen, Allan doesn’t give a damn about ‘net benefit’ or any such thing. Nor do you care that there are thousands of muslim doctors and nurses in this country, or about the ones in the forces, the ones with jobs and businesses.

    At the height of the NI conflict the British could have taken the same approach to Irish immigration, with similar justification, but I don’t remember a time when they did so. We were always able to come and go without even a passport. This was at a time when Irish people were lobbing mortars at cabinet meetings, blowing up civilians and soldiers, as well as trying (and almost succeeding) to kill the tory leaders in Brighton. And many more of them were singing about it, shouting the score, and passing the hat.

    If someone had asked at that time what is the benefit of irish immigration, what could you have told them? "OK so a lot of us are trying to kill you and many more support it, but sure what about the diddly idley music, the stout and aren’t we great craic?".

  54. The threat that the Irish posed to Britain will be seen as a wavelet in a teacup compared to what they face now.

    And even if the question [ about Irish immigration ] had been painful, the Brits would have had every right in the world to ask it at any time.

    Immigration should only exist when it benefits the receiving country. If it does not benefit that country, and if it is not supported by that country’s people, it shouldn’t happen. Period.

  55. The reason you pose the question as you do, and the reason Allan poses the question as he does, is he wants the officer to ask the question ‘Are you a Muslim?’ and then send the individual home if the answer is yes.

    I have a little trouble with that one Frank although I agree with your general drift. Getting back to your Irish analogy then the immigration official doesn’t need to ask the question. The place where the applicant is coming from and his or her name and perhaps dress are all the indicators of religion he needs or he could chose to err on the side of caution if in doubt. The reason the Irish had free movement is due to natural traffic between these islands. Someone who is not indigenous to these islands ought to face stricter controls if they are coming from outside the EU. It doesn’t make economic sense to take everybody in or to tell them to show up the next day for deportation.

    Stricter controls are necessary and citizens of the UK who are muslimk should do all in their power to discourage the militant form of their faith. Not easy when playwrights put plays in the public domian saying the seven seven bombers were not evil when they were. Ideas do have consequences and its time the so called intelligensia in this country realised it.

  56. In order to concentrate on the holistic negative impact Muslims have had on this country, people need to get away from the purely terrorist-related phenomena.

    Concentrating on the above gives Muslim apologists and defenders scope to dismiss critics as deranged thinkers who seek to cover a whole community with a blanket of terror support.

    If you want to really hit home, concntrate on the many other negatives I and others have highlighted time and again.

    For my part, I often wonder if those who lick the Islamic theological and cultural labia would be quite so keen if they spent significant parts of their lives living in Muslim lands and experiencing the true impact of that religion in areas unfettered by Western standards.

  57. Unfortunately, one does not get to choose the bits and pieces that might almost be digestable of islam: you get the entire poisonous banquet. And on terror, it is self-evident that whilst most muslims are not terrorists, most terrorists are muslims, and many muslims support the ultimate aim if not the means of the terrorists.

  58. Andrew,

    ‘Concentrating on the above gives Muslim apologists and defenders scope to dismiss critics as deranged thinkers who seek to cover a whole community with a blanket of terror support.’

    Whereas really you’re just deranged thinkers who seek to cover a whole group with a blanket of anything negative that applies to any of them.

  59. ‘Whereas really you’re just deranged thinkers who seek to cover a whole group with a blanket of anything negative that applies to any of them.’

    No, I’m a person who has had to live with the negative consequences of their collective presence in this country (work-related, social, political, cultural, demographic, communal) for a large part of my life, coupled with the pathetic excuses and arguments of those who defend them at every opportunity.

    You want deranged, open your passport at the back page.

  60. Phantom

    Yes, I’m disturbed by the fact that all of these phenomena go hand-in-hand with the presence of Muslims in Britain, and that nothing of this nature existed before they came en masse to this country.

    ‘Nuff said!

  61. Andrew,

    "You want deranged, open your passport at the back page."

    I don’t know whose passport you scribbled on this time but it wasn’t mine.

  62. No, the only thing I’d scribble on you would be a stencilled phallus on your forehead!

  63. — nothing of this nature existed before they came en masse to this country —

    Correct. Which is why Frank quite intentionally did not answer a simple but important question. He knew very well the implications- the way to have avoided all of these things was not to have this immigration.

    A grave historical error was made. At least people should own up to the thing that is obvious.

    Its up for you guys to decide what to do now, but the fact that a historic error was made is clear to everyone here, whether they admit it or not.

  64. Phantom,

    Of course – though much of it is nothing new nor exclusively Muslim. Even the worst of it is only a difference of degree and not kind, compared with other groups.

    And it’s still not good enough to damn the majority for beliefs that they do not even hold.

  65. Phantom,

    "– nothing of this nature existed before they came en masse to this country —

    Correct.

    [..]

    A grave historical error was made."

    It was, when you said ‘correct’.

  66. Phantom

    Large scale Islamic immigration to the UK can be compared to someone vomiting on the pavement. The person doing the vomiting will feel great benefit from his actions, much like the Muslims will garner benefit from this ‘land of milk and honey’. For everyone else, they’re just left with a great pile of mess to clear up.

  67. I’m curious….the UK also saw large scale immigration of (non-muslim) Indians too, were there the same sort of difficulties, multi-culti issues, separatism, and anger that the country is experiencing with the Middle Easterners?

  68. sorry for the grief all you uprightous british people are feeling but your own previous governments brought this hell you are suffering by raping plundering and pillaging every country you had the audacity to steal in the name of the empire. you reap what you sow. such is life.

  69. ‘…raping plundering and pillaging every country you had the audacity to steal in the name of the empire…’

    Oh dear, the Sinn Fein Pravda Office has got in on the act. It’s opinion formers are as witless about the Empire as they are at just about every other subject (LOL).

  70. Well Andrew, in most places that the British decided to plant their flag, the indeginous population have done one of two things. Followed the English home, or fought with them in their native land. Most immigrants in the UK are descended from people born in the British Empire.

  71. ‘Followed the English home, or fought with them in their native land.’

    Yep. Clamoured for us to leave in several instances and then immediately followed us back to Blighty to live under the same laws and system of government they rallied against in their homelands. Meanwhile, countries that were stable and relatively well-run under the Empire tore themselves apart as soon as we departed – with consequences that have only just begun to heal, and in other cases haven’t.

    I’d call that a bit hypocritical. As I’ve said, Seamus, I haven’t a problem with immigration per se (as long as it’s strictly limited). I DO have a problem with Muslims here in large numbers.

    Still, it could be worse. We could be France with almost 5 million of the buggers.

  72. Well, Andrew, the French Empire at it’s height was almost entirely Islamic. Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Lebanon, Syria, Mali etc etc. They went to these countries, tried to change their customs, and then complain when the opposite happens.

    Same with the British. They went to Egypt, Sudan, Palestine, Jordan, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Myanmar etc etc They went to these countries, took their resources, killed many people, tried to change the customs of the people and then complain when those people go to Britain and try and do the same thing.

  73. Actually a large porportion of those colonial immigrants were immigrating because of their collaboration with the empire, and would no doubt have had to pay the piper had they stayed once britain pulled out.

  74. We could be France with almost 5 million of the buggers.

    Wow France has 5 million gay Muslims ?

  75. It’s no joke in France. In the cities there is a vaccuum with law and order that has been filled by local dodgy geezers. They are a law on to themselves. France took in immigrants radically different to them selves to fill the labour market between the 1950-70’s and now the demand for labour has gone the people are still there and have multiplied. Andrew is right, there are nearly five million in France and sooner or later France and the world will have to deal with it.

    Things have gone pretty far there. ugghh… it could turn very ugly.

    I get the empire bit but those who were colonised would be better served with help (not aid) to manage their own countries. Frances immigrants are almost all from Africa. Africa cannot be helped by superimposing the European state model there, its not suited. They are loyal to tribes and family,and the nation state is used for corruption, surely it must be time for a rethink there?

    Soon the only option left for France will be severe repression of the muslim population there.

  76. Gosh, you are some decades too late, but yes there should be a moratorium on most all immigration into Europe.

    When abroad, I tend to walk far and wide, very far from the tourist areas. I’ve seen parts of (greater)Paris, Brussels, and Marseille that are extremely intimidating, and as un-European as you might ever imagine. The natives have been chased out, and I don’t know who has benefited.

    Beware.

  77. ‘They went to these countries, took their resources, killed many people, tried to change the customs of the people and then complain when those people go to Britain and try and do the same thing..’

    As someone who has travelled to many Commonwealth countries and seen the many positive legacies of Empire those countries are loath to dispose of, I love the misplaced ‘big bad bogeyman of Empire’ crap you still get from certain quarters.

    They wanted independence. Not independence tethered to the apron strings of bolt-hole migration to the Mother Country. That’s hypocrisy.

    Of course I wouldn’t be suggesting that Seamus was just another poisonous Irish republican. Heaven forfend!!

  78. Gosh

    Soon the only option left for France will be severe repression of the muslim population there.

    It’s probably too late now and would certainly be too late by the time it had public support.The aging Christian population will not be able to impose its will on the young Muslim population.

    And even if we could drive them out France does not have a young population of its own to replace them with. Islamic and other immigration is the consequence of the failure if the west to reproduce itself. Not the cause.

  79. No I’m not too late I’ve been saying it for a long time. This is not a problem that is all about demographics but also bad choices. The bad choice was who they let in and under what conditions.

    Now that they are there they’re going to need to get very tough. I read recently some of these young ppl in the cities are better armed than the authorities, with bazookas and AK’s. They steal cars and change their number plates and exchange them with Eastern Europe who repay them with firepower. Thats bloody scary.
    Also read last night on GoV how one woman with a disability is claiming she is to be evicted because her building is to be handed over for asylum seekers. This has truly gone beyone demographics.

  80. Mother Country.

    Listened to a documentary recently where a woman described Britain as a good host but a bastard mother.

  81. ‘Listened to a documentary recently where a woman described Britain as a good host but a bastard mother.’

    Looking at the way this country treats its own people and comparing it to the grace and favour treatment offered to immigrants and their descendant minorities, I can well agree with her.

Comments are closed.