England headed for A Caliphate

[laughing dog]

Free speech for Muslims, but not for anybody else:

This is her:
British doctor to be prosecuted over support for Hamas, antisemitic, anti-Zionist posts



The most ironic things about people like her is that she would be arrested in Hamas' Gaza or Saudi Arabia. I mean "whore, where is your hijab?" ...

What's ironic is her prosecution for her speech. Sort of hoisted on her "principles".

 

[Loren Pechtel]

78% of Muslims in the UK are in favor of criminally prosecuting people for cartoons of Muhammad. To my mind, arresting somebody for a cartoon of Muhammad qualifies as irrational violence. I don't know if the two people you're referring to want cartoons to be illegal -- I don't know what your criteria are for saying they hold that Islam should guide social, legal, and political systems, and I don't know what your criteria are for saying they're pacifists -- but if they do want to enforce Muslim religious taboos on the population at large then it would be entirely rational for the people of Britain to want them not to be allowed to immigrate, even if the means by which they want to enforce it are means you count as "pacifist".

And those who will agree with this likely can be manipulated into going much farther at enforcing Islam. The problem with people like this is not what they will actually do, but how they will react to questionable acts in "defense" of Islam. It's a camel nose.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Funny it’s Islam versus “the west” but “the west” gets to subdivide all of its wrongs between groups when tallying up the atrocity scorecard. Islam is this singular thing that is trying to replace western civilization. Somehow we are to separate the Spanish and English colonial shenanigans and genocides and treat the non stop warring by the inbred royals Europe all the way into the world wars of the 20th as individual separate things. But Islam is just this one thing.

A thing that just happens to be invading the west to take over.

Most of the world is trying to copy us, not destroy us. Islam can't compete for the hearts and minds of the people who have seen the west, so it's reacting as any cult would--demonize that which is luring people away.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Funny it’s Islam versus “the west” but “the west” gets to subdivide all of its wrongs between groups when tallying up the atrocity scorecard. Islam is this singular thing that is trying to replace western civilization. Somehow we are to separate the Spanish and English colonial shenanigans and genocides and treat the non stop warring by the inbred royals Europe all the way into the world wars of the 20th as individual separate things. But Islam is just this one thing.

Yeah, I saw an interesting example of this elsewhere just today - somebody discussing the FlyDubai incident was concerned that Saudi Arabia or the UAE shouldn't lead the air incident investigation, because "given the situation right now in the Gulf", Israel would be unlikely to trust them to be impartial.

I think he was surprised to hear that Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE are all on the same side of "the situation right now in the Gulf", and that Iran has attacked all three nations during the "situation".

UAE plays both sides.

Multiple security checks should have caught this guy. Inept, or did someone high up intend this?

(One hard limit was broken: Israel does not permit flight crew from nations that do not have diplomatic recognition of Israel. Someone had to have hidden that information.)

 

[scombrid]

There has been sexual slavery and prostitution everywhere, including here today in the good US of A, and you may have noticed that the U.S. was founded on slave labor and grew with the help of Chinese laborers who were treated little better than slaves. What I was referring to is the fact that in Muslim Spain, Muslims, Jews and Chrisitians lived compatibly, in sharp contrast to the stereotype of Muslims as terrorist tyrants.

Sure, Islam is not guilty of anything that Christianity hasn't done. It's just Islam still is doing it.

Islam is one thing and all the migrants are playing this “long game”?

 

[bilby]

None white anglicans so they should be killed; sink the boats and drown them at sea.

Surely, there must be some middle ground between "let them all in as long as they show up in the vicinity of our borders" and "kill them all".

OK. So what is that middle ground? How does it work?

A boat is intercepted approaching the Kent coast. Its occupants have no papers, and refuse to say where they originated. What happens next, in your ideal world?

How does it differ from what currently occurs? What laws and international treaties (if any) would need to change to permit your preferred course of action? How many nations would need to change their laws?

Look in a mirror. You inter them on an island rather than let them into Australia.

I do no such thing. And I strongly oppose the Commonwealth Government's policy of doing that.

But even if I agreed with the policy, how could England (or the UK) implement it? Which island do you have in mind? Jersey? Portsea? The Isle of Wight?

It's ugly but this is a no-win situation.

It's also entirely non-responsive to my actual question.

And note that many of those fleeing "religious persecution" are Jihadists from more moderate countries.

How many? How do you know?

 

[scombrid]

What the hell is Europe doing?

Western Europe is slowly being invaded by the muslim hordes. I actually thought France would be the first to fall but I think England may fall first. And looking at the players Germany fielded the other day, they won’t be far behind. Danke Merkel.

You do understand people like yourself and derec have been saying this for over 2 fucking decades right?

For fucks sake just wake me up when your doomsday wet dream comes about. I reckon it will happen 4 weeks after the yellow peril I was warned when I was a kid comes about.

Islam plays the long game. It is no more apocalypse tomorrow than climate change is. But not being apocalypse tomorrow doesn't mean it's not a serious problem.

What? What plan? Islam isn't a conspiracy. There's no game. There's no plan. The behaviour of Muslims, on population level, is simply a result of the belief system.

Yes, dealing with Islam, in a western liberal democratic context is a problem. But that's not because Muslims are trying to be difficult or are particularly adversarial. I think, for most part, they're trying really hard not to.

i think the problem is just more fundamental. Western liberal culture has a foundation in Christianity. Its just a different way to think than Islam. It just creates problems, even when people are trying not to. Its not a problem of malice or even ignorance. Its just two systems of thought that are mismatched imho

The Heritage foundation and our national pastor Doug Wilson disagree with your view of Christianity as the foundation of western liberal culture. I think I agree with them on this point. Western liberal culture is antithetical to the religion running the GOP.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think they are serious when they write such things. Minnesota, England, France… “they” are super close to taking over and replacing us.

This seems to be entirely a creation of the news media, particularly (but not limited to) the Murdochs' News Limited and the Rothermeres' DMGT.

One huge problem with our modern society is that popular news media is expensive, and so is dominated by the opinions of a tiny handful of wealthy men whose beliefs (no matter how ugly or absurd) become accepted wisdom; And while fringe news media is cheap, it is dominated by single issue obsessives, whose beliefs are typically absurd, even where they contradict the popular media narratives.

My solution is to generally avoid the news, unless and until a story is raised by people I know - including the posters on this small, but generally above average intelligence, forum.

If a story isn't being discussed here (or other fora I frequent) by posters I have come to trust, and is not being discussed by my workmates, family, or neighbours, then I probably don't need to know or care about it.

I don't need to be the first to know about anything that's not happening in my street, or suburb. I don't need to see any more wounded people or explosions or fires or lucky escapes in distant lands, just because News Limited has footage of those things. I decline to be outraged by people I don't know being cruel or heartless or vicious to other people I don't know - unless I can reasonably intervene, I don't want to know. Indeed, I actively want not to know.

This approach will make you utterly blind to manipulation by those powers behind the news (not all of which are wealthy men--there's a lot of government-initiated disinformation) and you will end up bleating the position of whoever tells the biggest lies.

 

[bilby]

One hard limit was broken: Israel does not permit flight crew from nations that do not have diplomatic recognition of Israel. Someone had to have hidden that information.

When a busy person fails to see something, the assumption that that thing was hidden is poor. Sure, it's possible. But "had to have?" Nope.

Fuckups are commonplace, and should be the go-to explanation for this kind of thing, unless and until there is evidence to the contrary.

 

[bilby]

I think they are serious when they write such things. Minnesota, England, France… “they” are super close to taking over and replacing us.

This seems to be entirely a creation of the news media, particularly (but not limited to) the Murdochs' News Limited and the Rothermeres' DMGT.

One huge problem with our modern society is that popular news media is expensive, and so is dominated by the opinions of a tiny handful of wealthy men whose beliefs (no matter how ugly or absurd) become accepted wisdom; And while fringe news media is cheap, it is dominated by single issue obsessives, whose beliefs are typically absurd, even where they contradict the popular media narratives.

My solution is to generally avoid the news, unless and until a story is raised by people I know - including the posters on this small, but generally above average intelligence, forum.

If a story isn't being discussed here (or other fora I frequent) by posters I have come to trust, and is not being discussed by my workmates, family, or neighbours, then I probably don't need to know or care about it.

I don't need to be the first to know about anything that's not happening in my street, or suburb. I don't need to see any more wounded people or explosions or fires or lucky escapes in distant lands, just because News Limited has footage of those things. I decline to be outraged by people I don't know being cruel or heartless or vicious to other people I don't know - unless I can reasonably intervene, I don't want to know. Indeed, I actively want not to know.

This approach will make you utterly blind to manipulation by those powers behind the news (not all of which are wealthy men--there's a lot of government-initiated disinformation) and you will end up bleating the position of whoever tells the biggest lies.

Are you sure? It seems to me that it achieves the exact opposite.

But then, that's what they want me to think, right?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Islam is stupid. Christianity is stupid. Christianity has been in charge in England for as long as England has been a country. It is still the established church, and still has its highest officials given seats in government as a matter of right.

If you lived in England 500 years ago, and were the wrong flavour of Christian, or not Christian at all, you might well have been in trouble. But today, you can get away with being an atheist despite England being an explicitly Christian nation, with Anglican Bishops sitting in the House of Lords.

So why would you expect England to go back to a medieval attitude to religion, if the majority belief switched from Chrjstianity to Islam? Most Islamic majority countries don't take a medieval approach - though some do. So what makes England likely to become a fundamentalist theocracy (of any flavour) after a century of declining religiosity?

Why do you think they can't undo what they did?? If you fail to defend freedom you will lose it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Anyway... what makes you believe that muslims in the US have a materially different view?

Actually, polling indicates American Muslims on average are quite a bit more supportive of free speech than British Muslims. It's not clear whether this is because they've absorbed that attitude by osmosis from the First Amendment and from American culture in general taking free speech more seriously than British culture does, or because the US imported better-educated Muslims. My guess is both factors contribute.

We probably did.

The thing is the people that come here legally are almost all reasonably educated, productive individuals.

Immigration normally is by job (and only skilled jobs qualify) or by family--and when you sponsor a family member you agree to support them financially if they can't. You're not going to see a lot of trash make it through such a filter. But refugees have no such filtering.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If 20% of a population want Sharia law (for example) introduced you can probably ignore them. If 40% of the population want sharia law itroduced it is much harder to resist esp. you if you hold that the will of the majority must be respected.

Even at 20% I would seriously worry.

The thing is it's not a binary thing, there will be many in the middle of the road. How will they react when it comes to a showdown? Defy their religion or keep the peace and go along?

 

[scombrid]

Islam is stupid. Christianity is stupid. Christianity has been in charge in England for as long as England has been a country. It is still the established church, and still has its highest officials given seats in government as a matter of right.

If you lived in England 500 years ago, and were the wrong flavour of Christian, or not Christian at all, you might well have been in trouble. But today, you can get away with being an atheist despite England being an explicitly Christian nation, with Anglican Bishops sitting in the House of Lords.

So why would you expect England to go back to a medieval attitude to religion, if the majority belief switched from Chrjstianity to Islam? Most Islamic majority countries don't take a medieval approach - though some do. So what makes England likely to become a fundamentalist theocracy (of any flavour) after a century of declining religiosity?

Why do you think they can't undo what they did?? If you fail to defend freedom you will lose it.

The same thing that protects my right to be an atheist free from government religion protects a Muslim. That’s a freedom trade off and we fight if they go the way of the Baptist. Doesn’t seem to be imminent here in the US though.

 

[bilby]

Islam is stupid. Christianity is stupid. Christianity has been in charge in England for as long as England has been a country. It is still the established church, and still has its highest officials given seats in government as a matter of right.

If you lived in England 500 years ago, and were the wrong flavour of Christian, or not Christian at all, you might well have been in trouble. But today, you can get away with being an atheist despite England being an explicitly Christian nation, with Anglican Bishops sitting in the House of Lords.

So why would you expect England to go back to a medieval attitude to religion, if the majority belief switched from Chrjstianity to Islam? Most Islamic majority countries don't take a medieval approach - though some do. So what makes England likely to become a fundamentalist theocracy (of any flavour) after a century of declining religiosity?

Why do you think they can't undo what they did?? If you fail to defend freedom you will lose it.

Why do you think that I think they can't undo what they did?

I am saying that there's no reason to imagine that they will.

Why would you expect England to go back to a medieval attitude to religion, if the majority belief switched from Christianity to Islam? That seems neither necessary, nor sufficient.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The RNLI is not the UK government.

It's a volunteer organisation and charity dedicated to saving lives endangered at sea.

Any lives.

If that upsets anyone, they seriously need to recallibrate their moral compass, as it is likely that they are a sick, evil, cruel, fuck.

Your lack of paying attention to what's happening is showing. There should have been no rescue. The thing is they knowingly set out on an impossible mission expecting to be rescued. You knowingly put yourself in the path of certain peril to obligate me to help you? No way.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You keep relying on the term "illegal aliens," but under the 1951 Refugee Convention (to which the UK is a foundational signatory), crossing a border without prior authorization to seek asylum is explicitly protected from criminal penalty.

Nope. There is no valid asylum claim possible in this situation.

You can slip across a border from a place of danger to claim asylum, but you can't slip across a border from a safe place to claim asylum in a third place.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As I said, other religions do not blare calls to prayer at 3:30am. And there is a difference between a bell tolling and some muezzin wailing.

Actually, I'd probably prefer the wailing at the same volume. A continuous sound is not as disruptive as a start/stop sound.

But the real answer should be nobody gets to violate the noise ordinance.

 

[laughing dog]

The RNLI is not the UK government.

It's a volunteer organisation and charity dedicated to saving lives endangered at sea.

Any lives.

If that upsets anyone, they seriously need to recallibrate their moral compass, as it is likely that they are a sick, evil, cruel, fuck.

Your lack of paying attention to what's happening is showing. There should have been no rescue. The thing is they knowingly set out on an impossible mission expecting to be rescued. You knowingly put yourself in the path of certain peril to obligate me to help you? No way.

The RNLI is under no obligation to help anyone - it is a private volunteer organization of humanitarians. No one is asking you to donate effort, time or resources.

 

[Bomb#20]

The RNLI is not the UK government.

It's a volunteer organisation and charity dedicated to saving lives endangered at sea.

Any lives.

If that upsets anyone, they seriously need to recallibrate their moral compass, as it is likely that they are a sick, evil, cruel, fuck.

Your lack of paying attention to what's happening is showing. There should have been no rescue. The thing is they knowingly set out on an impossible mission expecting to be rescued. You knowingly put yourself in the path of certain peril to obligate me to help you? No way.

The RNLI is under no obligation to help anyone - it is a private volunteer organization of humanitarians. No one is asking you to donate effort, time or resources.

You are correct, twice over. No one is asking Loren to donate effort, time or resources, since he's an American and the cost is borne by the British. And no one is asking the British to donate effort, time or resources either -- the effort, time and resources it takes them to earn the 40K to 50K pounds a year British taxpayers pay for their rulers to support an irregular migrant are not asked from them, but commanded.