Indo-UK: News & Discussion

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Jan 2009 17:25

Just because UK would one day become an Islamic Emirate does not mean the end of the world. UK has been an Empire, a power, albeit fast in decline, because of its financial industry and earlier because of manufacturing etc. When the Muslim hordes run over the place, they wouldn't know from what to make money (except drugs as in Afghanistan). So it doesn't mean the Muslims are taking over the might and influence of Great Britain (whatever is left of it).

I am just happy that Britain is not in Shengen!

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 31 Jan 2009 17:31

RajeshA wrote:Just because UK would one day become an Islamic Emirate does not mean the end of the world. UK has been an Empire, a power, albeit fast in decline, because of its financial industry and earlier because of manufacturing etc. When the Muslim hordes run over the place, they wouldn't know from what to make money (except drugs as in Afghanistan). So it doesn't mean the Muslims are taking over the might and influence of Great Britain (whatever is left of it).

I am just happy that Britain is not in Shengen!

From what I hear, France is most vulnerable in terms of % of its population that comes from the ummah (10% odd). And both UKstan and France have nukes and seats on the P-5 table. Forget high finance, high tech and all that jazz, what abt the stuff that has already been built by kuffr labors and are fire and forget in service onlee??

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 31 Jan 2009 17:43

vsudhir wrote:From what I hear, France is most vulnerable in terms of % of its population that comes from the ummah (10% odd). And both UKstan and France have nukes and seats on the P-5 table. Forget high finance, high tech and all that jazz, what abt the stuff that has already been built by kuffr labors and are fire and forget in service onlee??

France has not really become such an apologetic and sissy country like UK, the stronghold of Islamic Appeasement, and the French are proud of their French military traditions.

As for UK nukes, I would point you to the following entry by Gerard in the International Nuclear Watch Thread:

Gerard wrote:General calls for Trident rethink
General Jack Sheehan said he thought the UK was "very close" to giving up nuclear weapons

The rest of industry and technology would start leaving for other destinations before the final takeover. And the state would start withering before that.

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 01 Feb 2009 03:40

RajeshA wrote:France has not really become such an apologetic and sissy country like UK, the stronghold of Islamic Appeasement, and the French are proud of their French military traditions.

You think France does not indulge in appeasement !! Recently Sarkozy called Arabic the language of the future.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 01 Feb 2009 05:41

Above all, the whole Londonistan concept seems a little silly. When was the last time you watched a BBC serial with anybody except white people?

Having said that, the UK is indifferent to any traditions they might have had to the point where the only culture they probably have is a mix of all the ethnicities that inhabit their dreary island.

The French have a very strong idea of secularism, that is, separation of the public from religion. They recently ran into problems because they banned all religious symbols from public schools, barring the wearing of crosses, tilaks, turbans, burqas, hijabs, etc.

wasu · Post by **wasu** » 01 Feb 2009 08:26

UK University Sit-Ins

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ ... ents.gaza/

LONDON, England (CNN) -- Britain's top student body has urged protesters to abandon nationwide university sit-ins over Israel's military actions in Gaza as others voice concern over increasing hostility towards Jewish students.

The National Union of Students said while it understood feelings behind the several weeks of protests on a scale rarely seen in Britain since the 1960s, the levels of disruption was now at an unacceptable level with heightened tensions on campuses.
...

sum · Post by **sum** » 01 Feb 2009 13:36

Having said that, the UK is indifferent to any traditions they might have had to the point where the only culture they probably have is a mix of all the ethnicities that inhabit their dreary island.

The French have a very strong idea of secularism, that is, separation of the public from religion. They recently ran into problems because they banned all religious symbols from public schools, barring the wearing of crosses, tilaks, turbans, burqas, hijabs, etc.

IMO, when push comes to shove( the Islamists openly baring their fangs in Europe), the population there will give it back and wont remain dhimmi. at that time, the joke will be on us as we would have allowed Islamist tendencies to swallow our nation due to indifference and dhimmitude whereas the Europeans will actually fight back when an open challenge is issued (while we did nothing and only laughed at Europe reaching our fate)

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 01 Feb 2009 15:15

^^^

It beats my understanding that a nation which had to foresight to create a Pakistan problem for the rest of the world, did not anticipate a Paki problem for themselves. The young brits, however drunk or doped they are, are not going to surrender their nation to the Bakis. This intentionally created recession and economic gloom scenario may just be a god send for them to solve the Baki inbreeding problem without getting into trouble with the Hyooman Rites folks.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 01 Feb 2009 15:31

Arya Sumantra wrote:
RajeshA wrote:France has not really become such an apologetic and sissy country like UK, the stronghold of Islamic Appeasement, and the French are proud of their French military traditions.
You think France does not indulge in appeasement !! Recently Sarkozy called Arabic the language of the future.

That is not appeasement. That is throwing a dog an odd bone!

It is all a question of mentality. If you act from a position of strength and do something for somebody else, it is not appeasement. It is just expanding on one's range of possibilities.

sum · Post by **sum** » 01 Feb 2009 22:02

True appeasement is what happens in "Mera Bharat Mahan".

sunnyP · Post by **sunnyP** » 01 Feb 2009 22:08

Yes Britain faces a huge Moslem problem in the not too distant future but those in India can hardly gloat. Given the illegal Bengalis + the huge Indian Moslem birth rate how long before we see 3 or 4 hundred million Moslems in India?

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 03 Feb 2009 06:53

RajeshA wrote:It is all a question of mentality. If you act from a position of strength and do something for somebody else, it is not appeasement. It is just expanding on one's range of possibilities.

Very well said.

Sarkozy's adamant stand for secularism in public schools speaks volumes against any sort of appeasment BRFites might assume it to be.

derkonig · Post by **derkonig** » 03 Feb 2009 12:17

OT but:

Sarko the Interior minister & the Prez are two very different personalities. Remember he won on a no-nonsense, tough-on- immigrants plank, but after entering the Elysee, he has done nothing. From Paris, the fire has spread now across the whole of Fwance, but Sarko is too busy to notice. Who can believe this is the same man who had the b@lls to call the RoP thugs as "scum"; what a let down. Fwance is doomed unless they get someone like Le Pen.

Of what use is defending sekoolarism in schools while Fwance burns every night, where even policemen are afraid to venture near the banlieues & where the pissfull immigrants indulge in thuggery all the while. Wasn't it in Marseille where a disabled woman burnt to death, when the bus she was in, was set to fire in broad daylight?

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 03 Feb 2009 22:21

Clinton hosts Mulli-in-Bund for talks: BBC

Clinton: Yes, we have to change the dynamic in Afghanistan.

Mulli: Yes Hillary, uh, can I call you Hilli?

Clinton: No! We have decided to double our forces in Afghanistan.

Mulli: Yes, Yes, But we in UK believe that if Kash..

Clinton: This is going to be a hard year for the Allies.

Mulli: Yes, as I was saying, I think that Kashm..

Clinton: How many more soldiers can UK offer to this effort?

Mulli: Ah yes! Soldiers.., huhn! umm.. As I was saying, if Kashmir can ..

Clinton: It would have to be at least another 20,000 additional boots!

Clinton: I'm sorry Mulli, I've an appointment with Waltermeier now. Nice meeting you Mulli! Bye now!

Mulli: Ah Yes. Bye then!

Door slams shut.

Mulli: Who's Mulli?

Indian American SD Staff, who overhears: Sir, Mulli is the khujli in your Bund sir! The itch in your backside, you know!

Mulli: Aw thank you! I've been wondering all this time, what has been bothering me.

SSridhar · Post by **SSridhar** » 04 Feb 2009 13:22

Kashmir Issue & Labour Party

Labour always has had a large Pakistani “constituency,” mostly Mirpuris, from the so-called “Azad” Kashmir. They constitute a significant Labour vote bank and exert pressure through a strong Kashmir lobby within and outside Parliament.

Voters of Indian origin, on the other hand, are not only fewer because of the comparatively smaller “Indian” population but they are also more widely dispersed to constitute a cohesive group. Also, they are not known to vote en bloc for Labour. Despite Labour’s historical links with India, especially through the Congress, Indians settled in Britain have not always regarded it as their natural ally. Many have tended to identify more with the Conservatives’ “family values” and work ethic. This is especially true of the younger generation of British Indians.

The “balance of power” in the government is also tilted in favour of the Pakistanis. There are two ministers of Pakistani descent while none of Indian origin. The Indian community in Britain has had no representative in the government since Keith Vaz was sacked in 2001 as Europe Minister over allegations of financial irregularities. The pattern is replicated in local bodies across Britain partly because the Pakistani immigrant community is bigger than its Indian counterpart but, more importantly, because Pakistanis are more active politically and use their clout to push their demands aggressively. It is also a fact that Pakistani diplomacy on Kashmir has been more pro-active.

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 04 Feb 2009 17:03

UKstan deserves its Pakistanis, their rising numbers, profile, clout, aggression and political demands. IMVVHO.

Chandragupta · Post by **Chandragupta** » 04 Feb 2009 18:59

If anyone thinks Europe can fight the Islamic invasion, then they're mistaken. For every human right scum in India, there'd be 10 in Europe including busty women ready to protest naked at the drop of a hat. The situation in France alone is worsening, the immigrant population there has always been a problem & that problem is now increasing. Britain can still fight off but as that article in today's Hindu says, the believers there form a very formidable vote bank, so consider no shortage of safed netas willing to consort with them. The real problem with Britain will start in another decade or so, when these little mohammads grow up & wage a jehad against the Queen and who knows, even carve out another Pakistan out of Britain. What goes around, comes around..

Anyways, it's none of our problems what happens in Europe, we're in deeper shit ourselves.

[EDITED]

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 04 Feb 2009 21:40

Why did 18th century Brits decide to elevate the stiff upper lip to the highest virtue? Because without it they were deafened by some of the world's loudest whingers.

Those who have lived in the UK know how bipolar popular commentary tends to be - oscillating between intolerable smugness and insensible gloom. The majority of people put aside the mood of the day and just get on with things.

I have the numbers, and I've watched them over the years. Muslim population growth is driven by immigration. Each immigrant generation produces a *relative* Muslim population boom, then fertility drops. The last really big immigrant wave was in the 1970s from Bangladesh. The most recent Muslim immigration wave was Somali in the 1990s which was considerably smaller.

Muslim migration to the UK has been steadily but surely reduced over the past 25 years largely in part because of public pressure on politicians. Over the last 5-10 years non-Muslim migration (E. European, non-Muslim African, Chinese) both legal and illegal has dwarfed Muslim migration, although this too is resented because of the pressure on public resources.

In fact politics has a funny way of working - even closet Islamists like Lord Nazir Ahmed now oppose arranged marriages from places like Pakistan - too many Muslim families are upset by the way that their daughters/sisters are abused and dumped by relatives from Pakistan. Nor are they keen on the way that mass immigration from anywhere increases wait times at NHS clinics, shortages of public housing, etc.

Even the ghettos can be tackled quite easily - public housing is allocated, and the Singaporean experience shows how effectively allocation breaks up oil drops, turning ghettos in to something that reflects overall demographic reality. The consensus to do that isnt as difficult as you think it might be - ardent far left liberals love nothing more than the concept of integration, and the data collected in study after study shows how ghettoisation is holding back Muslim kids from achieving and integrating.

No matter what happens, Muslims are going to remain a small minority overall - even if people of 'original British' stock are no longer the absolute majority. However Muslims will remain a very significant percentage of the overall population of the biggest metropolitan areas - London, Birmingham, etc. What goes on inside Muslim ghettos in the big cities, and pseudo-liberal concessions to draw people out of the ghetto and integrate them, or win their vote or whatever will provide plenty of fodder for the schadenfreude gloaters and the worriers, but both will miss the big picture.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 05 Feb 2009 06:01

Johann, could you provide more information about the Singapore example?

How successful do you think it would be in India?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 08 Feb 2009 00:05

CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists are the biggest threat to the US

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 08 Feb 2009 00:14

Johann

In fact politics has a funny way of working - even closet Islamists like Lord Nazir Ahmed now oppose arranged marriages from places like Pakistan - too many Muslim families are upset by the way that their daughters/sisters are abused and dumped by relatives from Pakistan. Nor are they keen on the way that mass immigration from anywhere increases wait times at NHS clinics, shortages of public housing, etc.

This is very true. One of my circle is a Muslim of Indian origin(but from Lahore region) who went to UK via Kenya. His family went before Independence (1910s) so he doesn't think of TSP as an entity. One of his sisters was married to guy from now Pakistan. He abandoned her after the second kid was yet to be born. Apparently this is the MO of the Pak origin immigrants in UK.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 08 Feb 2009 00:42

Gerard wrote:CIA warns Barack Obama that British terrorists are the biggest threat to the US

British Pakistanis, you mean.

American spy chiefs have told the President that the CIA has launched a vast spying operation in the UK to prevent a repeat of the 9/11 attacks being launched from Britain.

They believe that a British-born Pakistani extremist entering the US under the visa waiver programme is the most likely source of another terrorist spectacular on American soil.

Intelligence briefings for Mr Obama have detailed a dramatic escalation in American espionage in Britain, where the CIA has recruited record numbers of informants in the Pakistani community to monitor the 2,000 terrorist suspects identified by MI5, the British security service.

A British intelligence source revealed that a staggering four out of 10 CIA operations designed to thwart direct attacks on the US are now conducted against targets in Britain.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 08 Feb 2009 00:51

Now we know why Muli-Upon- Bund was so eager to suck up. Britian deserves to keep "this part of old India" close to the heart for easy stabbing. Pakislam is an integral part of Britain's social structure and should be granted all the freedom from kuffar opression and not subject to majority white Christian tyranny.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 08 Feb 2009 01:06

This sounds like music in the ears. At every joint ministerial press conference, Indian and British ministers talking about Britain having become the epicenter of terrorism, and how the international community should come together to help Britain do fight terrorism. Something on the lines of "Britain should DO MORE to fight terrorists".

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 08 Feb 2009 01:17

And if they don't do more/enough, then the US should dissolve its "special relationship" with Britain, and the "special privileges" extended to it.

What is Britain doing for the US these days? They don't want to send more troops, they want to withdraw them. They field huge mobs for street protests, chanting "Death to America!". Their politics is turning ever leftward. And now their citizenry pose the greatest threat for another Mumbai-style attack. Outside of Pakistan, Lashkar probably has its biggest membership in Britain.

Better for the "special relationship" to be done away with, so that the Brits can be laid low, and jolted into wakefulness.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 08 Feb 2009 02:42

ramana wrote:Johann

In fact politics has a funny way of working - even closet Islamists like Lord Nazir Ahmed now oppose arranged marriages from places like Pakistan - too many Muslim families are upset by the way that their daughters/sisters are abused and dumped by relatives from Pakistan. Nor are they keen on the way that mass immigration from anywhere increases wait times at NHS clinics, shortages of public housing, etc.
This is very true. One of my circle is a Muslim of Indian origin(but from Lahore region) who went to UK via Kenya. His family went before Independence (1910s) so he doesn't think of TSP as an entity. One of his sisters was married to guy from now Pakistan. He abandoned her after the second kid was yet to be born. Apparently this is the MO of the Pak origin immigrants in UK.

One of my paki friends, his sister was married to a guy from pak. A year or so later he admitted to her that he only married her for visa/brit residency. She still lives with the jerk because she felt it was her duty to. But many cases of parents leaving daughters trapped in backward villages in Mirpur area. There was a special on BBC a month or so back.

Keshav · Post by **Keshav** » 08 Feb 2009 04:43

Sanjay M wrote:What is Britain doing for the US these days? .

British banks are still pretty big (pre-financial crisis), aren't they? If not from the Chinese, I'm sure US is borrowing from theM?

What are these special privileges that US gives to the UK?

ashish raval · Post by **ashish raval** » 08 Feb 2009 16:35

ramana wrote:Johann

In fact politics has a funny way of working - even closet Islamists like Lord Nazir Ahmed now oppose arranged marriages from places like Pakistan - too many Muslim families are upset by the way that their daughters/sisters are abused and dumped by relatives from Pakistan. Nor are they keen on the way that mass immigration from anywhere increases wait times at NHS clinics, shortages of public housing, etc.
This is very true. One of my circle is a Muslim of Indian origin(but from Lahore region) who went to UK via Kenya. His family went before Independence (1910s) so he doesn't think of TSP as an entity. One of his sisters was married to guy from now Pakistan. He abandoned her after the second kid was yet to be born. Apparently this is the MO of the Pak origin immigrants in UK.

This is one of many ways that "ingeneous pukes" device to enter UKstan. One of the ways is a paki women/men becomes a christian ( on record) several years back and has four kids marrying a dummy christian then they divorce and apparently that lady/men re-marries a muslim paki who also is converted to christianity now a person can be sentenced to death if they convert the religion apparently so as they say so invoking death threats against them !! they all flee with their four teen christian abduls and sarah's and land in Britanistan on visitor visa and on reaching britain magically all the documents for their asylum is ready and they appear with their small big family before home office asking for asylum forever. Yahoo britain grants them the stay on humanitarian grounds !! zimple tactics 6 people inside britain in a single shot.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 08 Feb 2009 23:22

British grocery chain to sell Muslim dolls
Published: Feb. 7, 2009 at 3:45 PM

LONDON, Feb. 7 (UPI) -- A new Muslim doll to be sold by Britain's Asda supermarket chain is intended to teach children the Koran while they play, its creator says.

Farzana Rahman, who founded the company behind the "Talking Muslim Doll," said he created the dolls to make learning about the Islamic religious text entertaining for children, The Daily Telegraph reported Saturday.

"I wanted to create something fun," the Desi Doll Co. founder said. "When I was a child I went to the mosque every day, learned my prayers and recited them. But there was nothing much fun about it.

"I wanted my children to have more fun."

The dolls come as either a boy or a girl, but both offer Koran words and prayers in Arabic before offering English translations.

The Asda supermarket chain will start carrying the dolls, which are priced at nearly $37, next month.

Johann · Post by **Johann** » 09 Feb 2009 00:07

Keshav,

Lee Kuan Yew pioneered the use of public housing to break up any potentially dissident group from congregating and creating exclusive spaces. Families who wanted state housing were assigned housing, and certain families were kept apart. It started out aimed at the very strong communist movement amongst the (majority) Chinese community, but it was also used to keep ethnic minority communities physically fragmented. There is no question that this, along with other policies has helped keep Malays integrated *without* infringing on their cultural freedoms, etc.

As for its use in India, there's not much scope at this point since the government at most levels does *not* provide public housing to the general public.

Sanjay, Prem, Rajesh

The US and EU have been talking about how to contain the threat since 2001-02, given that the 9-11 attackers base in Hamburg, and Moussaoui's connections in France and the UK, etc.

The issue was how to preserve the mutual visa-waiver programme for short-term visitors while still providing screening information to the US without resort to racial profiling, or violation of EU privacy laws by EU governments.

The compromise has just been put in to effect - visitors from visa-waiver countries fill out an online Homeland Security form prior to travel with their details, which will be valid for 2 years. There's more depth to the data on the DHS form than the airline data, and the weaknesses of the 'no-fly list'.

I will also say this - Blair for all his flaws always had a very clear and strong ideological dislike for Islamism, and recognised that the global nature of the threat did not respect national boundaries. That is why under Blair the LeT and JeM was banned in the UK before 9/11, before the parliament attack, before the Americans got around to it, and why Blair consistantly supported India's position on Kashmir, and had no problem accomodating India's nuclear status. He had to fight the left wing of Labour every step of the way, most famously climaxing the resignation of Robin Cook as foreign secretary - much of their dispute was over India and Pakistan, nuclear weapons, terrorism, etc as I have said here before. Succeeding foreign ministers like Jack Straw and David Blunkett were much closer to Blair's thinking, but still not quite as clear.

Brown is closer to the Labour that emerged in the 1970s and peaked in the mid 1990s, which is reluctant to confront Islamism as an ideology, which hopes that concessions will ease a sense of exclusion and grievance. Brown as a reformed Marxist will value India because of its business potential, but he, and his proteges will always miss the mark by imagining (like most left-leaning types) that equal-equal will resolve or at least contain conflicts. There is unfortunately no conflict between Miliband and Brown (unlike Blair and Cook) in this area, Miliband also coming from an ex-marxist background.

However, there is an election coming up in the UK, and there is a good chance that the Tories will defeat Labour. David Cameron is a politician who unlike either Blair or Brown has no ideological anchors - he is a very slick but insubstantial man, far more so than Blair whose substance while considerable was hidden by his glibness, and his desire to be liked by one and all. The shadow foreign secretary however, William Hague is probably the one who will many if not most overall policy direction decisions in a Tory govt, and I expect they will be very different from Brown in direction, although he will use PC-speak to keep the chatterati happy.

Sanjay,

The UK was the first country to put combat troops in Afghanistan after the Americans, and their contribution there is increasing, not decreasing. Moreover, along with the Canadians, they are the ones (unlike most of NATO) who have not shied from deployments in the Pashtun areas, which is where the fight is.

Because of the fact that the UK's political cycle is half a step ahead of the Americans you had Brown's differences with Bush - Brown wanted to draw down in Iraq and focus on Afghanistan. While this clashed with Bush's preference, it matches Obama's.

Given the similarity of policy between the US and UK, generally the UK tends to hit the same problems before the Americans do - given the manpower intensive nature of both Afghanistan and Iraq, a choice has to be made between the two - indefinite overstretch will wear your military machine down. Pressure both within the US and UK armed forces has demanded that a choice be made, but that pressure reached a critical level about 2 years in the UK before the US.

Philip · Post by **Philip** » 09 Feb 2009 16:04

As Pres. Obama has been told by his admin.,the greatest terror threat to the US is Islamist terror from the Paki community in the UK.The UK's security servcies are themselves overloaded with the mindboggling task of moniitoring the potential and known threats in the UK.We've been told that several potential terror ops have been foiled thanks to the anti-terror agencies.Here's a report on the CIA illegally poaching on British territory in an attempt to recruit its own UK spooks.

http://p10.hostingprod.com/@spyblog.org ... ng-fo.html

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Feb 2009 01:30

British diplomat arrested over 'anti-Semitic' rant

The diplomat, 47-year-old Rowan Laxton, allegedly shouted "f***ing Israelis, f***ing Jews" while watching television reports of the Israeli attack on Gaza last month. He is also alleged to have said that Israeli soldiers should be "wiped off the face of the Earth" during the rant at the London Business School gym near Regents Park on January 27. The tirade reportedly continued even after other gym users asked him to stop.

In the meantime, he continues to work as usual as head of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's South Asian group, in charge of UK diplomatic policy in the region. In that job he would be expected directly to brief the Foreign Secretary David Miliband, who is himself Jewish.

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 10 Feb 2009 01:31

Mr Laxton, an Oxford graduate, joined the diplomatic service in 1993 and rose quickly through the ranks. He has served in Pakistan and Afghanistan. As head of his section, he in charge of UK diplomatic policy in South Asia

Mr Laxton has worked extensively in the Middle East - he married a Muslim woman in 2000 - and has been deputy ambassador to Afghanistan. The case could not have come at a worse time for the Foreign Office. Next week, Britain is hosting an international summit on combating anti-Semitism, with politicians from 35 countries. He ran the British High Commission in Pakistan for three years before moving to Afghanistan in 2001. He stayed in Kabul for two years, then returned to London. He was appointed head of his section last year.

JE Menon · Post by **JE Menon** » 10 Feb 2009 16:39

Looks like the fool went native

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 11 Feb 2009 00:55

Don't attack us please, UK ads to say on Pak TV

Chinmayanand · Post by **Chinmayanand** » 11 Feb 2009 01:04

Gerard wrote:Don't attack us please, UK ads to say on Pak TV

Finally UK has become a pussycat, first to fall in line.First and foremost victory to the likes of al qaeda, hizbollah,hamas...

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 11 Feb 2009 02:35

Doesnt it mean UK thinks TSP is the gateway to the Al Quaida!

Satya_anveshi · Post by **Satya_anveshi** » 11 Feb 2009 22:08

If there are any jihadis independent of UK's advise, they know a Mumbai style attack in London may be overdue. But you know there are no such jihadis that don't take advise from UK so there will be no such attacks. UK has just created a fig leaf of a reason for itself.

VinodTK · Post by **VinodTK** » 12 Feb 2009 05:35

Chicken tikka, korma for UK Army

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 12 Feb 2009 08:09

UK bans Dutch MP Geert Wilders from entering Britain after Muslim leaders threaten to organise mob protest

The Dutch MP and Party leader, Geert Wilders (pictured), has been told he cannot enter the UK. Wilders was due to speak to fellow Parliamentarians at the House of Lords tomorrow and show his film ‘Fitna’.

The meeting scheduled for tomorrow had already been cancelled once. Yesterday Wilders was presented with a letter written on behalf of the Home Secretary stating that she ‘is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film Fitna and elsewhere would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the UK.’

The thing that would ‘threaten public security’, let alone ‘community harmony’ is that twice in the last month Wilders has been invited to speak in the House of Lords and twice Lord Ahmed of Rotherham (soon to go to prison himself) and other Muslim ‘leaders’ have explained that they will provide a mob to object to the film. Ahmed proclaimed the previous effort to stop Wilders coming to Parliament as ‘a victory for the Muslim community.’

As one blogger notes:

The lesson to me is that if you want freedom of speech, then, like the Muslims in Britain, you must make the authorities afraid to bother you. If you seem harmless, you will be silenced at the demand of those whom the authorities fear. Once again, I note that this is an incentive structure that the British authorities will likely come to regret.