Indo-UK: News & Discussion

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 11 Mar 2009 02:31

Religion of Peace on display in UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arade.html

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Mar 2009 14:37

Sanjay M wrote:Religion of Peace on display in UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arade.html

and the response...

Public anger in support of the Armed Forces shows that our attitude to terrorism has moved on

Tanaji · Post by **Tanaji** » 12 Mar 2009 18:35

When indecency and ingratitude is on show, can reference to Pakistan be far behind?

From the article linked by Sanjay M

The son of a British Rail engineer who came to this country from Pakistan, Alamgir grew up in a moderate, middle-class Muslim family in Luton

UKstan is in a pickle now... they have to do something about the Islamists already there. Although they have significantly restricted immigration entry, it may be too late for them. But as someone else has said, never underestimate Oiropeans appetite for unbridled aggression, so a fight is on the cards. The Islamists may have just bitten off more than they can chew.

ArmenT · Post by **ArmenT** » 12 Mar 2009 20:22

Now that the Daily Mail has published this Alamgir's picture, I think the average John Bull should refuse to do any business with him and his kind (which is completely legal, since they're refusing to do any business with him, not all "South Asians"

). Make it impossible for him to purchase groceries or a taxi ride for instance. Maybe publishing his home address would have been a good start -- they could picket his house every day.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 12 Mar 2009 20:46

The Islamists have been thriving and flourishing in the post Thatcherite, politically correct, liberal, multi-cultural, laissez faire environment that actually makes the UK and some other parts of Europe very pleasant and exciting to live in and play in these days - if you're normal. However, unlike joe public, abdul jehadi has latched onto freedom of speech and tolerance of expression as a means of exploiting his own virulent and totally opposite political agenda. Now that the credit crunch is biting hard and unemployment and poverty are on the rise, joe public's patience will be wearing very thin. Whilst abdul jehadi is in for a backlash, I am afraid that other 'South Asians' will get caught up in it... the pakis are hiding behind this, everyone else is apprehensive to some degree

sum · Post by **sum** » 12 Mar 2009 22:10

Sanjay M wrote:Religion of Peace on display in UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arade.html

Am not a great lover of the Brits but the attitude of the BMs( British Muslims) is just pathetic....

I cant imagine anyone booing our troops when they return home and openly preach sedition...And with an attitude like this, they expect "secularism and respect"?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Mar 2009 22:22

It is not so much about "booing their troops", as much as deliberately twisting facts and then using the concocted "facts" as a means to mislead others and THEN abuse.

These guys are hung up on "Islam". (Ret) Lt Gen Gul does exactly the same thing WRT US troops in A'stan and WRT India too. "Rape, murder of Muslim women and children" is in most interviews of his.

This is a deliberate tactic of Islamists. An age old one too.

Brits want to live with cancer, it is their pleasure. It is called Milibandism.

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 12 Mar 2009 22:26

NRao wrote:It is not so much about "booing their troops", as much as deliberately twisting facts and then using the concocted "facts" as a means to mislead others and THEN abuse.

These guys are hung up on "Islam". (Ret) Lt Gen Gul does exactly the same thing WRT US troops in A'stan and WRT India too. "Rape, murder of Muslim women and children" is in most interviews of his.

This is a deliberate tactic of Islamists. An age old one too.

Brits want to live with cancer, it is their pleasure. It is called Milibandism.

Satyamev Jayate is indeed a heavy burden!

That probably is the biggest difference between Indians and Pakistanis, and that is why the Two-Nation Theory has credibility.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 12 Mar 2009 23:17

sum wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:Religion of Peace on display in UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arade.html
Am not a great lover of the Brits but the attitude of the BMs( British Muslims) is just pathetic....

I cant imagine anyone booing our troops when they return home and openly preach sedition...And with an attitude like this, they expect "secularism and respect"?

N Rao has hit the nail on the head, I would think booing the cops during the Delhi encounter is just about the same, the only difference is that there are no mainstream parties in the UK that could afford to utter a few words in support of these protestors, quite unlike India where it is almost the norm.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 12 Mar 2009 23:42

What happened to the freedome of expression?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... roops.html

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 12 Mar 2009 23:52

surinder wrote:What happened to the freedome of expression?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... roops.html

It is time that Saudi Arabia allowed building places or worship of other faiths. Need a level playing field, they need to be brought into the main stream.

sanjaykumar · Post by **sanjaykumar** » 13 Mar 2009 00:24

British Indian need to show unequivocal solidarity with the troops. Where are the Indians in the parades?

Arya Sumantra · Post by **Arya Sumantra** » 13 Mar 2009 00:32

sanjaykumar wrote:British Indian need to show unequivocal solidarity with the troops. Where are the Indians in the parades?

I saw one sikh guy with his family clapping and cheering the troops in a bee bee see news video. And atleast we are not the religious trouble makers and contribute to their society in an economic and scientific way. But still end up getting clubbed together with troublemakers as "south asians" because of skin tone.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 13 Mar 2009 02:03

A couple of years ago I saw a video on youtube. It was a speech made by one of the leaders (a guy who had an iron hook in the place of his amputated hand like a pirate) of the now banned group Al Mohajiroun. He had clearly stated that the freedom of expression and faith in UK is a 'vulnerability' which they will make use of. Islamists clearly know what they are doing. They also showed a footage of some abduls burning UK flags as protest while police are made to look on.

They are testing the limits of tolerance but till now havent faced any opposition from the western society. It is nearing the tipping point. Once the corner is turned, there will be reaction from the society and that is when UKstan's own 72 houri seekers start coming out of the wood work for jeehard.

Prem · Post by **Prem** » 13 Mar 2009 02:35

Dilbu wrote: They are testing the limits of tolerance but till now havent faced any opposition from the western society. It is nearing the tipping point. Once the corner is turned, there will be reaction from the society and that is when UKstan's own 72 houri seekers start coming out of the wood work for jeehard.

As friends, We should help both to achieve their objectives.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 13 Mar 2009 03:42

sanjaykumar wrote:British Indian need to show unequivocal solidarity with the troops. Where are the Indians in the parades?

Why?

Policy of deivide & rule states that you support the weaker against the stronger. Therein lies your own security. Why not follow the policy of the Brits?

During the partition riots when the Mussaalman were killing the Hindus/sikhs, the Brits were coolly looking the other way.

(not to mention that the protestors are merely using their right to free speech. This is a fundamental right of any human being ... it is not, as stated by the authors, granted by the soldiers being booed, but is a G*d given right. So what is really wrong with these protests?)

RajeshA · Post by **RajeshA** » 13 Mar 2009 04:05

The only thing British Indians need to do, is to be very outspoken on the issue of their identity. They should be very vocal in correcting to standard media, political and social vocabulary to not call them British Asian, British Hindus or something else, but rather British Indians.
As British Indians, Sikhs and Indian Muslims with Indic loyalties all can find a home for their identity.

Once the question of identity has been solved, the British Indians are free to play all sides of the ideological and political divides as it suits them. They can give their support to the British soldiers one day as British citizens, and they can show solidarity with British Muslims the next day as an immigrant community. Why burn bridges with anybody?

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 13 Mar 2009 04:26

Labour peer freed by court of appeal in dangerous driving case

The Labour peer Lord Ahmed has been freed by the court of appeal today from a 12-week jail sentence for dangerous driving.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 13 Mar 2009 17:28

sum wrote:
Sanjay M wrote:Religion of Peace on display in UK:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... arade.html
Am not a great lover of the Brits but the attitude of the BMs( British Muslims) is just pathetic....

I cant imagine anyone booing our troops when they return home and openly preach sedition...And with an attitude like this, they expect "secularism and respect"?

Here is an excellent riposte by Pat Condell on Youtube:

This is the kind of thing that we Indians need to do as well. Such oratories are worth a thousand words.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 13 Mar 2009 20:52

Regarding the protests at Luton. Firstly, it is the right of the protesters to protest. They are only using their God-given and constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with that. They did not indulge in any violence, vandalism or anything approaching illegal. The gentleman was then later punished for his views by taking away his source of livelihood. This is just pugnacious. If you want to know what is illegal, that is.

The analogy offered by many commentors is that would these men/women been allowed to protest in "those" countries. That is a false analogy. The correct analogy would be, if there are immmigrants in Baghdad, and they see the Iraqi army invades the British isles for no reason, and then goes on to try to the King/Queeen/PM in a sham kangaroo court and hands them. They read that the Iraqi army has in the invasion caused immense loss of life (100's of thousands) and many random killings, and atrocities, I am not sure you would see anglican immigrants in Basra do anything but what these guys did.

Why did the brits invade Iraq? Should they have. 70 years ago Brits were the colonial masters of that area, they created these artificial countries. Should Kuawait really have to be another country? Is it realy different? It was created by them. They are now back in the same region with the army once again. Why shouldn't the army be criticized? it is the army that is the instrument of power. Would the Indians in Britain cheer if they returning army just came from Plassey, or Jallianwala or many such places where they brutally overthrew native rulers.

Let us ask ourselves a few simple questions: How many Brits have been killed by Arab armies? How many times have arab armies invaded UK? How many wars have been waged on UK's soil by the arabs? If you do a just a rough count of numbers of those killed/maimed/attacked by both sides, it is not even a comparison. That is what the protestors are saying (without any resort to violence).

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 13 Mar 2009 21:05

surinder wrote:Regarding the protests at Luton. Firstly, it is the right of the protesters to protest. They are only using their God-given and constitutional rights. There is nothing wrong with that.

god was not involved in the giving of these rights, and please note, the authorities allowed them to protest to their heart's content

The gentleman was then later punished for his views by taking away his source of livelihood. This is just pugnacious. If you want to know what is illegal, that is.

really? here is man clearly showing affiliation with a group that represents a threat to transportation systems who is working in a highly sensitive part of the transportation system. it is only sensible to remove him as a risk

there were plenty of britons protesting about the iraq war over the years, none of them criticised the solider's themselves, but the politicians. this (luton) was a targetted and inflamatory protest to serve a completely different purpose than the morality of the war in iraq. in terms of context - these same protesters have called for shariah, for khilafat and the overthrow of the UK government - yet the authorities have allowed them to protest. british fascists are not allowed these luxuries and guess what - these same islamists complain first if the white fascists organise protest marches

surinder - you are missing the game that is going on here. i feel that British Indians do need to show loyalty to their adopted home and support the troops and other security services. These islamists are insulting their adopted home, and therefore the rest of the residents are entitled to not like them or want them there.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 Mar 2009 02:20

I don't understand why anyone should want to become an apologist for these Ummah types and their extraterritorialism. Certainly, Indians don't behave like this, and I don't see why we should make excuses for those who do, especially when their ilk are playing the same game against us.

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Mar 2009 02:31

Regarding the protests at Luton. Firstly, it is the right of the protesters to protest.

1) Certainly NOT by twisting facts ............... calling them butchers, etc. That is totally wrong
2) The protest should be against Govt policy makers, not the troops that had nothing to do with the policy
3) A protest should not be based on religion as far as possible, and in the case of Muslims, they do not reciprocate amd therefore they in particular have to be very careful of what they accuse others of doing - which brings us back to #1

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 14 Mar 2009 02:53

One should not reflexively put down the araabs and the M's all the time. While they may cry "victim" more often, that does not mean they cannot be victims, or have never been. We should not be blind and indifferent to their point of view.

Truth be told, they are as much a victim of British machinations, violence & imperialism as Indians have been. The Europeans (esp. UK) was determining factor in drawing the artificial borders of Iraq & sowing the seed of the current problem by creating artificial states like Kuwaet & Iraq. The border between Iraq & KSA is a straigh line, for crying out loud. Historical states don't have straight-line borders. Having sown the seed of the conflict, now they are there to collect on their "investment" post Kuwaet war.

The soldiers are the instrument of power projection. Why not protest there and then and let them know they were not on some humanitarian mission, they were instruments of gross power. The german soldiers were not given that chance to say that they were merely soldiers, not policy makers. The Brit soldiers are not protecting their homeland ... UK was not attacked in any way. This is not a war of self-defence. Iraq did not send an army to UK isles. No aggression was comitted against UK. The incidents of Haditha, Abu Gharib, random killings etc are too painful. The protesters have a right to protest, which they excercised. More power to them.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 14 Mar 2009 02:55

NRao wrote:
Regarding the protests at Luton. Firstly, it is the right of the protesters to protest.
1) Certainly NOT by twisting facts ............... calling them butchers, etc. That is totally wrong
2) The protest should be against Govt policy makers, not the troops that had nothing to do with the policy
3) A protest should not be based on religion as far as possible, and in the case of Muslims, they do not reciprocate amd therefore they in particular have to be very careful of what they accuse others of doing - which brings us back to #1

1. I think 3-6 lakh iraqeas have been killed in the war. That does not qualify as butchery?

2. Soldiers in a free country are free to disaggree, they can, but did not. Why be sqeamish in knowing what others think of your job.

3. Did the protestors protest on the basis of religion? I don't think so.

Dilbu · Post by **Dilbu** » 14 Mar 2009 03:14

1. I think 3-6 lakh iraqeas have been killed in the war. That does not qualify as butchery?

People will get killed in a war. They didnt go into Iraq to massacre and rape. So I dont think they can be called butchers.

2. Soldiers in a free country are free to disaggree, they can, but did not. Why be sqeamish in knowing what others think of your job.

I have to agree if you are talking about TSPA but professional armies of most democratic countries follow the decision taken by their elected government and try to keep away from voicing political opinions.

3. Did the protestors protest on the basis of religion? I don't think so

I thought I clearly heard the words 'butchers of muslims'. Since they were not protesting the death of Iraqi citizens but that of 'muslims' I think they are protesting on the basis of religion.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 14 Mar 2009 03:41

Well let us reverse the situation, would the UK have shown the same level of consideration if the state of some operation was a possible death of 5 lakh gora UK-ites civilians? Secondly, what did iraeq do to UK to have them send troops to their lands? What is the causus belli?

WMD is the justification. But doesn't UK have more 100 times more WMD than iraeq was ever accused of?

NRao · Post by **NRao** » 14 Mar 2009 03:57

1. I think 3-6 lakh iraqeas have been killed in the war. That does not qualify as butchery?

Sad that many died. But, butchery? Is that what it was?

Well, IF that is butchery, then Muslims have no reason to protest after what happened all over the Af-Pak area (Hindu Kush). And is perhaps is still happening at a much smaller level tho'.

2. Soldiers in a free country are free to disaggree, they can, but did not. Why be sqeamish in knowing what others think of your job.

Sure. That option is there. But, we do not know how many did, home many did not and how many were neutral. Or do we?

3. Did the protestors protest on the basis of religion? I don't think so.

The placards certainly said that - killing Muslims. These guys did not say it was an unjust war, they said it was an unjust war because Muslims were killed. IF they did not have the word "Muslims" perhaps it would have made more sense - protest against an unjust war. Which happens in the US - by non-Muslims - but not against troops sent to Iraq.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Mar 2009 04:39

surinder - the context of these islamist protestors is key. this is not a one off incident, these chaps show up every time there is anything remotely related to the islamist agenda going on. same messages every time, some a little modified (like this one) but coming from the same vantage point of islam khatrey mein hay

and please once and for all - whatever happened in the distant past is long gone. we live in the now, and have to deal with the problems of the now. should the british protest to the italian authorities for the roman legions massacaring ancient britons? or to the french for mutiliating the eye of their monarch and subjugating them during the Norman conquest?

plenty of people on this forum have looked through the muslim lens at the world's events, we have even looked at it through the islamist lens. most of us don't buy the arguement that muslims are victims of evil imperialistic capitalist forces. how about the arguement that islamists are bent on imposing talibanesque khilafat all over the world? who's the aggressor and who's the victim?

btw - are you sure you're name is really surinder?

vsudhir · Post by **vsudhir** » 14 Mar 2009 05:12

Surinder saar is right.

The muslims of UKstan require autonomy within the oppressive UKstani system.

The muslims are weak, the UKstani system is strong. (At least at present and on paper).

Hence, I ask, reflecting beeb-conomist logic "how can the weak be wrong"?? UKstani muslims acting within the law deserve our sympathy if not our measured support for the injustices piled upon their delicate religious sensibilities.

Anything less is deep-rooted bare-faced revenge-mongering fantasia!

JMTPs.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 14 Mar 2009 13:39

One cannot, of course, go to a very distant forgotten past, but the British Imperialism and exploitation of the Middle East Arabs is fairly recent. In fact, all I am asking is to go only as far back to those events which have a bearing today.

The artificial construction of states, along with placing chosen puppet families in charge in KSA, Jordan, Syria & Iraq was well calculated. It was designed to result in a system that will stay perpetually weak and perennially in the expoitative hands of the Imperialists. But there is a cost, someone pays a cost: the cost is the enormous violence & exploitation of the Arabs. I know that no one likes the Arabs, but the formula applied on them is no different than what was applied to India & Africa. What happened in Africa? They created countries (using straight lines, in many cases) deliberately dividing the tribes to be patially in multiple countries. What happened in India? The "brilliant" idea of partitioning India was conceived and brought to fruition by the British. Are those who create such ideas like Partition not responsible for the 1 million Indians killed in the riots? Is this not genocide by proxy? Germans were foolish to do genocide openly, British had better ways to do it.

The idea, in fact, is perfect: Indians hate the Arabs more than UK; Muslims/Arabs hate Indians more than they hate the UK. The two fight and hate each other more than they hate the one who set themselves to fight in the first place. Our mutual hostilities are encouraged; our common suffering at the hands of the British are relegated to the back. Rather than hold UK responsible for such deliberate mangling of state identities and setting the stage for literally millions of lost lives, we are showing misguided sensitivities towards soldiers in Luton. Our mutual hatred (Indian-Arab) is in evidence, but the real behind-the-scenes deeds of UK go unnoticed.

Fast forward to 2009: Britain is still exacting great advantage from its past planning. A weakened Middle East, divided up in small petty states, ruled by weak rulers set up by UK/US, is unable to resist Western influence. For every Arab failure the US/UK casually point out how backward the Arabs are. This is the same strategy used in India. They set up India-TSP for failure, then use that failure to justify their interference; not to mention they mock the Indians too. Using TSP, UK/US have gained enormous influence on India, as we all are aware. It is time we not just blame the actual hand that kills, but also blame the brain that set up that hand to kill. Both are murderers; the brain is the bigger one, in fact.

Once again, use recent history and just do a rough tally of how many Arab have been killed by UK; and then do a reverse tally of how many British have been killed by the Arabs. Also, one can tally how many years the British have had troops in Basra, both now and in the recent past; the calculate how many years the Iraqis have had troops in Bath or Birmingham. You can also tally up how many billion $ worth of resource were stolen by Arabs from British Isles, and how many Dinars have been filched from Arab lands by UK. Also tally up how many Kings/Queen puppets have been installed by the Arabs on British Isles; then do a reverse tally and see how many puppet rulers have been imposed by UK on Arabs. Such a tally will tell us all we care to know. If you do this tally and still find a just cause for British action, then you are justified in calling the protestors in Luton wrong.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 14 Mar 2009 13:58

Lalmohan wrote:surinder - the context of these islamist protestors is key. this is not a one off incident, these chaps show up every time there is anything remotely related to the islamist agenda going on. same messages every time, some a little modified (like this one) but coming from the same vantage point of islam khatrey mein hay

and please once and for all - whatever happened in the distant past is long gone. we live in the now, and have to deal with the problems of the now. should the british protest to the italian authorities for the roman legions massacaring ancient britons? or to the french for mutiliating the eye of their monarch and subjugating them during the Norman conquest?

plenty of people on this forum have looked through the muslim lens at the world's events, we have even looked at it through the islamist lens. most of us don't buy the arguement that muslims are victims of evil imperialistic capitalist forces. how about the arguement that islamists are bent on imposing talibanesque khilafat all over the world? who's the aggressor and who's the victim?

btw - are you sure you're name is really surinder?

* Muslims, especially Arabs, have done atrocities on India, I dont' deny it. But that should not let us color the fact that Imperialilsm of the West has done to them the same as it has done to us. It has been worse, in many regards. Our fragile sensitive societies have not recovered from the shock of Imperialism. We do have a common bond of suffering under the same philosophy of colonialism. Why walk into the Western trap of always viewing them as enemies; why not use our suffering to understand the nature of Arab suffering, why not seek unity with the fellow victims.

* The argument of forgetting the distant past can go both ways, my friend: one can ask Indians (Hindus) to forget Muslim/Arab/Turk genocide in India. I see no call to forget that. My view: I believe that if the past events do not have an impact in the present, they can be forgotten. But if there is a present problem related to the past, it must be remembered vividly.

* Just because the Muslim lens is wrong & distorted on many counts, it need not be wrong on *EVERY* count. There is always the possibility that they may be right some times. Why not acknowledge those few times.

* Yes, you are right, there is a pattern of Muslim activism in UK, that I ignored. That context must be remembered. But I deliberately ignore it. Sometimes events must be taken one at a time. If the Muslim activism in UK agitates against India, I don't see the Gora UK's getting their knickers in a twist. In fact, they seem quite comfortable seeing their ex-colonies fight with each other (rather than with them). They have, in fact, maintained a snake pit of Islamists that attack India quite deftly (apparently with their approval and connivance). Now the shoe is on the other foot and it is pinching.

* No my name really is Salman ... just kidding.

surinder · Post by **surinder** » 14 Mar 2009 14:06

vsudhir wrote:The muslims of UKstan require autonomy within the oppressive UKstani system.

You do have to ask: Muslims in India don't put "Butcher of xyz" banners in India. Muslims have been in India for 1000 years. But even today, muslims don't carry such banners to the marching armymen. Why did the Muslims feel so disconnected with the society ... and they have been their merely 60 years or so. Something is wrong with the UK system or people.

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Mar 2009 14:28

Surinder, although you are clearly intelligent and have made a cogent arguement. You are also far too idealistic. I have a pretty good grasp of history thank you, however one cannot dwell in the past and put all of the world's blames on britian or the US or papua new guinea for that matter. each powerful nation does what it wants to in its own interests. Modern India, needs to do the same, instead of harping on about britain being responsible for all our faults and problems. whilst we have to remember the past, we cannot live in it. the clear and present danger to India today is the rise of Islamofascism - not British imperialism. We must resist it before it overwhelms all of us. Just like nazism - it rises on the silence of others and the intellectual acquiescence or willingness to see 'their point of view'. Come the great green revolution birtather, your neck will be first on the block, make no mistake of that. I have seen the Islamofascist's point of view and I don't agree with it, nor do I like it, nor do I see it as the answer to anyone's problems - least of all Imperialism.

i also simply do not agree that the luton incident can be seen in isolation, and i strongly feel that the protest should have been directed at the politicians and not the troops. your choosing to deliberately ignore the context is giving the islamists the credibility or the cover they do not deserve.

Mahendra · Post by **Mahendra** » 14 Mar 2009 14:33

Surinder

XYZ is not == with Iraq, XYZ is righfully ours, how many IMs do you see protesting for the return of POXYZ?

Lalmohan · Post by **Lalmohan** » 14 Mar 2009 14:35

surinder wrote:
vsudhir wrote:The muslims of UKstan require autonomy within the oppressive UKstani system.
You do have to ask: Muslims in India don't put "Butcher of xyz" banners in India. Muslims have been in India for 1000 years. But even today, muslims don't carry such banners to the marching armymen. Why did the Muslims feel so disconnected with the society ... and they have been their merely 60 years or so. Something is wrong with the UK system or people.

the muslims of britian have until recently not had any different treatment to the afro-carribeans, indian hindus, sikhs, buddhists and any other minority. why does this particular minority come out in protest over any 'injustice to muslims' worldwide? why does this group openly preach the overthrow of the established order? why does this group bomb public places to deliberately target civilians? why does this group as a whole remain silent on terrorism and violence? why does this group not raise a fuss about darfur? or timor?

i don't see disaffected hindu and sikh youths plotting to bomb the london underground, do you?

according to a muslim friend, the issues in the community are a lack of internal leadership - the parental generation preach do as i say not do as i do - the younger ones are sick of the hypocracy. wine and women in the evening, mullah and namaz during the day. the mullah does not have answers to any question not related to life in a south asian village. there is no voice. into this vacuum comes earnest young men in beards who talk about the ummah, and victimisation and preach revolution.

you join the dots.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 Mar 2009 15:21

surinder wrote:1. I think 3-6 lakh iraqeas have been killed in the war. That does not qualify as butchery?

2. Soldiers in a free country are free to disaggree, they can, but did not. Why be sqeamish in knowing what others think of your job.

3. Did the protestors protest on the basis of religion? I don't think so.

Not credible in the slightest.

There is that story about the woman who wanted Gandhi to get her son to stop eating sugar, and Gandhi admitted that he first had to stop eating it himself.

These Ummah protesters are spitting on the soldiers who protect them (since the Ummah has ensconced itself in other states). If they want to abuse the soldiers, let them renounce their British citizenship and do it from some other soil. Rest of society certainly has the right to feel revulsion at these protesters.

Stop trying to fluff up these crooks as more than they are. They're simply parasites. What are they contributing to the society they've ensconced themselves in? They're simply behaving like parasites -- protesting against those who perform civic duty, even while reaping the benefits of that society for themselves. They live on the dole, collecting welfare, sucking the blood out of the society they've nestled themselves in, and in the meantime they're spitting on the servicemen who who uphold the privileges of these parasites. If that isn't hypocrisy, I don't know what is.

"Rights" were not created for this purpose, and certainly there are always people who will learn how to abuse rights and twist them to their own selfish ends.
Such "rights" need to be redefined in order to make these parasites into persona non grata.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 14 Mar 2009 15:25

surinder wrote:
vsudhir wrote:The muslims of UKstan require autonomy within the oppressive UKstani system.
You do have to ask: Muslims in India don't put "Butcher of xyz" banners in India. Muslims have been in India for 1000 years. But even today, muslims don't carry such banners to the marching armymen. Why did the Muslims feel so disconnected with the society ... and they have been their merely 60 years or so. Something is wrong with the UK system or people.

Oh, don't worry, Muslims in India are increasingly daring to say "Butcher of xyz". It's only a matter of time before they shed all their inhibitions. Muslims are always disconnected with any surrounding non-Muslim society. It's the nature of Islam to keep the infidels at arms' length.

Sanjay M · Post by **Sanjay M** » 15 Mar 2009 03:33

IRA militants on the comeback trail:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 908365.ece

Riots Follow Murder Arrests:

http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europ ... e.arrests/

Gerard · Post by **Gerard** » 15 Mar 2009 04:42

Some of the young Irish rebels involved in these protests in English-Administered-Ireland