PDA

View Full Version : A German's point of view on Islam



Dusty
06-Nov-07, 19:44
I recieved the following in an e-mail today and I suspect it has been cobbled together to elicit debate but there does seem to be some sense in it.






Alarming, but right on target, scary stuff !

I know a lot of you folks don't forward messages dealing with this issue but am hoping you will this one. Our generation might not have to deal with the consequences but our children and grandchildren will.


A German's point of view on Islam

A man whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis "he said," but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen. Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely
irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the spectre of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history.

It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honour kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. The hard quantifiable fact is that the "peaceful majority", the "silent majority", is cowed and extraneous.

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant. China 's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a warmongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians; most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And, who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were "peace loving"?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence.

Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghanis, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians, and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold; we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, at the risk of offending, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on, is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on. This is really why our troops are overseas protecting our shores.

scorrie
06-Nov-07, 23:31
The trouble with this theory is that you end up with a solution along the lines of:-

"The Peace-Loving peoples of the world must unite and crush the Warmongers"

The nature of the Pacifist means that s/he will not raise arms, particularly against their own. Voices can be raised but, even if they are listened to, they are usually ignored. What chance has the opinion of the people got when weighed against the supposed word of a chosen God?

Fanatics do not value their own existence, that is the biggest weapon they possess and it is why they can cause terror amongst those who do treasure their lives. Just how do you stop bullets with flowers?

fred
07-Nov-07, 00:30
So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this - think about it - and send it on. This is really why our troops are overseas protecting our shores.

I thought about it, there isn't a Muslim country in the world with a cat in hells chance of invading Britain. We are invading their countries, they have no way to invade ours.

Try substituting Neocon for Muslim it works much better.

oldmarine
08-Nov-07, 01:54
I thought about it, there isn't a Muslim country in the world with a cat in hells chance of invading Britain. We are invading their countries, they have no way to invade ours.

From what I have been reading, Muslims/Islamic have been quite successful invading Britain. They aren't doing too bad in the USA. Most major cities and even the smaller towns have see quite an influx of Islamic Muslims ever since the start of the Iraqui war.

golach
08-Nov-07, 10:26
I thought about it, there isn't a Muslim country in the world with a cat in hells chance of invading Britain. We are invading their countries, they have no way to invade ours.

We have more Muslims in the Uk now than since 50 years ago, if that is not an invasion then what is?
We also have had a silent invasion of Chinese (see the number of take aways) but they just get on with their lives and don't demand that we Brits change our ways to suit them.

fred
08-Nov-07, 11:03
From what I have been reading, Muslims/Islamic have been quite successful invading Britain. They aren't doing too bad in the USA. Most major cities and even the smaller towns have see quite an influx of Islamic Muslims ever since the start of the Iraqui war.

Not according to the U.S. State Department they haven't. According to their figures, as of June this year, out of over 2 million Iraqis forced to leave their country because of our illegal invasion just 701 had been allowed to enter the United states. One town, Sodertalje, in Sweden has taken twice that number. The vast majority of the refugees are in Syria and Jordan where we have created a real humanitarian crisis. Here in Britain even Iraqis who's lives are in grave danger because they helped us have to fight for asylum.

It's a miracle there aren't an awful lot more Muslims hate us than there are, Christ knows we've given them enough reasons, they must be a very tolerant people. Here in the West, it seems, we don't need a reason to hate.

fred
08-Nov-07, 11:12
We have more Muslims in the Uk now than since 50 years ago, if that is not an invasion then what is?


An invasion is when you send bombers to kill as many people from the air as possible before sending in thousands of troops armed with some of the most sophisticated killing machines in the world to finish off the last of the resistance and set up a puppet government backed by your army.

golach
08-Nov-07, 11:18
An invasion is when you send bombers to kill as many people from the air as possible before sending in thousands of troops armed with some of the most sophisticated killing machines in the world to finish off the last of the resistance and set up a puppet government backed by your army.
In light of the recent Coroners Ruling on the death of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, I would say the British Army is not the the most sophisticated Army in the World

fred
08-Nov-07, 11:53
In light of the recent Coroners Ruling on the death of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, I would say the British Army is not the the most sophisticated Army in the World

We ensured our troops had ample weapons for killing Iraqis, it was the equipment for protecting themselves they lacked.

JAWS
08-Nov-07, 11:59
QUOTE=fred;293874]An invasion is when you send bombers to kill as many people from the air as possible before sending in thousands of troops armed with some of the most sophisticated killing machines in the world to finish off the last of the resistance and set up a puppet government backed by your army.[/QUOTE]So that's what happened to Chechnya! I never realised it was an invasion. And there was me thinking Putin had just sent his troops for a bit of exercise!

Oops, sorry, I forgot, that doesn't count. It's only the British and those nasty Americans who would ever stoop to doing that sort of thing!
I suspect the Chechnyans would also strongly challenge your claims about who has the most sophisticated killing machine also.

Dusty
08-Nov-07, 15:58
An invasion is when you send bombers to kill as many people from the air as possible before sending in thousands of troops armed with some of the most sophisticated killing machines in the world to finish off the last of the resistance and set up a puppet government backed by your army.

Invade
verb
1 [I or T] to enter a country by force with large numbers of soldiers in order to take possession of it:
Concentrations of troops near the border look set to invade within the next few days.

2 [I or T] to enter a place in large numbers, usually when unwanted and in order to take possession or do damage:
Hundreds of squatters have invaded waste land in the hope that they will be allowed to stay.

3 [T] to enter an area of activity in a forceful and noticeable way:
Maria looks set to invade the music scene with her style and image.

4 [T] to spoil a situation or quality that another person values with very noticeable and selfish behaviour:
Famous people often find their privacy is invaded by the press.


I think in the context of this discussion 2 would apply.
That radical Muslims want to take possesson (religious) of the world is a stated aim of theirs.
How many buildings in Muslim countries have been converted to chapels or churches?
The invasion has been underway for some time now, ably assisted by the PC brigade.
Make no mistake, they are Muslim first, second and last. The Infidel is merely a temporary diversion on their path to a totally Muslim world.

Enjoy your stay in the Islamic Republic of Scotlandistan.

fred
08-Nov-07, 18:15
I think in the context of this discussion 2 would apply.


You don't get to decide, I used the word I know what context it was used in.

fred
08-Nov-07, 18:43
That radical Muslims want to take possesson (religious) of the world is a stated aim of theirs.


I think you may be confusing them with Jehovah's Witnesses.

Boozeburglar
08-Nov-07, 19:42
I am astonished that this tripe finds a home on this site.

State your opinion; don't hide behind emails to make your point.

:(

Dusty
08-Nov-07, 21:14
Fred,
Oldmarine used the word and you merely chose to hijack it and provide a meaning for it that would allow you to lead the discussion in a direction to suit yourself.
If you properly read the posts by Oldmarine and Golach you may (or may not) then agree that 2 may well be the definition that most applies to them.
Religious domination is what Muslims are after, and believe that that is what the Koran teaches. (and that would be via interpretation and teachings by their religious leaders not my interpretation).


Boozeburgler,
I recieved the e-mail and it reinforced what I have believed for some time and I thought that others may have been interested in discussing it as well.
I think my feelings on the subject were unambiguously stated in my second post.
Your comments were less than helpful in generating enlightened debate on the subject.

percy toboggan
08-Nov-07, 21:36
I thought about it, there isn't a Muslim country in the world with a cat in hells chance of invading Britain. We are invading their countries, they have no way to invade ours.

Try substituting Neocon for Muslim it works much better.

Try substituting 'invasion by stealth'
At the current breeding rate there will be a muslim majority in about one hundred and fifty years time. Okay so we will be dust and you might not think it matters.
We are being invaded in a non-conventional way. England is surrendering without a shot being fired. Yet.

fred
08-Nov-07, 22:06
Fred,
Oldmarine used the word and you merely chose to hijack it and provide a meaning for it that would allow you to lead the discussion in a direction to suit yourself.

Dusty,

Check again, read above, I used the word before Oldmarine even posted.

Look, we've invaded two Muslim countries, we've killed over a million Iraqis, maimed a lot more and made around four million refugees. America is building military bases all over the Middle East. They are the ones with the genuine grievances not us. We are the ones invading their countries.

fred
08-Nov-07, 22:16
Try substituting 'invasion by stealth'
At the current breeding rate there will be a muslim majority in about one hundred and fifty years time. Okay so we will be dust and you might not think it matters.
We are being invaded in a non-conventional way. England is surrendering without a shot being fired. Yet.

No one is born a Muslim, it isn't a species it is a religion. A lot of young Asians grow up outside the Muslim faith both here and in other countries. People of Asian decent marry people of other nationalities and faiths. Nobody can predict what will happen in 150 years time, it all depends on peoples attitudes on both sides, their willingness to adapt and our willingness to accept them.

One hundred and fifty years ago my ancestors had to go to church each Sunday by law, they were fined if they didn't and when the fancy carriage went past they had to stop and tug their forelocks or they were out of a job on Monday. Things have changed.

Dusty
08-Nov-07, 22:20
Fred,
I have checked as you suggested and you are correct...my apologies :), however, I still maintain that 2 was the most likely candidate.

We invaded because religious extremists were running these countries and taking them in directions that caused us to fear for the security of our oil supplies. Yet again, religion is at the heart of the trouble.

If these religious zealots did not continually threaten and commit acts such as they do, then they would probably be left alone but it was they who declared war/jihad initially.

Dusty
08-Nov-07, 22:27
Things have changed.

Not for Muslims, they appear to be stuck 579 years behind the rest of the world, have a look at their calendar.
The current Islamic Year is 1428.:confused

Boozeburglar
08-Nov-07, 22:32
Boozeburgler,
I recieved the e-mail and it reinforced what I have believed for some time and I thought that others may have been interested in discussing it as well.
I think my feelings on the subject were unambiguously stated in my second post.
Your comments were less than helpful in generating enlightened debate on the subject.

Fat chance of getting 'enlightened' debate here on this. How many followers of Islam post on the .Org?

Just like the BNP's rhetoric; this debate thrives on ignorance and depends on a fear of the unknown to unite those involved.

Boozeburglar
08-Nov-07, 22:37
We invaded because religious extremists were running these countries and taking them in directions that caused us to fear for the security of our oil supplies. Yet again, religion is at the heart of the trouble.

If these religious zealots did not continually threaten and commit acts such as they do, then they would probably be left alone but it was they who declared war/jihad initially.


Sadam was a religious Zealot, an Islamic extremist?

Come back once you have done some reading.

fred
08-Nov-07, 23:11
Fred,
I have checked as you suggested and you are correct...my apologies :), however, I still maintain that 2 was the most likely candidate.

No it wasn't, I made it quite clear in what context I was using the word.



We invaded because religious extremists were running these countries and taking them in directions that caused us to fear for the security of our oil supplies. Yet again, religion is at the heart of the trouble.

Not our oil, their oil, we have no right to take it and no right to kill people for it.

Saddam Hussein was not a religious extremist, far from it.



If these religious zealots did not continually threaten and commit acts such as they do, then they would probably be left alone but it was they who declared war/jihad initially.

We haven't left them alone for around 800 years, this isn't the first time we've invaded Iraq or Afghanistan. If they hate us it's because they have good reasons to, our government has repeatedly been about as unjust as it's possible to get with them and the people of this country have just repeated rubbish about religious zealots and things to excuse it.

fred
08-Nov-07, 23:13
Not for Muslims, they appear to be stuck 579 years behind the rest of the world, have a look at their calendar.
The current Islamic Year is 1428.:confused

You don't actually know anything about them do you?

Rheghead
08-Nov-07, 23:28
We haven't left them alone for around 800 years, this isn't the first time we've invaded Iraq or Afghanistan.

Was it about their oil back then?:confused

Dusty
08-Nov-07, 23:33
Saddam was a Sunni Muslim who are a religious minority in Iraq but who throughout the last hundred years or so have formed the ruling class in Iraq.
When Saddam siezed power he promoted himself rather than the Imams as the all powerful leader not only of the country but of the Sunnis.

He purported to have traced his descent from Muhammad and oppressed the Shiite Muslims when in power.

Saddam instituted a "Faith Campaign" in 1994 to counteract the influence of Saudi and Iranian Muslim preachers. This resulted in compulsory Koran studies in schools, training centres for Imams, the Saddam University of Islamic Studies and many murals of Saddam showed him at prayer.

The "Faith Campaign" also encouraged mosque-building; Hussein himself planned to construct three gigantic mosques, which do as much to commemorate his regime as they do to honor the Prophet. The first one built, the "Mother of All Battles", opened in 2001. Its Scud-shaped minarets, 37 meters high (Saddam was born in 1937), surround a central structure where a 605-page Koran is encased in glass. According to Iraqi officials, Saddam donated 50 pints of blood over three years to mix with ink for the book.

Some Muslim leaders think Saddam was indeed "born again" while other Muslims doubted that he was the charismatic religious leader he presented himself as.

So, no religious connotations there then!

I have done some reading.

Dusty
08-Nov-07, 23:39
[quote=fred;294305]Not our oil, their oil, we have no right to take it and no right to kill people for it.quote]

I said "our oil supplies". I did not suggest that the oil was ours for the taking, merely that we may have felt that its sale to us by certain regimes might not have been as certain as it once was.

percy toboggan
08-Nov-07, 23:42
One hundred and fifty years ago my ancestors had to go to church each Sunday by law, they were fined if they didn't and when the fancy carriage went past they had to stop and tug their forelocks or they were out of a job on Monday. Things have changed.

Point taken: sadly, change is not always for the better. You seem relaxed.Perhaps you dislike the status quo so much you feel your
descendants, should you have any will have little to lose.

The reson detre for hard line followers of Islam is to invoke their religion on the kuffar, or infidel. The fundamentlaist extremists who often subscribe to the Wahhabi sect of the the religion have no conception of tolerance. Moderate muslims seem to have lost their voice. Perhaps they are frightened.
The group in general see themselves as a persecuted sect. Whenever ones back is against the wall the tendency to herd together is always uppermost. Herds need shepherds. The foreign, non-English speaking, non-western regarding Imam's are ready and waiting. However , you think they might want to embrace us as brothers.

We must hope therefore that you are correct, and the inevitable rise in their numbers will see them acquiesce into the western way of life with all of it's apparent ills. Your optimism is remarkable. As remarkable as your knowledge of your ancestors day to day lives. To 'tug ones forlock' requires a head Fred. Sited between ones shoulders. The 'infidel' often have theirs removed involuntarily. Not much room for forelock tugging in your brave new world perhaps.

Dusty
08-Nov-07, 23:46
You don't actually know anything about them do you?

Tut tut Fred, how on earth could you possibly know what knowledge I do and do not possess. What I choose to place on the forum is not necessarily the totality of my knowledge and anyway your remark is verging on a personal slight. Let's not go there!

percy toboggan
08-Nov-07, 23:57
Tut tut Fred, how on earth could you possibly know what knowledge I do and do not possess. What I choose to place on the forum is not necessarily the totality of my knowledge and anyway your remark is verging on a personal slight. Let's not go there!

Personal slights are fine. Any robust debate needs the odd one.
I'm largely on your side Dusty but to be honest you don't appear to be
as well informed as some.

Right said Fred.

fred
09-Nov-07, 00:07
So, no religious connotations there then!


You said "religious extremist".

The Queen is head of the church of England do you see her as a religious extremist?

George Bush has compulsory prayer meetings every day at the White House, even none Christians have to attend, is he a religious extremist?

fred
09-Nov-07, 00:09
I said "our oil supplies". I did not suggest that the oil was ours for the taking, merely that we may have felt that its sale to us by certain regimes might not have been as certain as it once was.

So if it's their oil they can decide who they want to sell it to can't they?

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 00:15
So if it's their oil they can decide who they want to sell it to can't they?

Yeah but we need to secure the oil before India and China get really big and thirsty for it. Can't you see that?:confused

fred
09-Nov-07, 00:44
Yeah but we need to secure the oil before India and China get really big and thirsty for it. Can't you see that?:confused

Theft is theft and murder is murder whatever the reason, if it's an individual doing it or a government it's all the same.

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 00:52
Theft is theft and murder is murder whatever the reason, if it's an individual doing it or a government it's all the same.

How is it theft if the Iraqi people are getting paid for it to build a democracic country for themselves?

Do you want the oil to go to another customer? Do you want Britain to grind to a halt? Is that what you want?:confused

Petty sentimentalities about theft and murder pale into insignificance if we can't have oil to run an industrial nation. When young kids in Britain are dying because there is no ambulance to take them to hospital, when there is no oil to make pharmaceuticals to cure a nation, then where will your sense moral standing be then?

fred
09-Nov-07, 01:19
How is it theft if the Iraqi people are getting paid for it?

Do you want the oil to go to another customer? Do you want Britain to grind to a halt? Is that what you want?:confused

Petty sentimentalities about theft and murder pale into insignificance if we can't have oil to run an industrial nation. When young kids in Britain are dying because there is no ambulance to take them to hospital, when there is no oil to make pharmaceuticals to cure a nation, then where will your sense moral standing be then?

It is theft because we took it by brute force, killed a million Iraqis and counting to get it. Theft and murder.

We can always have enough oil for an ambulance and pharmaceuticals, we are still a net producer which is more than China and India are. They have children too, a British child is no more worthy than a Chinese or Indian child.

There are other, better, sources of energy, if only we had put the effort and money wasted on killing people in the Middle East into finding and developing them we could have secured a future instead of putting off the inevitable. We steal and kill to preserve the past, to feed our oil addiction, it's time we were leaving that behind us and moving on.

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 02:57
It is theft because we took it by brute force, killed a million Iraqis and counting to get it. Theft and murder.


You never answerred my question, do you want Britain to grind to a halt, our oil won't last very long.

We haven't stolen it, it is still in the hands of the Iraqis, we have just forcibly made ourselves the buyers of their oil. You wouldn't invade a country and let them sell it to someone else would you?

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 03:02
There are other, better, sources of energy, if only we had put the effort and money wasted on killing people in the Middle East into finding and developing them we could have secured a future instead of putting off the inevitable. We steal and kill to preserve the past, to feed our oil addiction, it's time we were leaving that behind us and moving on.

If the oil was sold to China and India, then under the expansion and contraction strategy of the IPCC for developing countries, they would burn up the oil faster than the carbon sinks will cope beyond tipping points. At least if we have the oil then we can accomodate it into a long term energy strategy with renewable energy for a more sustainable environment. Do you want to reduce CO2 levels or not?

Boozeburglar
09-Nov-07, 03:22
Hilarious.

So we should address global warming by ring fencing all carbon emitting fuel sources for our future 'responsible' disposal...


You could not make this up!

;)

hotrod4
09-Nov-07, 08:22
Some very differing points of view on this one :)
My own personal view having worked for muslims for a number of years is that they are not all bad.The thing is with the way they are "bred" it is installed into their culture to assist muslims whoever and wherever they may be,which sounds a good thing, BUT it is more help your fellow muslim than help your fellow man as scriptures in the quran dictate that muslims are the true believers.

I am a very tolerant person but get very annoyed with our land having to surrender its "britishness" to be seen to be more PC. This to me is so wrong as when in rome....etc but this only seems to apply to us and not anyone entering the UK.

In a perfect world we would all get along but this isnt a perfect world. I do not see why we should lose our identity.
Islam is a very controlling religion and dictates that you must obey all the rules.


looking at it from the other point of view wasnt it the fact that Hitler hated the power and control that judaism had that infuriated him and gave him the ammo to make his nation rise against the jews, etc?

All religions are guilty of control to a certain degree look at the crusades for example.

I have my own beliefs on religion and even my own views on different strains of christianity- for example I wont eat fish on a friday!!!! :),this doesnt mean I "hate" the other side it just means I believe in my views and they believe in theirs,I believe mine to be superior and so would they, its all about tolerance and living your own life the way you see fit.

fred
09-Nov-07, 09:01
You never answerred my question, do you want Britain to grind to a halt, our oil won't last very long.

We haven't stolen it, it is still in the hands of the Iraqis, we have just forcibly made ourselves the buyers of their oil. You wouldn't invade a country and let them sell it to someone else would you?

I wouldn't invade a country illegally and cause the death of over a million people.

Theft is theft and murder is murder as what the reason.

fred
09-Nov-07, 09:13
If the oil was sold to China and India, then under the expansion and contraction strategy of the IPCC for developing countries, they would burn up the oil faster than the carbon sinks will cope beyond tipping points. At least if we have the oil then we can accomodate it into a long term energy strategy with renewable energy for a more sustainable environment. Do you want to reduce CO2 levels or not?

We invaded Afghanistan so that we could build a pipeline to take Caspian oil to India.

Our corporations are making vast profits from the cheap labour in India and China and the people are all too eager to buy their cheap goods.

America has 5% of the world's population and consumes over a quarter of the worlds resources.

The motive for our theft and murder was greed not necessity.

KittyMay
09-Nov-07, 09:42
Hilarious.

So we should address global warming by ring fencing all carbon emitting fuel sources for our future 'responsible' disposal...


You could not make this up!

;)

I agree, Boozeburglar. I was enjoying a cup of tea whilst having a browse and when I read this I actually choked.

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 10:47
Hilarious.

So we should address global warming by ring fencing all carbon emitting fuel sources for our future 'responsible' disposal...


You could not make this up!

;)

So are you denying that preventing oil being burned will reduce carbon emissions?

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 10:52
We invaded Afghanistan so that we could build a pipeline to take Caspian oil to India.

Our corporations are making vast profits from the cheap labour in India and China and the people are all too eager to buy their cheap goods.

America has 5% of the world's population and consumes over a quarter of the worlds resources.

The motive for our theft and murder was greed not necessity.

India (which is a lot nearer to Afghanistan) will need a lot of oil in the next 50 years, an exponential amount more than the US or the rest of the west. That will cause a total breakdown in the efficiecy of the carbon sinks around the world. Since Rowan Williams has deemed Global Warming the biggest moral dilemma in presents times, do you think that it would be prudent to allow the quarter of the earth's oil supplies to land into such a thisrty economy?:confused

Boozeburglar
09-Nov-07, 13:35
Just in case anyone is taken in by the idea that the 'West' is best placed to dispose of the world's oil resources 'responsibly', bear in mind that the US is currently consuming a quarter of the world's oil production, and is predicted to increase consumption by around 30% by 2030; yet world oil production is predicted to fall by up to 50% in the same period.

So the US wants to use up to half the future total world oil production, and thus needs to secure a huge amount of the Middle East production, by whatever means.

Surprise surprise.

The real danger on this planet is from the US. In a position, technologically and economically, to cut oil use dramatically and show the way forward to developing nations, it would rather cynically waste the opportunity, regardless of the consequences for global stability.

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 14:12
Just in case anyone is taken in by the idea that the 'West' is best placed to dispose of the world's oil resources 'responsibly', bear in mind that the US is currently consuming a quarter of the world's oil production, and is predicted to increase consumption by around 30% by 2030; yet world oil production is predicted to fall by up to 50% in the same period.

I share your concern, but the US actually industrialised in the absence of knowledge of the implications of GHGs and climate change, if a quarter of the consumption of the world's oil resources can achieved by an industrialised country of a mere 330 million, what would be the damage to the environment by a country of 1600 million and one of 1000 million that are trying to achieve the same level industrialisation?:confused

It really is a simple question about morality.

fred
09-Nov-07, 14:45
India (which is a lot nearer to Afghanistan) will need a lot of oil in the next 50 years, an exponential amount more than the US or the rest of the west. That will cause a total breakdown in the efficiecy of the carbon sinks around the world. Since Rowan Williams has deemed Global Warming the biggest moral dilemma in presents times, do you think that it would be prudent to allow the quarter of the earth's oil supplies to land into such a thisrty economy?:confused

You're not making sense again.

Western oil companies are happy to supply India with as much oil as they can pay for.

Our invasions on Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with global warming whatsoever, it's just another worthless excuse in a long line of worthless excuses.

fred
09-Nov-07, 14:47
It really is a simple question about morality.

Theft is theft and murder is murder as who does it and what their excuse.

Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal and immoral.

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 14:53
Theft is theft and murder is murder as who does it and what their excuse.

Our invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were illegal and immoral.

And letting more countries to industrialise on an addiction to oil is even more immoral. It is cause and effect. Rowan Williams described climate change as the biggest moral dilemma facing this planet, he is a far greater expert on morality than I will ever be. He knows that addiction to oil leads to war, theft and murder, so why don't we just legalise the West's addiction to oil and prevent another two countries from going down that road?:confused


It really is a simple question of morality, and one which has a solution rather than a problem.

fred
09-Nov-07, 15:40
And letting more countries to industrialise on an addiction to oil is even more immoral.

Letting them?

We're doing our level best to help them. Who do you think buys all those goods their industries are making?

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 15:43
Western oil companies are happy to supply India with as much oil as they can pay for.

Exactly.

Oil is now the international currency with which morals and international allegiencies are bought and sold. In other words, we are the dealers of oil addiction, not just addicts. Break the cycle of addiction and you will solve a lot of the world's international problems. We should take interventive action and stop being dealers and be happy with our own addiction for the time being until we can wean ourselves off it. Quite frankly, the Islamic countries have only gained political power because of oil addiction and Islamic fundamentalists are fuelling the fire in order to gain a part of that power.

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 15:50
Letting them?

We're doing our level best to help them. Who do you think buys all those goods their industries are making?

Yes, we should stop that immediately, cheap imports are bad for human rights, the environment and British jobs. It really is a moral issue.

percy toboggan
09-Nov-07, 17:20
The crusades ! Bejasus, how far do you want to go back?
Your insiught into muslimdom is useful though - thanks.

As for FRed a Britsh child is no less worthy than a Chinese or Indian kid either, and we should help and safeguard those closest before we look further afield. Sometimes conflicts of interest are unavoidable. You are a utopian...I guess you're middle aged or even older...you really should have grown out of it by now.

Rheghead
09-Nov-07, 18:06
As for FRed a Britsh child is no less worthy than a Chinese or Indian kid either, and we should help and safeguard those closest before we look further afield. Sometimes conflicts of interest are unavoidable.

It is an interesting point that morality is our behavoral code which has evolved over millennia to help us to live in small hunter-gatherer groups. So it may come puzzling to some to project those moral values to include those that live outwith our immediate group. We see it all the time from 'charity begins at home' to 'nimby attitudes towards windfarms', 'securing local jobs'. But fred's notion of morality is a global one based on the media led revolution, he is bottle-fed awful images (through the power of internet) of injured and dead people he doesn't have any relation to and will never know. To him in his computer room, those people are on his doorstep. Strange to some but ideallistic to others...

percy toboggan
09-Nov-07, 18:13
.......We see it all the time from 'charity begins at home' ...

Indeed it does, but charity does not need to end at home.

fred
09-Nov-07, 20:18
You are a utopian...I guess you're middle aged or even older...you really should have grown out of it by now.

Seems better than being in the Oswald Mosley Fan Club.

Dusty
09-Nov-07, 20:20
Folks,

I have been amazed, educated and entertained by this thread.

My original intention in posting was to try to promote discussion around whether or not we should be more vocal about what Muslim radicals have been getting away with in the U.K. and the thought was brought about by the e-mail I received.
I felt the statement about the "silent majority" was the key message and I wanted to see if anyone agreed or otherwise.

I leave the thread to those who are trying to enlighten, those who are appeasers and anyone else who feels that they have a valid opinion on the subject.

Personally, I'm off for a couple of pints tonight and I'll be heading Caithnesswards on Sunday for a few days.

Yoda the flump
10-Nov-07, 00:31
I felt the statement about the "silent majority" was the key message and I wanted to see if anyone agreed or otherwise.

Until the silent majority reject the radicals nothing will change however do the silent majority reject all that the radials stand for? Me thinks not!

Whilst there is understanding in the majority for what the radicals are doing nothing will change.

percy toboggan
10-Nov-07, 09:19
Seems better than being in the Oswald Mosley Fan Club.

Oswald is yesterdays news Fred.
A common failing of Utopians is they consider the only alternative to be
dystopian. There is much in between. To suggest I share the sheep minded mentality of the card carrying fascist is enough to have me smiling inwardly anyway,
if only at your lack of imagination...... and on a cold saturday morning I thank you for that.

fred
10-Nov-07, 11:21
Oswald is yesterdays news Fred.
A common failing of Utopians is they consider the only alternative to be
dystopian. There is much in between. To suggest I share the sheep minded mentality of the card carrying fascist is enough to have me smiling inwardly anyway,
if only at your lack of imagination...... and on a cold saturday morning I thank you for that.

No, it is the failing of the card carrying fascist to see everything as either or.


Every nation in every region now has a decision to make. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.
George W. Bush

I see only people, a great variety and range of people, it's you who sees things in black and white.

percy toboggan
10-Nov-07, 13:54
I see only people, a great variety and range of people, it's you who sees things in black and white.

In my newspaper of choice this morning an allegedly 'leading Muslim' says Britain would benefit from adopting some strands of Islamic belief.

Muhammad Abdul Bari opines we could be better off as a society if attitudes towards dress, sex, abortion and marriage reflected the teachings of Islam.
What disturbs me is that he is probably correct in his view. He thinks women should dress more modestly and to an extent I agree with him.

The booze culture here has got out of hand - in the same newspaper come disclosures of a website dedicated to young women who drink to excess and post their photographs on the internet in all manner of hopelessly intoxicated situations. Legs akimbo , on the floor in an alleyway for instance. Not much of that in Rijad, I'd guess.

We lead the way in Euriope for teenage pregnancies and there are about 200,000 abortions every year.

This is not good Fred, not good at all. One does not need to be a fascist, nor a dedicated Islamist to realise this, surely.

Rheghead
10-Nov-07, 14:03
This is not good Fred, not good at all. One does not need to be a fascist, nor a dedicated Islamist to realise this, surely.

And you don't have to be a Christian or have any faith at all to be pro-life and anti abortionist, which I believe.

fred
10-Nov-07, 15:53
This is not good Fred, not good at all. One does not need to be a fascist, nor a dedicated Islamist to realise this, surely.

I think a lot of young people are pushed into jobs they don't like, spend all week miserable to earn enough money to pay off the interest on their credit cards and when weekend comes just want to go out and get drunk and forget about it.

That is a failing in the society we live in not the young people.

percy toboggan
10-Nov-07, 19:42
I think a lot of young people are pushed into jobs they don't like, spend all week miserable to earn enough money to pay off the interest on their credit cards and when weekend comes just want to go out and get drunk and forget about it.

That is a failing in the society we live in not the young people.

In your world Fred, are people ever to be held responsible for their own actions ? People have laboured in jobs they don't like for centuries.
There's a world of difference in having a few pints to getting absolutely off yer head and not know what you're doing - often getting pregnant in the process.

Society's fault? I don't think so. Most people in society are fairly decent and law abiding and do not get steaming drunk at every opportunity. This is blatant excess by people with too much money and not enough sense of responsibility. God knows I like a drink myself but know how to handle it. I always did.

The blame lies with brewers, ease of access -including price - youth friendly tastes in sweeter alcohol and pathetic parents who neither know, nor care what their kids are doing. Most are probably off their faces themselves.

fred
10-Nov-07, 21:38
In your world Fred, are people ever to be held responsible for their own actions ? People have laboured in jobs they don't like for centuries.
There's a world of difference in having a few pints to getting absolutely off yer head and not know what you're doing - often getting pregnant in the process.


People have been getting drunk for centuries too, and getting pregnant.

scorrie
10-Nov-07, 21:44
however do the silent majority reject all that the radials stand for?


Maybe they are just TYRED of listening to them ;)

pollywolly
11-Nov-07, 00:50
Our attack on Iraq is not the first British invasion of that country or even the second, but the fourth in the last 80-odd years. Iraq was first conquered by Britain and a popular revolt suppressed in 1920. It was forcibly reoccupied in 1941 and serious consideration was given to invading in 1958.The last Gulf War saw Britain play its role as a satellite of US imperialism. Iraq, of course, has yet to make any attack on Britain.

Rheghead
11-Nov-07, 01:15
Our attack on Iraq is not the first British invasion of that country or even the second, but the fourth in the last 80-odd years. Iraq was first conquered by Britain and a popular revolt suppressed in 1920. It was forcibly reoccupied in 1941 and serious consideration was given to invading in 1958.The last Gulf War saw Britain play its role as a satellite of US imperialism. Iraq, of course, has yet to make any attack on Britain.

Can you tell us anything that we don't already know?:confused

pollywolly
11-Nov-07, 01:43
I thought about it, there isn't a Muslim country in the world with a cat in hells chance of invading Britain. We are invading their countries, they have no way to invade ours.

Try substituting Neocon for Muslim it works much better.

Have no idea what you do or do not know!! Just agreeing with Fred as the start of the thread is the usual anti-Isalamic propoganda.

Rheghead
11-Nov-07, 02:11
Have no idea what you do or do not know!! Just agreeing with Fred as the start of the thread is the usual anti-Isalamic propoganda.


I know what i know but how much do you know that the opening post was about anti-islamic?:confused It is not a trick question, it is about what YOU think?

pollywolly
11-Nov-07, 02:43
The fact that it speaks of fanatics ruling Islam and them taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. To me this is stongly worded and a very one sided view.

percy toboggan
11-Nov-07, 10:15
People have been getting drunk for centuries too, and getting pregnant.

I am learning nothing from you Fred.
I think most people would have ascertained I'm neither a child, nor am I stupid.
If you can't take this little discourse seriously I'm out of it.

fred
11-Nov-07, 12:36
I am learning nothing from you Fred.
I think most people would have ascertained I'm neither a child, nor am I stupid.
If you can't take this little discourse seriously I'm out of it.

Don't forget to close the door on your way out.

fred
12-Nov-07, 11:23
Folks,

I have been amazed, educated and entertained by this thread.

My original intention in posting was to try to promote discussion around whether or not we should be more vocal about what Muslim radicals have been getting away with in the U.K. and the thought was brought about by the e-mail I received.
I felt the statement about the "silent majority" was the key message and I wanted to see if anyone agreed or otherwise.

I leave the thread to those who are trying to enlighten, those who are appeasers and anyone else who feels that they have a valid opinion on the subject.


Here are two links which might enlighten.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7085889.stm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH3BTaWrQ3I&eurl=http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2007/101107Bombings.htm

Anti terrorism laws are just anti Islam laws.

There can't be freedom without equality.

Yoda the flump
12-Nov-07, 20:13
Anti terrorism laws are just anti Islam laws.

There can't be freedom without equality.

And 15 years ago they would be anti Irish fred.

Whilst the Islamists might feel that the laws are against them I am sure that they would be applied the same against any other group.

At the moment it is just a fact that terror attacks against the UK are carried out by Islamists.

I am sure if the BNP had a campaign of terror focused against the nation then they would be delat with in the same way.

fred
12-Nov-07, 20:50
Whilst the Islamists might feel that the laws are against them I am sure that they would be applied the same against any other group.


No, the laws aren't applied the same against any other group.

There is a mainstream satellite TV program openly advocating aiding and encouraging terrorists to plant car bombs in Iran. It is openly available on Youtube and we can download it without fear.

If that was a video encouraging the planting of car bombs in Britain or America and you were Muslim you'd be looking at serious time just for downloading it.

hotrod4
12-Nov-07, 21:59
There are many websites which have various items regarding terrorism.
We should all be patriotic in the defence of our country but not border on terrorism of our own.
Brits are a majority peace loving tolerant society it is just Incomers from other countries who try to wreck our heritage and traditions that cause people to vent their anger who would normally be quite tolerant people.
The recent rise in Illegal immigrants who seem to get away with living here illegally or claiming for 8 wives,32 kids a goat and various other farmyard animals ,that causes people to get upset at the way we seem to treat them better than "our own" citizens.This is what annoys me as well.
I am not Anti-islam I just think we could spend our money more wisely by erecting walls at Dover and only allowing through those that want to come here and help our society and accept our varied cultures and values as we seem to accept theirs.

fred
13-Nov-07, 00:03
There are many websites which have various items regarding terrorism.
We should all be patriotic in the defence of our country but not border on terrorism of our own.
Brits are a majority peace loving tolerant society it is just Incomers from other countries who try to wreck our heritage and traditions that cause people to vent their anger who would normally be quite tolerant people.
The recent rise in Illegal immigrants who seem to get away with living here illegally or claiming for 8 wives,32 kids a goat and various other farmyard animals ,that causes people to get upset at the way we seem to treat them better than "our own" citizens.This is what annoys me as well.
I am not Anti-islam I just think we could spend our money more wisely by erecting walls at Dover and only allowing through those that want to come here and help our society and accept our varied cultures and values as we seem to accept theirs.

No Britain isn't a peace loving tolerant society, people just like to think we are, if you look at the evidence we are anything but.

Immigrants can't claim for or even legally have more than one wife in Britain and have no chance of claiming money from the government for farmyard animals, unlike a crofter.

You managed to say the we should build a wall to keep them out and that we accept their cultures all in one sentence, the two contradict each other.

JAWS
13-Nov-07, 14:00
You managed to say the we should build a wall to keep them out and that we accept their cultures all in one sentence, the two contradict each other.That is not quite what hotrod4's last sentence said. You have, as is your want, selected the parts you like and ignored others you don't in order to give a false impression.
Read the whole of his last sentence again, every single part, and try again. You never know, you might actually get it right for once.

fred
13-Nov-07, 15:53
That is not quite what hotrod4's last sentence said. You have, as is your want, selected the parts you like and ignored others you don't in order to give a false impression.
Read the whole of his last sentence again, every single part, and try again. You never know, you might actually get it right for once.

I got it right all right.

How about rebuilding Hadrian's Wall and only letting Scots who support the English football team through?

hotrod4
14-Nov-07, 08:39
No Britain isn't a peace loving tolerant society, people just like to think we are, if you look at the evidence we are anything but.

Immigrants can't claim for or even legally have more than one wife in Britain and have no chance of claiming money from the government for farmyard animals, unlike a crofter.

You managed to say the we should build a wall to keep them out and that we accept their cultures all in one sentence, the two contradict each other.

Please read correctly as it may help you in your quest for the holy grail my son :)
Why pick on crofters? they are entiltled to claim money from the government, they live here trying to earn a crust,they enter the country legally and put THEIR own money into it.
They dont come through France(where they could claim asylum) arrive here and claim they are persecuted.
It seems to me its the crofters who are persecuted.

With regards to claiming handouts what about captian hook who came here illegally set up camp took british handouts then spouted off his vile hatred at the very people who helped him-US, the brits!!!
Did Murdo Mcsheep ever do that to the very people who helped him with subsidies? no dont think so.

And we are a peace loving society its just the people we kill that arent! (joke)

hotrod4
14-Nov-07, 08:42
I got it right all right.

How about rebuilding Hadrian's Wall and only letting Scots who support the English football team through?

youve lost me there let who through to where???
It would help if you mention which side of the wall you are talking about,
do you mean let scots through to England or scots through to Scotland. You have to be more clear my dear chap so as I can ascertain where your argument is coming from. :)

fred
14-Nov-07, 10:56
With regards to claiming handouts what about captian hook who came here illegally set up camp took british handouts then spouted off his vile hatred at the very people who helped him-US, the brits!!!


Captain Hook is one person, it is wrong to judge all people who have emigrated to Britain by one person.

fred
14-Nov-07, 11:34
youve lost me there let who through to where???
It would help if you mention which side of the wall you are talking about,
do you mean let scots through to England or scots through to Scotland. You have to be more clear my dear chap so as I can ascertain where your argument is coming from. :)

It's easy enough if you think about it.

Scotland and England are two countries, they formed an alliance whereby the British parliament at Westminster would rule over Scotland, the Queen of England would be head of state for Scotland, we all have British passports and anyone can wander across the border without conditions.

Then Britain formed another alliance with the countries of the British Empire, they were ruled over by the parliament at Westminster, the Queen was their head of state, they had British passports and it was from these countries in the East and the Caribbean that a lot of people emigrated to Britain last century.

Now we have formed another alliance with the countries of Europe, we are ruled over by the European parliament and courts, we have European passports. People from Britain can go and live in other European countries, still claim benefits, without conditions. Many people have emigrated to Spain to take advantage of the low cost of living and the weather, they can open British pubs selling British beer and drink their tea at 4 in the afternoon for what could be more British than afternoon tea? It is from the countries of the European Union that a lot of people are emigrating to Britain today.

It makes no difference what direction or who once you accept that all people are equal and have equal rights. Britain and Europe does not have second class citizens as how many people enjoy believing they are better than others.

quirbal
14-Nov-07, 11:45
Captain Hook is one person, it is wrong to judge all people who have emigrated to Britain by one person.

And Glasgow, London Bombings of 7/7 and 21/7, Richard Reid to name but a few.

These people come to the UK, are accepted by the UK and benefit from what the UK has to offer in the way of social services, jobs etc.

What gives them the right to bomb or attempt to bomb citiesor people?

Is it because they don't accept one part of british policy? They can accept the rest but because they dont like one policy they can bomb who they like and justify it on that basis?

quirbal
14-Nov-07, 11:48
It makes no difference what direction or who once you accept that all people are equal and have equal rights. Britain and Europe does not have second class citizens as how many people enjoy believing they are better than others.

Correct, all people have equal rights - would you want to be openly homosexual in Iran?

fred
14-Nov-07, 15:27
Correct, all people have equal rights - would you want to be openly homosexual in Iran?

I remember when being openly homosexual in Britain would get you a heavy prison sentence.

But it has nothing to do with immigration into the UK, all you are doing is looking for an excuse for hating Muslims.

percy toboggan
14-Nov-07, 18:10
I remember when being openly homosexual in Britain would get you a heavy prison sentence.

But it has nothing to do with immigration into the UK, all you are doing is looking for an excuse for hating Muslims.

I don't know why anyone bothers debating the matter with you Fred - it's not worth the effort. You're obviously bereft of ideas, or original thought because you never venture forth with any - just a couple of tired lines in response.

A puzzle, cloaked in mystery, wrapped in an enigma, and chucked in the bin.

hotrod4
14-Nov-07, 19:37
It's easy enough if you think about it.

Scotland and England are two countries, they formed an alliance whereby the British parliament at Westminster would rule over Scotland, the Queen of England would be head of state for Scotland, we all have British passports and anyone can wander across the border without conditions.

Then Britain formed another alliance with the countries of the British Empire, they were ruled over by the parliament at Westminster, the Queen was their head of state, they had British passports and it was from these countries in the East and the Caribbean that a lot of people emigrated to Britain last century.

Now we have formed another alliance with the countries of Europe, we are ruled over by the European parliament and courts, we have European passports. People from Britain can go and live in other European countries, still claim benefits, without conditions. Many people have emigrated to Spain to take advantage of the low cost of living and the weather, they can open British pubs selling British beer and drink their tea at 4 in the afternoon for what could be more British than afternoon tea? It is from the countries of the European Union that a lot of people are emigrating to Britain today.

It makes no difference what direction or who once you accept that all people are equal and have equal rights. Britain and Europe does not have second class citizens as how many people enjoy believing they are better than others.

I am sorry fred but you dont seem to answer my question.
You havent stated what you meant by let scots through who support england, through to which side? from which side?.
seems to me your having directional problems as all your posts seem to go in diiferent directions and hadrians wall seems to have complete thrown you!!!!

fred
14-Nov-07, 20:04
I am sorry fred but you dont seem to answer my question.
You havent stated what you meant by let scots through who support england, through to which side? from which side?.
seems to me your having directional problems as all your posts seem to go in diiferent directions and hadrians wall seems to have complete thrown you!!!!

I must apologise, I keep assuming everyone is educated and has some knowledge of history.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry for Hadrian's wall, it will explain it's purpose to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall

golach
14-Nov-07, 20:48
I got it right all right.

How about rebuilding Hadrian's Wall and only letting Scots who support the English football team through?
Just what has this statement got to do with this current thread "A German's point of view on Islam".
I know Fred considers me stupid, he has posted that often enough,:confused but I still cannot see what the passage of Scots who support a football team got to do with rebuilding a wall that was first built in 117 AD, and what has it got to do with a German's view on Islam?

fred
14-Nov-07, 21:30
Just what has this statement got to do with this current thread "A German's point of view on Islam".
I know Fred considers me stupid, he has posted that often enough,:confused but I still cannot see what the passage of Scots who support a football team got to do with rebuilding a wall that was first built in 117 AD, and what has it got to do with a German's view on Islam?

Hotrod was talking about building a wall at Dover to keep immigrants out.

Do try and keep up.

Yoda the flump
14-Nov-07, 23:52
I remember when being openly homosexual in Britain would get you a heavy prison sentence.

But it has nothing to do with immigration into the UK, all you are doing is looking for an excuse for hating Muslims.

And being gay in Iran would get you? Where did Quirbal state that he hates muslims, all he did was point out to you that in other countries there are certainly second class citizens and that they certainly do not have equal rights (you bang on about this so much but only in respect to the west).

Fred, if Muslims come to the UK the least we can expect is that they tolerate our customs and practices. Is that to much to ask?

Boozeburglar
15-Nov-07, 01:11
And Glasgow, London Bombings of 7/7 and 21/7, Richard Reid to name but a few.

These people come to the UK, are accepted by the UK and benefit from what the UK has to offer in the way of social services, jobs etc.

What gives them the right to bomb or attempt to bomb citiesor people?

Is it because they don't accept one part of british policy? They can accept the rest but because they dont like one policy they can bomb who they like and justify it on that basis?

So these people are all immigrants are they?

Rheghead
15-Nov-07, 10:15
So these people are all immigrants are they?

They weren't culturally British in a traditional sense, so what set them apart from normal law-abiding human beings?

fred
15-Nov-07, 10:25
And being gay in Iran would get you? Where did Quirbal state that he hates muslims, all he did was point out to you that in other countries there are certainly second class citizens and that they certainly do not have equal rights (you bang on about this so much but only in respect to the west).

Fred, if Muslims come to the UK the least we can expect is that they tolerate our customs and practices. Is that to much to ask?

They do a lot of things in other countries it's a big world. This is not Iran and we get very few immigrants from Iran, the few we have had in the past have been refugees.

Of course all immigrants to Britain should be tolerant of our customs and practices, just as we should be tolerant of theirs, I'm sure the vast majority of them are.

Boozeburglar
15-Nov-07, 12:33
They weren't culturally British in a traditional sense, so what set them apart from normal law-abiding human beings?

A peasant farmer from Romania has a lot more in common 'culturally' with a crofter on the Isle of Lewis than that crofter might have with someone who works in the City of London.

What is this cultural Britishness you talk of?

I don't buy into this concept, and neither do the public at large judging by the hard time Gordon Brown is having selling the idea.

People who are born here are not immigrants. They may be the descendants of immigrants; but then we all are.

golach
15-Nov-07, 16:46
Do try and keep up.
Fred I do try honestly, I do apologise for being unable to keep up with your constant rants. Aye Right!!!!!!![lol]

Rheghead
15-Nov-07, 18:14
A peasant farmer from Romania has a lot more in common 'culturally' with a crofter on the Isle of Lewis than that crofter might have with someone who works in the City of London.

What is this cultural Britishness you talk of?

I don't buy into this concept, and neither do the public at large judging by the hard time Gordon Brown is having selling the idea.

People who are born here are not immigrants. They may be the descendants of immigrants; but then we all are.

Then you need to find out what culture means then.

Boozeburglar
15-Nov-07, 19:28
Is that the best you can do?

Pathetic.

hotrod4
15-Nov-07, 19:35
I must apologise, I keep assuming everyone is educated and has some knowledge of history.

Here's a link to the Wikipedia entry for Hadrian's wall, it will explain it's purpose to you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Wall

It may explain its purpose but it doesnt explain your statement!!!!
I cant keep up with your posts as they seem to deviate at an alarming rate from sentence to sentence.
As for me being educated I can assure you I most certainly am just, dont see what that has to do with the topic?
I await an answer to your original rant about letting people through the wall who support England,Why the wall was built does not explain your statement though thank you for enlighting me with a history lesson can I have Chemistry tomorrow please sir????? ;)

fred
15-Nov-07, 19:56
It may explain its purpose but it doesnt explain your statement!!!!
I cant keep up with your posts as they seem to deviate at an alarming rate from sentence to sentence.
As for me being educated I can assure you I most certainly am just, dont see what that has to do with the topic?
I await an answer to your original rant about letting people through the wall who support England,Why the wall was built does not explain your statement though thank you for enlighting me with a history lesson can I have Chemistry tomorrow please sir????? ;)

Don't you think a Scot going to live in England should accept their culture and traditions?

Rheghead
15-Nov-07, 20:39
Is that the best you can do?

Pathetic.

Do you think they were being culturally British when they set off their suicide packs? If you don't even have the slightest modicum of social awareness to realise that these people are out to bomb us into testing our basic cultural values like the rule of law, human rights, democracy, freedom of speech, secularism and tolerance of the right to worship other religions, so then what is your point?:confused. It is perfectly possible to follow any religion and still be culturally British, but they weren't.

hotrod4
15-Nov-07, 20:46
Don't you think a Scot going to live in England should accept their culture and traditions?

And that has to do with this thread how???????????????

fred
16-Nov-07, 12:52
And that has to do with this thread how???????????????

It's got everything to do with this thread, once you accept that there is no difference between someone from the Highlands of Scotland going to live in England in search of a better life and someone from a Commonwealth country or Europe coming to live in Britain in search of a better life.

TBH
16-Nov-07, 19:03
As long as people come into Britain and abide our laws then I have no problem with immigrants of whatever nationality or religious persuasion.
This e-mail as far as I can see is nothing more than propaganda against followers of islam within britain, creating hatred and the fear that they are some sort of enemy within, absolute rubbish which should be treated with the contempt it deserves.
The last bit of the e-mail beggars belief when it states that our troops are 'overseas protecting our shores' when in fact they are doing the bidding of our countries to protect their business interests.
Do us all a favour, don't pass it on, delete it.[disgust]

Boozeburglar
17-Nov-07, 02:43
Hear him, hear him!