More accounts on US torture :



davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
limerickman said:
I see the Daily Mail carries news that Howard, who's real name is Michul Hecht, admitted that his Romainian Jewish father, may have been an illegal
immigrant to Britian !
That's an aside (I thought the DM was a Tory paper ?).

This is a complex issue - is Judaism a race or a religion, or both ?
The Labour party wanted to draft posters of pigs flying and the Tories complained that this was being racist against Howard.
Howard, on the other hand says that he wants to clamp down on immigration.

To be honest, I think they're both playing the racist card - and both sets want to appear to be tough on immigration.




I happen to agree with you.

i think if you live in a society - you ought to respect the tenets of that society, especially if you are not from that society.
The Muslims should tolerate free speech - however I think that the film your referred to earlier was extremely provocative.
I do not in any way condone the murder of that film maker - in fact I condemn utterly his murder.
But, in a free society, the film maker could have been less provocative in his portrayal of the subject in question.





I do not support the taking of life by Muslim terrorists or anyone else for that matter.
I think that Beslan, 9/11, Madrid were terrible acts.
I think that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible act too.
So no side comes to this issue with clean hands.

There may well be cultural tensions between some elements of extreme Muslims living in Europe and main stream Europe.
The bombing in Madrid, we were told was because Spain supported the illegal US invasion of Iraq.

This brings me to the concept of Ummah.
I haven't got the literal translation of Ummah - but I'll paraphrase.
Essentially, Ummah is the concept of Islamic territory : it holds that if an infidel occupies Islamic land, the infidel violates the concept of Ummah.
Outmoded as this concept may well be - it is invoked by BinLaden & Co.
Thus the invasion of Iraq - according to Al Qaeda - violates the concept of Ummah.
Spain - historically known as Anduluscia in Islam - was also part of the Ummah, under the Moors (we discussed this when talking about Zaragoza and Cordoba, previously).
Thus, because the concept of Ummah was violated by the US ,and assisted by Spain, Spain therefore made itself a target.
From an extremists viewpoint, Madrid and 9/11 were not crimes.
Because of the US presence in Saudi, iraq, Afghanistan, Ummah has been violated.

The only surefire way to solve this entire problem is to get the USA out of all Muslim countries and for all non-Muslim countires to seal their borders to Muslims.
Neither of these options will happen.
So we have to try to work through a solution.

I think that there are extremists on both sides (in the West, and, separately within Islam).
Neither set of extremists will win because it's an unwinnable war for both sides.
I recognise militant Islam.
I also recognise Israeli's State terrorism and US State terrorism.

I hear a lot of posters here waffling on about Islamo-fascists and other Islamo-phobic stuff (not you, it has to be said).
Then I hear them squeal anti-semiticism when their own kind are criticised.
They have a blind spot about criticisning their own kind.

I am big enough to say "yes, there is a problem with Islamic terrorism" but I am also big enough to recognise that "yes there is a problem too with US/Israeli terrorism".
Which brand of terrorism poses is a bigger threat ?
They're symbiotic.
One feeds of the other.
Which is Bush's biggest crime - in reality, his entire raison d'etre is Binladen.
In turn, Binladen's raison d'etre is Israel/US.
Excellent post. W/o bin laden, Bush would have just faded from view as another unremarkable president. Now he'll go down as a president who did "something"-right or wrong, he did "something". Agree also on bin laden- undeserved limelight. Draconian repression of women (bin ladens & many others, in his part of the world, "ideal" society) is unsustainable. Agree on assimilation too. "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
"The only surefire way to solve this entire problem is to get the USA out of all Muslim countries and for all non-Muslim countires to seal their borders to Muslims. Neither of these options will happen. So we have to try to work through a solution."

I'm not quite so far to the Right that I would disallow Moslems entering European society. I know one or two Moslem guys who hang about in my local sports centre and find them polite and pleasant people.

I noticed that the Dutch have been experiencing major problems with Moslem immigrants and the result of this was they elected a right-wing, anti-immigration government and started to forcefully deport Moslems. It was a very strict clamp-down in what has always been a very tolerant, liberal country.

Personally I think the Dutch have gone a little too far with regard to all of this and I recently heard Kilroy Silk state the Labour Party had likewise been getting out of line too when they talked of taking the children of asylum seekers into care. I agreed with Kilroy that was a callous and cruel policy Labour was debating at that time. People should never be treated like garbage.

However, my point is essentially this: In countries such as France, Moslems enjoy the freedom to practise their religion without any persecution. They can gather in mosques, wear veils in the streets and freely express their views. So, I think it isn't too much to ask of them to accept that France is a country that's mostly secular, although tolerant, and all immigrants should respect French culture.

Yet France runs the risk of a possible terrorist attack precisely because it has opened its borders to Middle Eastern migrants and has issued a prohibition of religious expression in schools. Isn't it kind of ironic then that other countries such as Japan and China aren't being threatened by terrorists, simply because they didn't let so many migrants in in the first place? What has France really gained from its open border policy?

Recently you pointed out that the Jews created problems for themselves wherever they settle but my point is the Moslems do too. I scratch my head over the paradox of Moslems fleeing Islamic countries and then attempting to assert these same values in European countries. My personal belief is they shouldn't be allowed to to do this (or encouraged in the U.K. by banning the symbol of the Red Cross or exempting Middle Eastern women from security iris scans e.t.c.)

In many ways, I see the Jews and Moslems as being somewhat similar. I heard on the news yesterday that traditional Jewish youths set about attacking Jewish Christian areas. Seems like the whole Middle East is totally radicalized where religion is concerned.

I agree the U.S. should get out of Iraq as you said. I think that after 9/11 the U.S. should have pulled out of Iraq and washed its hands of the whole situation. The money they spent on bombing Baghdad could have been directed towards a tight immigration system, an anti-missile defence system and the creation of jobs within the U.S. economy.

To be honest, though, my suspicion has always been that history is repeating itself. The Romans experienced real problems in their attempt to reconcile pagan Roman values with Christianity. First of all they (the Romans) initiated a persecution of Christians that was far worse than Bush's own onslaught against Iraq. However, as you probably know, this State persecution of Christians simply caused the conflict to widen. By the 4th century A.D. the boot was firmly on the other foot with Christian radicals mounting crusades against secular values, banning philosophical debate or pagan literature e.t.c. The fall of secular Greco/Roman values, to my mind, was the cause behind the eventual onset of the Dark Ages and the beginning of religious crusades, stagnation, the closure of the Academy in Greece and destruction of scientific journals e.t.c.

With all that in mind, the appearance of George W Bush as leader of the free world and the fanaticism of Bin Laden and company is certainly food for thought, especially when you look back at history and the effect religion has always had on social development. Little wonder the French have been feeling uneasy with regard to the U.S. (the rise of a possible theocratic Christian State) and the influence of Islam in Europe (especially in the U.K. where freedom of expression is slowly being eroded and attempts are being made to pass laws that prohibit the criticism of Islam in this country).









limerickman said:
I see the Daily Mail carries news that Howard, who's real name is Michul Hecht, admitted that his Romainian Jewish father, may have been an illegal
immigrant to Britian !
That's an aside (I thought the DM was a Tory paper ?).

This is a complex issue - is Judaism a race or a religion, or both ?
The Labour party wanted to draft posters of pigs flying and the Tories complained that this was being racist against Howard.
Howard, on the other hand says that he wants to clamp down on immigration.

To be honest, I think they're both playing the racist card - and both sets want to appear to be tough on immigration.




I happen to agree with you.

i think if you live in a society - you ought to respect the tenets of that society, especially if you are not from that society.
The Muslims should tolerate free speech - however I think that the film your referred to earlier was extremely provocative.
I do not in any way condone the murder of that film maker - in fact I condemn utterly his murder.
But, in a free society, the film maker could have been less provocative in his portrayal of the subject in question.





I do not support the taking of life by Muslim terrorists or anyone else for that matter.
I think that Beslan, 9/11, Madrid were terrible acts.
I think that the invasion of Iraq was a terrible act too.
So no side comes to this issue with clean hands.

There may well be cultural tensions between some elements of extreme Muslims living in Europe and main stream Europe.
The bombing in Madrid, we were told was because Spain supported the illegal US invasion of Iraq.

This brings me to the concept of Ummah.
I haven't got the literal translation of Ummah - but I'll paraphrase.
Essentially, Ummah is the concept of Islamic territory : it holds that if an infidel occupies Islamic land, the infidel violates the concept of Ummah.
Outmoded as this concept may well be - it is invoked by BinLaden & Co.
Thus the invasion of Iraq - according to Al Qaeda - violates the concept of Ummah.
Spain - historically known as Anduluscia in Islam - was also part of the Ummah, under the Moors (we discussed this when talking about Zaragoza and Cordoba, previously).
Thus, because the concept of Ummah was violated by the US ,and assisted by Spain, Spain therefore made itself a target.
From an extremists viewpoint, Madrid and 9/11 were not crimes.
Because of the US presence in Saudi, iraq, Afghanistan, Ummah has been violated.

The only surefire way to solve this entire problem is to get the USA out of all Muslim countries and for all non-Muslim countires to seal their borders to Muslims.
Neither of these options will happen.
So we have to try to work through a solution.

I think that there are extremists on both sides (in the West, and, separately within Islam).
Neither set of extremists will win because it's an unwinnable war for both sides.
I recognise militant Islam.
I also recognise Israeli's State terrorism and US State terrorism.

I hear a lot of posters here waffling on about Islamo-fascists and other Islamo-phobic stuff (not you, it has to be said).
Then I hear them squeal anti-semiticism when their own kind are criticised.
They have a blind spot about criticisning their own kind.

I am big enough to say "yes, there is a problem with Islamic terrorism" but I am also big enough to recognise that "yes there is a problem too with US/Israeli terrorism".
Which brand of terrorism poses is a bigger threat ?
They're symbiotic.
One feeds of the other.
Which is Bush's biggest crime - in reality, his entire raison d'etre is Binladen.
In turn, Binladen's raison d'etre is Israel/US.
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Carrera said:
In many ways, I see the Jews and Moslems as being somewhat similar. I heard on the news yesterday that traditional Jewish youths set about attacking Jewish Christian areas. Seems like the whole Middle East is totally radicalized where religion is concerned.
Exactly. Both of these groups are elitist & insular. They don't want to assimilate into their host country & they beleive their way is the only way. I say "feck 'em." I beleive that if one does'nt assimilate then stay in your repressive/totalitarian homeland. Don't come over here & ***** & moan about abiding by the country's laws. Research before you come over, dumbass. :)
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
davidmc said:
Exactly. Both of these groups are elitist & insular. They don't want to assimilate into their host country & they beleive their way is the only way. I say "feck 'em." I beleive that if one does'nt assimilate then stay in your repressive/totalitarian homeland. Don't come over here & ***** & moan about abiding by the country's laws. Research before you come over, dumbass. :)


The Muslims do assimilate : it's the Jews who don't.

Look at the UK : the england cricket teams for example are filled with Muslims.
Look at Amir Khan - he's a Muslim.
Prince Naseem too.

It's the jews who refuse to assimilate : the Sunday Times had a great article last weekend about the jews and marriage.
Traditionally, jews were only allowed to marry jews.
Now that the jewish population is declining so much in the UK, the jewish
community are worried about the existence of their identity.
Seems many jews are marrying outside of their community.
If this keeps up they estimate that there will be less than 250k of them by 2080 in Britain.
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I totally disagree with you on that one, Lim.
It's true that there is a certain pressure on younger Jewish people (say in the U.S.) not to marry a so-called gentile American. But the truth is, Jewish people do marry non Jews and, in fact, I heard a Jewish American girl on TV the other day say that, despite family pressure, love was the most important factor for her. She met a regular American guy, fell in love and got married. I have also had American friends who married Jewish people.
Not true that Moslems integrate in Europe. Some of them do indeed integrate but very very many do not share western values whatsoever. I myself live in an area where there is a large population of Moslems and they basically keep to themselves.


limerickman said:
The Muslims do assimilate : it's the Jews who don't.

Look at the UK : the england cricket teams for example are filled with Muslims.
Look at Amir Khan - he's a Muslim.
Prince Naseem too.

It's the jews who refuse to assimilate : the Sunday Times had a great article last weekend about the jews and marriage.
Traditionally, jews were only allowed to marry jews.
Now that the jewish population is declining so much in the UK, the jewish
community are worried about the existence of their identity.
Seems many jews are marrying outside of their community.
If this keeps up they estimate that there will be less than 250k of them by 2080 in Britain.
 

zapper

Banned
Mar 11, 2004
2,495
0
0
Carrera said:
I totally disagree with you on that one, Lim.
It's true that there is a certain pressure on younger Jewish people (say in the U.S.) not to marry a so-called gentile American. But the truth is, Jewish people do marry non Jews and, in fact, I heard a Jewish American girl on TV the other day say that, despite family pressure, love was the most important factor for her. She met a regular American guy, fell in love and got married. I have also had American friends who married Jewish people.
Not true that Moslems integrate in Europe. Some of them do indeed integrate but very very many do not share western values whatsoever. I myself live in an area where there is a large population of Moslems and they basically keep to themselves.
You are correct Carrera...My mother(irish) married a jewish man. I have two step brothers who married gentile women.. Lim is assuming way too much here...big surprise :rolleyes:
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
As an added thought, I think you would get a clearer picture if you travelled to Belgium or Holland where the authorities have experienced real difficulties with immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. So far, it seems France has been the most successful since a lot of Moslem immigrants in France tend to associate with the indigenous French, befriend the French and adopt a French identity.
It was a big victory for French policy when Moslem immigrants decided to put aside their veils and go to school without them in order to support the French hostage who had been kidnapped in Iraq (due to the veil policy). It was clearly a positive development that French Moslems finally sided with France and defended their French identity.
But, as a whole, it's fair to say that Middle Eastern immigrants have caused some tension in Europe by their reluctance to accept the freedoms and customs of their host country. There are several thousand Middle Eastern immigrants in the U.K. alone who desire an Islamic State. No Jewish immigrant has ever made the demand the U.K should embrace the Torah or Jewish law.
If anyone can draw my attention to any major Jewish riots in the boundaries of Europe over the last few decades, I'm all ears. I can think of several pro Islamic riots or even open celebrations of the 9/11 attacks in Birmingham. I find such a situation both worrying as well as totally unacceptable.


limerickman said:
The Muslims do assimilate : it's the Jews who don't.

Look at the UK : the england cricket teams for example are filled with Muslims.
Look at Amir Khan - he's a Muslim.
Prince Naseem too.

It's the jews who refuse to assimilate : the Sunday Times had a great article last weekend about the jews and marriage.
Traditionally, jews were only allowed to marry jews.
Now that the jewish population is declining so much in the UK, the jewish
community are worried about the existence of their identity.
Seems many jews are marrying outside of their community.
If this keeps up they estimate that there will be less than 250k of them by 2080 in Britain.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
As an added thought, I think you would get a clearer picture if you travelled to Belgium or Holland where the authorities have experienced real difficulties with immigrants from Middle Eastern countries. So far, it seems France has been the most successful since a lot of Moslem immigrants in France tend to associate with the indigenous French, befriend the French and adopt a French identity.
It was a big victory for French policy when Moslem immigrants decided to put aside their veils and go to school without them in order to support the French hostage who had been kidnapped in Iraq (due to the veil policy). It was clearly a positive development that French Moslems finally sided with France and defended their French identity.
But, as a whole, it's fair to say that Middle Eastern immigrants have caused some tension in Europe by their reluctance to accept the freedoms and customs of their host country. There are several thousand Middle Eastern immigrants in the U.K. alone who desire an Islamic State. No Jewish immigrant has ever made the demand the U.K should embrace the Torah or Jewish law.
If anyone can draw my attention to any major Jewish riots in the boundaries of Europe over the last few decades, I'm all ears. I can think of several pro Islamic riots or even open celebrations of the 9/11 attacks in Birmingham. I find such a situation both worrying as well as totally unacceptable.


Let's take a straw pole.

The number of British MP's who are Muslims - do you know ?
According to the Economist magazine, there are 98 MP's, out of 600 odd.
That's what between 15-20% of the total number of MP's.

I don't have a percentage of jewish politicians - but would there be 10 ?
20 ? perhaps.

Let's look at British sporting life.
Hameed, Khan : boxers.
Cricketers : look at the number of counties who have Muslims playing.
Look at commercial life in Britain : the Sunday Times Rich List, for example, has many Muslims in it.

The fact is that Muslims have integrated well in to British life.
Even over here, there are now three Mosques alone in Dublin, in Dublin 20 years ago, they had one tiny Mosque (that's in a city of 1.1m people).
On the other hand the Jews in Dublin had two synagogues and have recently sold one, because their population is dwindling here.

You highlight France, the Christian Churches were also unhappy at the banning of the Crucifix in classrooms.
I have always said that people should accept the society in to which they've moved.
 

Trekker2017

New Member
Apr 23, 2004
236
0
0
73
There is a lengthy article in the current NEW YORKER magazine on how America "out sources" torture. It's too long to quote here, but I think you can access it from the New Yorker Magzine website: www.newyorker.com.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
zapper said:
You are correct Carrera...My mother(irish) married a jewish man. I have two step brothers who married gentile women.. Lim is assuming way too much here...big surprise :rolleyes:
Well, there you are I was right all along the line about you and Weisse, now that we can all see through the waters now, I can tell you that in fact that that I am more Irish than Lim, and can actually prove it from genealogical facts covering more than 200 years. So what, so there isn't a bit of English blood or genetics in me, so what?
Weisse was the first to concede that he wasn't 100%, and I had my suspicions about you during your flawed attack and defence, that you were in the same boat also.
In my opinion the only Kosher one was Fixit from Switzerland. Other than that I don't care who is who. Perhaps that is the reason that you both vehemently attacked Lim, and, well Weisse never attacked me, because we had already already called a pax.
The only concern about the future of Judism is that even more are 'marrying out'. Now doubt this same scenario will in future occur amongst Moslems.
 

Ike90

New Member
Feb 10, 2005
98
2
0
limerickman said:
What say you about US capital punishment ?

There is no such thing as "US capital punishment." 38 states consider capital punishment a viable sentence, 12 states do not, and neither does the District of Columbia.

Of the approximately 780 persons executed in the U.S. from 1976 to 2001, more than 65%, or 2 out of 3, were executed in one of five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Most states that include the death penalty as a punishment have not executed anyone in many decades.

By the way, the oh-so "enlightened" and "civilised" population of Ireland abolished capuital punishment way back in, ahem, 1990.


 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
zapper said:
You are correct Carrera...My mother(irish) married a jewish man. I have two step brothers who married gentile women.. Lim is assuming way too much here...big surprise :rolleyes:

This last statement explains why we've been at loggerheads recently over the Israel question.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Ike90 said:


There is no such thing as "US capital punishment." 38 states consider capital punishment a viable sentence, 12 states do not, and neither does the District of Columbia.

Of the approximately 780 persons executed in the U.S. from 1976 to 2001, more than 65%, or 2 out of 3, were executed in one of five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Most states that include the death penalty as a punishment have not executed anyone in many decades.

By the way, the oh-so "enlightened" and "civilised" population of Ireland abolished capuital punishment way back in, ahem, 1990.




I think you'll find capital punishment is on the statute books of many countries but is never used.


You are correct - I should have phrased the question as US State Capital Punishment : or the execution of members of yer prison population.
How many people were executed in the USA in 2004 ?
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
FredC said:
Well, there you are I was right all along the line about you and Weisse, now that we can all see through the waters now, I can tell you that in fact that that I am more Irish than Lim, and can actually prove it from genealogical facts covering more than 200 years. So what, so there isn't a bit of English blood or genetics in me, so what?
Weisse was the first to concede that he wasn't 100%, and I had my suspicions about you during your flawed attack and defence, that you were in the same boat also.
In my opinion the only Kosher one was Fixit from Switzerland. Other than that I don't care who is who. Perhaps that is the reason that you both vehemently attacked Lim, and, well Weisse never attacked me, because we had already already called a pax.
The only concern about the future of Judism is that even more are 'marrying out'. Now doubt this same scenario will in future occur amongst Moslems.

Citizenship is where you'e born - doesn't matter where the parents are from or the other ancestors.

But tell me what other religion, other than Judaism, confers every one of it's
followers, with dual citizenship ?

Every Jew, regardless of nationality, is automatically given citizenship of
the statelet of israel.

Still, the apologists will say the land of milk and honey is a democracy.

Funny, I would have thought that having religious symbols planted in the middle of a national flag was sectarian/racist, but there you go.
One law for................
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
I guess I should begin by stating I have no particular axe to grind against Moslems. I am not in any way racist. Basically I take people as I find them regardless of their particular nationality. I personally wouldn't have a problem dating either a black, Moslem or Jewish woman.
However, I do have strong objections to the present policy of mass immigration from Middle Eastern countries and the establishment of more and more mosques throughout the country. I also object to the current line of propaganda that anyone who doesn't support such policy is racist.
Finally it would seem Michael Howard had the courage to state something I had been emphasising for the last decade and now Kilroy Silk has entered the debate as well.
So far as I'm concerned, anyone who comes to live in Europe (be they Jewish, Moslem or African) are quite welcome (especially tsunami victims and refugees). I believe they should enjoy freedom to practise any particular reliigious beliefs they adhere to. But the current influx of Moslems shouldn't be encouraged to impose different value systems on our democratic societies.
It is quite evident that none of this tolerance has been sufficiently pleasing to leftist politicians and liberals. We are now being told what we can or can not say in a so-called free society or being labelled as racist at the drop of a hat. For example, we are told that the Red Cross (as a symbol of a respected charity organization) is offensive to Middle Eastern immigrants and should be banned as a result. In my own particular region, people have actually been stopped by the police and ordered to take down national flags, as this also is offensive to immigrant communities. By the same token, it would seem that Christmas is also supposed to be offensive and may be changed to a more accommodating "Wintermass".
So, the fact is immigration on the scale it's taking place is altering our system of values and undermining basic liberties.
And with respect to your observation as to the number of mosques in Ireland, I can tell you that in this particular region they outnumber churches significantly and far more funding is being made available to establish many more. If mosques soon come to outnumber traditional Catholic churches in Ireland then I think this is unfortunate as you will be losing much of your Irish heritage to accomodate different cultural values.
If many millions of moslems already inhabit vast territories in the Middle East, why would you desire the promotion of Islamic values in your native Ireland (which is a fairly small country by comparison)?
What happened in Holland is quite significant. At some point or other the Dutch realised their own particular Dutch culture was being smothered by mass immigration and their traditional, liberal values were also coming under increasing attack. Islamic clerics condemned homosexuals and lesbians within Holland, became inflamed at the thought that the Dutch press should criticize Islam and went so far as to make threats against Dutch politicians, while one particular liberal Dutch politician winded up being assassinated.
As a result, the Dutch decided enough was enough and elected a fairly right-wing government that was determined to protect traditional Dutch values and alter the former hyper-liberal immigration policy. The idea behind this was that if future immigrants (mainly from the Middle East) genuinely wished to live in a free, democratic, European country they should accept Dutch values, learn the Dutch language and accept the culture and country they had aspired to live in.
Personally I think the Dutch may have taken some of this a bit too far but I certainly agree that there had to be some kind of a clamp down on the situation as it was developing in Holland. And I think the U.K. government is making a big mistake by financing so many mosques and Islamic faith schools that cities such as Birmingham are slowly coming to resemble a foreign capital.
As for your point that there are quite a few Jews in political circles, I guess it's a valid one. I do know Michael Howard is Jewish but think it's kind of sad he should be unpopular in this country simply on account of his being Jewish. If that's the case then something is seriously wrong in this country since Jewish politicians can hardly be blamed for Blair's personal decision to lie to the public over Iraq. I also think that Campbell is a hypocrite for designing anti-Jewish election propaganda against Howard, when he himself (Campbell, as reported by the Mail) lambasted the BBC for adopting an anti-war stance. It was also Campbell who came up with the whole 45 minute WMD claim, again reported by Andrew Gilligan at the time.
My only beef with Howard is I think he was 100 per cent wrong to endorse the Iraq war.
However the case may be, whether we disagree over the issue of Jews and Moslems or not, my principal point is that Kilroy Silk's political position that traditional European values are being undermined isn't quite so extreme as it sounds. The Daily Mail has been pointing this out for decades and celebrities such as Prince Charles, Paul Mcartney and Toyah Wilcox would, more likely than not, agree with that view.





limerickman said:
Let's take a straw pole.

The number of British MP's who are Muslims - do you know ?
According to the Economist magazine, there are 98 MP's, out of 600 odd.
That's what between 15-20% of the total number of MP's.

I don't have a percentage of jewish politicians - but would there be 10 ?
20 ? perhaps.

Let's look at British sporting life.
Hameed, Khan : boxers.
Cricketers : look at the number of counties who have Muslims playing.
Look at commercial life in Britain : the Sunday Times Rich List, for example, has many Muslims in it.

The fact is that Muslims have integrated well in to British life.
Even over here, there are now three Mosques alone in Dublin, in Dublin 20 years ago, they had one tiny Mosque (that's in a city of 1.1m people).
On the other hand the Jews in Dublin had two synagogues and have recently sold one, because their population is dwindling here.

You highlight France, the Christian Churches were also unhappy at the banning of the Crucifix in classrooms.
I have always said that people should accept the society in to which they've moved.
 

FredC

New Member
Oct 22, 2004
2,859
0
0
Ike90 said:
There is no such thing as "US capital punishment." 38 states consider capital punishment a viable sentence, 12 states do not, and neither does the District of Columbia.

Of the approximately 780 persons executed in the U.S. from 1976 to 2001, more than 65%, or 2 out of 3, were executed in one of five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Most states that include the death penalty as a punishment have not executed anyone in many decades.

By the way, the oh-so "enlightened" and "civilised" population of Ireland abolished capuital punishment way back in, ahem, 1990.
In that case, what's United about the States death sentance policy. It seems to me that it mainly still occurs in the 'Uncle Tom' states. Texas? Mmmmm. very interesting.
All those statistics are very interesting, how's the KKK doing down there in Uncle Tom country?
 

Carrera

New Member
Feb 2, 2004
4,856
0
0
55
Schwarzennegger has duel Austrian and American citizenship. His first serious girlfriend was also Jewish and many of Arnie's personal friends were Jews, even going back to his bodybuilding days.
Aren't Joe and Ben Weider also Jewish for that matter? I hear there are more Jewish people in California than anywhere else in the States.
The latest thing Is Madonna who decided she wants to be Jewish too so she changed her name to Ester.
My own heritage is Scottish/English although I have never been to Scotland.


limerickman said:
Citizenship is where you'e born - doesn't matter where the parents are from or the other ancestors.

But tell me what other religion, other than Judaism, confers every one of it's
followers, with dual citizenship ?

Every Jew, regardless of nationality, is automatically given citizenship of
the statelet of israel.

Still, the apologists will say the land of milk and honey is a democracy.

Funny, I would have thought that having religious symbols planted in the middle of a national flag was sectarian/racist, but there you go.
One law for................
 

davidmc

New Member
Jun 23, 2004
3,415
0
0
Ike90 said:


There is no such thing as "US capital punishment." 38 states consider capital punishment a viable sentence, 12 states do not, and neither does the District of Columbia.

Of the approximately 780 persons executed in the U.S. from 1976 to 2001, more than 65%, or 2 out of 3, were executed in one of five states: Texas, Virginia, Missouri, Florida and Oklahoma. Most states that include the death penalty as a punishment have not executed anyone in many decades.

By the way, the oh-so "enlightened" and "civilised" population of Ireland abolished capuital punishment way back in, ahem, 1990.


Touché'. Recently heard that there was going to be an execution in Connecticut but the people were giddy because 1) they are new englanders & 2) their state had not executed anyone in over 40 years. So, although cap. punishment may be on the books, doesn't necessarily mean that it's being used. As an aside, lethal injection is overtaking other, shall we say, "more barbaric" forms of cap. punishment. Virginia retired "Old Sparky" (electric chair) years ago-to a museum.
 

limerickman

Well-Known Member
Jan 5, 2004
16,130
220
63
Carrera said:
I guess I should begin by stating I have no particular axe to grind against Moslems. I am not in any way racist. Basically I take people as I find them regardless of their particular nationality. I personally wouldn't have a problem dating either a black, Moslem or Jewish woman.
However, I do have strong objections to the present policy of mass immigration from Middle Eastern countries and the establishment of more and more mosques throughout the country. I also object to the current line of propaganda that anyone who doesn't support such policy is racist.
Finally it would seem Michael Howard had the courage to state something I had been emphasising for the last decade and now Kilroy Silk has entered the debate as well.
So far as I'm concerned, anyone who comes to live in Europe (be they Jewish, Moslem or African) are quite welcome (especially tsunami victims and refugees). I believe they should enjoy freedom to practise any particular reliigious beliefs they adhere to. But the current influx of Moslems shouldn't be encouraged to impose different value systems on our democratic societies.
It is quite evident that none of this tolerance has been sufficiently pleasing to leftist politicians and liberals. We are now being told what we can or can not say in a so-called free society or being labelled as racist at the drop of a hat. For example, we are told that the Red Cross (as a symbol of a respected charity organization) is offensive to Middle Eastern immigrants and should be banned as a result. In my own particular region, people have actually been stopped by the police and ordered to take down national flags, as this also is offensive to immigrant communities. By the same token, it would seem that Christmas is also supposed to be offensive and may be changed to a more accommodating "Wintermass".
So, the fact is immigration on the scale it's taking place is altering our system of values and undermining basic liberties.
And with respect to your observation as to the number of mosques in Ireland, I can tell you that in this particular region they outnumber churches significantly and far more funding is being made available to establish many more. If mosques soon come to outnumber traditional Catholic churches in Ireland then I think this is unfortunate as you will be losing much of your Irish heritage to accomodate different cultural values.
If many millions of moslems already inhabit vast territories in the Middle East, why would you desire the promotion of Islamic values in your native Ireland (which is a fairly small country by comparison)?
What happened in Holland is quite significant. At some point or other the Dutch realised their own particular Dutch culture was being smothered by mass immigration and their traditional, liberal values were also coming under increasing attack. Islamic clerics condemned homosexuals and lesbians within Holland, became inflamed at the thought that the Dutch press should criticize Islam and went so far as to make threats against Dutch politicians, while one particular liberal Dutch politician winded up being assassinated.
As a result, the Dutch decided enough was enough and elected a fairly right-wing government that was determined to protect traditional Dutch values and alter the former hyper-liberal immigration policy. The idea behind this was that if future immigrants (mainly from the Middle East) genuinely wished to live in a free, democratic, European country they should accept Dutch values, learn the Dutch language and accept the culture and country they had aspired to live in.
Personally I think the Dutch may have taken some of this a bit too far but I certainly agree that there had to be some kind of a clamp down on the situation as it was developing in Holland. And I think the U.K. government is making a big mistake by financing so many mosques and Islamic faith schools that cities such as Birmingham are slowly coming to resemble a foreign capital.
As for your point that there are quite a few Jews in political circles, I guess it's a valid one. I do know Michael Howard is Jewish but think it's kind of sad he should be unpopular in this country simply on account of his being Jewish. If that's the case then something is seriously wrong in this country since Jewish politicians can hardly be blamed for Blair's personal decision to lie to the public over Iraq. I also think that Campbell is a hypocrite for designing anti-Jewish election propaganda against Howard, when he himself (Campbell, as reported by the Mail) lambasted the BBC for adopting an anti-war stance. It was also Campbell who came up with the whole 45 minute WMD claim, again reported by Andrew Gilligan at the time.
My only beef with Howard is I think he was 100 per cent wrong to endorse the Iraq war.
However the case may be, whether we disagree over the issue of Jews and Moslems or not, my principal point is that Kilroy Silk's political position that traditional European values are being undermined isn't quite so extreme as it sounds. The Daily Mail has been pointing this out for decades and celebrities such as Prince Charles, Paul Mcartney and Toyah Wilcox would, more likely than not, agree with that view.


I'll repeat what I said earlier - anyone coming to live in a society ought to respect that society.
I've made that point already but it needs to be repeated because I do not agree that Muslims can somehow seek to impose their views in a modern democratic European country.

But it is interesting that you point out that the number of Mosques outnumber churches in your locality.
I have long admired British society for it's tolerance of other ethnic groups (Irish included).
The average British person is the most tolerant person in the world, I think,
given the mix of people who have landed in your country throughout time.

We have a growing Muslim population here : and we also have a growing Chinese population too.
We welcome this.
(Incidentally, I have noticed that we have a lot of English neighbours moving in to our locality too).
This is a good thing, I think.

My point throughout is that Muslims, tend to assimilate in to a culture.

The Jews never assimilated in to society.
They always tended to socialise, work, marry within their own community.
Here are some number from the Sunday Times :
the number of Jewish births fell from 1990-1999 from 3,300 to 2,500.
In 1955, there were 450,000 Jews in Britain.
Today there are 300,000.
By 2020, figure will be 240k, by 2050 figure will be 180,000 and by 2080 the figure will be 140,000 (all figures supplied by the Jewish Board of Deputies).
Rabbi Shaul Rosenblatt says "it;s a crisis, for every one Jew that comes back to Judasim, 50 are leaving".
 

Similar threads