|
|
Post by allman on Nov 19, 2013 15:16:14 GMT
I'm intent on having even more small-deal clashes until we deal with it. Deal with what exactly? If you tell what you think needs dealing with we could have a dialogue. Trouble is you never do. |
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 19, 2013 16:43:57 GMT
I suspect he means those dangerous extremists who insist on questioning the wisdom of the deliberate creation and encouragement of a distinct culture with incompatible values, beliefs, laws and fundamental principles within and alongside the "British" - what used to be "British", anyway. Look what happens in Palestine, India, Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Fiji...when people start to make that sort of fuss. Best we just get along tolerantly and peacefully without criticising each other, like they do in Syria. I suspect. It's always a bit of a guessing game with Aqua. It's how they get to work in Whitehall. |
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 19, 2013 23:48:59 GMT
I'm intent on having even more small-deal clashes until we deal with it. Deal with what exactly? If you tell what you think needs dealing with we could have a dialogue. Trouble is you never do. What I said was: MR and you seem to want to have loads of big-deal clashes. I'm intent on having even more small-deal clashes until we deal with it.I meant clashes with muslims, not between us obvious whities. Thus, I'm acknowledging there's a problem between some Brits and non-whities. My point is that most immigrant muslims who choose to come to Britain seem to be perfectly happy adapting over time to British ways. And British ways will adapt over time to theirs, as they did to those of the hordes of invaders we've had over time over time over time. Small-deal clashes and compromises seem preferable to big-deal showdowns. |
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 19, 2013 23:55:02 GMT
I suspect he means those dangerous extremists who insist on questioning the wisdom of the deliberate creation and encouragement of a distinct culture with incompatible values, beliefs, laws and fundamental principles within and alongside the "British" - what used to be "British", anyway. Look what happens in Palestine, India, Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland, Sri Lanka, Fiji...when people start to make that sort of fuss. Best we just get along tolerantly and peacefully without criticising each other, like they do in Syria. I suspect. It's always a bit of a guessing game with Aqua. It's how they get to work in Whitehall. I got to work in Whitehall via Clapham Junction. Godalming was a mystery to me (and still is). |
|
|
|
Post by cleefarqhuar on Nov 20, 2013 8:16:05 GMT
My point is that most immigrant muslims who choose to come to Britain seem to be perfectly happy adapting over time to British ways. This is simply untrue. Many Moslems in Britain may so adapt, but most? Certainly not The lie is evident in visiting any British city and inded most towns in Britain, where you wuill see ghettoes of Moslems living as they would in Rawalpindi., making no attempt to adapt to British ways. They have even imported the political corruption of their homeland Those ghettoes form the breeding ground for Islamic extremism, and any glib atempt to assert that this extremism is a function of a small minority encourages those immigrant communities to continue as they are with their own distinct culture and fatal rejection of the 'home' culture |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 20, 2013 8:30:44 GMT
... in visiting any British city and inded most towns in Britain, where you wuill see ghettoes of Moslems living as they would in Rawalpindi., making no attempt to adapt to British ways... One day, give your overheated imagination a rest and actually go and look.You'll be horribly disappointed. |
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 20, 2013 14:17:13 GMT
Deal with what exactly? If you tell what you think needs dealing with we could have a dialogue. Trouble is you never do. What I said was: MR and you seem to want to have loads of big-deal clashes. I'm intent on having even more small-deal clashes until we deal with it.I meant clashes with muslims, not between us obvious whities. Thus, I'm acknowledging there's a problem between some Brits and non-whities. I think it would be better for you to keep any racist sentiments you might have out of it. The colour of a Moslem or non-Moslem's skin has nothing to do with the issue. Then you need to account for why the majority of Moslems say they want their own system of family courts. Somewhere between a third and a half of them want their own courts, employing full Sharia law, full stop. And it's not just immigrants - these figures rise appreciably when young second or third generation Moslems are polled. I've lost count of the number of times I've seen this one trotted out. What possible sense can it be intended to convey? That because centuries ago the Romans, Vikings and Normans once came here and by methods of slaughter, terror, and forcible theft subdued the previous inhabitants, no one could have any objection to any other invasion? Who's advocating appeasement? |
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 20, 2013 14:32:31 GMT
... in visiting any British city and inded most towns in Britain, where you wuill see ghettoes of Moslems living as they would in Rawalpindi., making no attempt to adapt to British ways... One day, give your overheated imagination a rest and actually go and look.In 2009 there were 90 Islamic family courts operating in Britain - it's almost certainly well over 100 now, and I think we can be fairly confident they're all in large conurbations. This really isn't a debate about what size a population constitutes a town. |
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 20, 2013 16:36:49 GMT
No it isn't. Whoever said it was?
What I did imply was that there are quite a few British towns, and even cities, where you will not find ghettoes of Moslems living as they would in Rawalpindi, making no attempt to adapt to British ways.
I'm not even saying whether this is a good or a bad thing - it's just a fact.
|
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 20, 2013 18:02:12 GMT
No it isn't. Whoever said it was? I apologise - there must have been some other reason you enlarged Nay's any and most, then. A quibble about his grammar, was it? I'm glad you cleared that up. We don't want people to get confused. Yes it is. And some swans are black. |
|
|
|
Post by aquatic on Nov 21, 2013 1:03:17 GMT
What I said was: MR and you seem to want to have loads of big-deal clashes. I'm intent on having even more small-deal clashes until we deal with it.I meant clashes with muslims, not between us obvious whities. Thus, I'm acknowledging there's a problem between some Brits and non-whities. I think it would be better for you to keep any racist sentiments you might have out of it. The colour of a Moslem or non-Moslem's skin has nothing to do with the issue. Oh, grow up! We're all well over the age of consent to have knowing conversation. If you don't appreciate irony, you'll always be literal - and miss the point. If you do appreciate it, and want to deflate or defuse it, you'll also be literal - and miss the wider point. The point being that Nay/cleefarquhar/allman and MR - going by their track records over the last few years, which they will trumpet rather than deny - hold immigration from Pakistan to be the chief abomination. Any whites included in that? (I wouldn't be surprised if MR started a thread on the harmless golliwog pretty soon.) You surely spotted Nay's reference to Rawalpindi's ghettoes, which is what I was responding to. Don't tell me he'd meant he could identify all-white Muslims; or half-white?; or a quarter? No, he meant what you know he meant, so don't be so bluddy disingenuous. |
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 21, 2013 1:27:54 GMT
I think it would be better for you to keep any racist sentiments you might have out of it. The colour of a Moslem or non-Moslem's skin has nothing to do with the issue. Oh, grow up! We're all well over the age of consent to have knowing conversation. If you don't appreciate irony, you'll always be literal - and miss the point. If you do appreciate it, and want to deflate or defuse it, you'll also be literal - and miss the wider point. grow up, sir. Your implication was as clear as crystal - the typical insinuation to anyone raising these questions of the dangers of cultural incompatibility that they are racists. It is not I who missed your point, nor I who failed to appreciate irony. I think I'm reasonably familiar with their posts over the last few years, the past few months excepted. I can't remember either one specifically focussing on Pakistan. Nor either specifically bracketing their concerns to those who are non-white. Or is this another example of your superior use of irony, so opaque it's indiscernible to us ordinary mortals? Nor would I. Offends your sensibilities, does it? Your irony's too subtle for me, Aqua, sorry. Must be the distraction of the confusing punctuation. You Whitehall mandarins certainly have your bags of tricks. He meant what he said, as far as I can see. Your detection of an element of racism in the remark ought, as I said, really be kept to yourself. His point would be every bit as valid were the inhabitants of Rawalpindi as white as yourself; or if instead of Rawalpindi, he' said Sofia. As it is, he didn't mention their colour at all - you did - and I very much doubt he considered it relevant, because it isn't. And I've never seen the slightest bit of evidence that he would consider it so - that is, if he's a racist, he's kept it very well concealed. To my eyes, anyway. I cannot account for those socialist hyper-reactionaries who believe otherwise, and like to fling such accusations around like confetti. Well - I can. "Repressed" and "In Denial" are the phrases that come to mind. The sort of uptight moral fascist who is so terrified of their own racism that they would force their Newthink diktat that there is no such thing as race on everyone else. |
|
|
|
Post by ncsonde on Nov 21, 2013 8:23:34 GMT
Mind you, if anyone had ever focussed on Pakistan in particular, there's a perfectly rational reason for it - the majority of Moslems in Britain are of Pakistani origin. More to the point, most of them are Deobandi, or Salafi, and even more have been schooled and practise under Deobandi ulema. In the important respects we're discussing here - the concern you express for "radicalised fundamentalism" - this is primarily where it comes from - the same source as the Taliban - or Saudi Wahhabism, (which in these respects is more or less the same thing.)
Nothing to do with race, or colour.
Not much to do with religion, either. What we're talking about here, as Marchesa'a post correctly emphasised, is primarily a political ideology.
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 21, 2013 9:06:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jean on Nov 21, 2013 9:09:37 GMT
...His point would be every bit as valid were the inhabitants of Rawalpindi as white as yourself; or if instead of Rawalpindi, he' said Sofia... You mean he's as scared of Orthodox Christians as he is of Muslims? Well, I never knew that. |
|
