BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: ollaimh
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 05:19 PM

yeah i got some charles sanders posts, full of hate and vitriol.

imaginngan islam that hasn't existed for centuries and perhaps never existed as the situation in the uk. do any of you who are so intent on attacking other religions note that the lack of good advanced public education in the uk may be partially to blame for the problems minorites have becomming setled in british society?

you have one of the industrial worlds most estrictive education systems. in canda we have one of the most inclusive--presto within a few generations most immigrants are hard working educated members of society. as i stated earlier a muslim fundamentalist was the key underground mole who stopped the home grown islamic terrorists group. so was he anti islam, were the terrorists pro islam. its not the religion, its individuals/

when you give immigrants equasl opportunities they do well. tarek fatah, a former chair of the canadian islamis association siad in a recent book --and interviews--he never found any religious discrimination in canada, anf lots of opprtunity for education and advancement. he stated that this has allowed most muslims to fit into canadian society. he had also addressed the extremists problem and syas its a minotiry. all immigrant groups have minorities that have problems. its how you deal with those problems that defines your society.

now the uk with its class bigotry has a realk problem with the education option. thatcher briefly began education reform that created howls from the upper classses when their children were not scoring higher on equal examin--across the board. in addition the uk hadsn't realy recovered from the era of empire. empoire brings lots of immigrants from the conquered countries and an empire has to integrate them if it want s to grow into a suddessful world state. the uk rejected the leap to a world state when it rejected th imperial parliament system propoed by joseph chamberlain. that failure left little england with the problems of empire and few resources of empire. the british could not over come thier religious class and ethnic bigotry to integrte all people into the imperial citizenship. based on merit and so they fell but have tyhe many residual problems of empire.

it wae a tragedy that the opportunity to create a real globe spannig commonwealth was thrown away, but that leaves the uk with a very backwatd education record. you have les than a third the univertsity graduates of canada or germany, not to mention japan china and the oriental countries hell bent on education. britain is hoist on its own petard. they wouldn't open the educqation system nor the imperial citizenship which gettoized the immigrants and has crippled the information technology industries of the future. this lack of education levels also has left behind wide spread ignorance and bigotry well displayed on this discussion.   charles sanders is sending me bigoted e mails now with a disturbingly twisted version of islamic history,\\yes they had and have a tradition of discrimination against non muslims. well the uk had an established church as well and persecuted catholics for cenuries. therte is no moral high ground here for anyone. muslmregimes have been sending solfiers to shoot protesting civilians--wellthats what happened on bloody sunday! or the greensborough massacre .

they have torture well the uk wads convicted of torture in northern ireland, and the us would be at abhu grab or guantonamo bay if they paid any attention to international law. there;s corruption in muslim countries and e\onomic stagnation but they haven't pused the wolrd to the brink of enviormental collapse with un bridled un regulated military capitalism. there really is no moral high ground here and the sooner the self righteous get over thier ignorant posturing the sooner problems will be dealt with creatively and effectively

ps

if you wnt to read the real history of the dhimmi idea in islam--it does exist--read "the legacy of jihad" after which show me how western societies haven't acted the same under even the smallest provocations

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 05:22 PM

"Perhaps you have forgotten, and yourselves cannot be bothered to plough through all that tosh again."

Not that you would have a clue as you never read then in the first place.

Which is why you have to make shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 07:02 PM

Unless you never posted any better theory Lox.
It is over a month ago. People forget.
If you REALLY have a better theory, restate it.
You make yourself ridiculous.
It is obvious you have no theory, but you keep pretending that you have.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 22 Feb 11 - 07:53 PM

""Unless you never posted any better theory Lox.
It is over a month ago. People forget.
If you REALLY have a better theory, restate it.
You make yourself ridiculous.
It is obvious you have no theory, but you keep pretending that you have.""

Same old nonsensical claptrap.

You don't get to tell us what we must re-post for your convenience.

You haven't a clue what we did, or did not, post, since you have admitted to not having bothered to read any of it.

I for one am not taking orders from you. Read what I have posted, or don't.

I don't give a shit either way, since it is you who make yourself ridiculous by demanding evidence already posted, which you will in any case ignore.

Your agenda is well known and well documented, and your supporters (the mad GfS and the miserable Ake) are the only ones here who are daft enough to give your nonsense any credence.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 02:10 AM

Keiths posts are perfectly sensible,he has provided you with the views of experts on this subject....all pointing in the same direction.

I have seen no alternative views being expressed by you, to counter those posted by Keith. All we get is "its simply a crime" no attempt to explain the massive over representation of Muslim perpetrators, and non muslin victims.

Also no comment on the attack on the teacher by muslim thugs in yesterday's paper?

Now had that attack been by Christians or Atheists on a Muslim teacher or cleric, you would have gone "ballistic".....please at least TRY to be fair.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 03:28 AM

I have restated my case many times and would happily do so again.
I would only refuse if it was non existant, or shite!
Which is it for you two?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 03:34 AM

"I have no knowledge or experience of my own to offer"
That is what you call 'stating the obvious' Keith.
The pause is because I am at present away from home and have only just managed to find a computer (with probably the slowest connection on record). Replying to your inanities comes pretty low on my list of 'things to do' in life.
Perhaps you might clarfy some of your postings - does the list of misdeeds carried out by Asians mean you believe that all Asians/Muslims/Pakinstanis/Foreigners - , are violent thugs, morally corrupt, sadists, or are the crimes/misdeeds you present likely to be committed by all nationalities and beliefs?
I have just opened a pm which I take to be a circular message to those of us who believe that Muslims are better or worse than Christians, Jews, Hindus, Brits, Yanks, Irish - whoever. It is racist garbage and appears to reflect your views perfectly.
You appear to be in good company.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:24 AM

Keith,

You don't need to restate your case because I've read it.

In fact, I've synopsized it in one short post, in a way that you described as a "fair precis".

I understand your view and I've shown how it doesn't work.

I've read your "evidence" and shown how it is unreliable.


You on the other hand respond to points of view that you invented, while ignoring points of view that have actually been stated and that you aven't been bothered to read.


This is a written medium not a spoken one, and every view stated remains above in print.

Asking me to restate my views is equivalent to being too lazy to read a book and asking the author to write the same book again just for you.

It is redundant.

I have been asking you to respond to my actual posts now for over a week and you have been unable to do so.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:49 AM

Jim,
"Perhaps you might clarfy some of your postings - does the list of misdeeds carried out by Asians mean you believe that all Asians/Muslims/Pakinstanis/Foreigners - , are violent thugs, morally corrupt, sadists,(NO JIM) or are the crimes/misdeeds you present likely to be committed by all nationalities and beliefs?"(YES JIM)

I believe that sexual repression is behind this crime.
It is well known that it drives some men to commit sex crimes.
Apply it to a close knit community and it is a reasonable extrapolation that some will conspire in the crime.
There.
I have restated my case yet again.
Now what are Lox's alternative theories?

Lox, it would be much quicker and shorter to restate your case than to keep posting all the reasons why you won't.
Not credible.
Just post a couple of theories if you have any.

I would not stick my neck out on this without scouring all your posts to make sure you have nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 04:56 AM

"Lox, it would be much quicker and shorter to restate your case than to keep posting all the reasons why you won't.
Not credible."

Bullshit keith,

I posted my opinions clearly.

I also posted my rebuttals of your arguments clearly MORE THAN ONCE.

Then you posted reasons why you couldn't be bothered to read them.


Since then all you have done, inbcluding the lines quoted above, has been to find ways of weaseling out of facing up to them.


This is because you have no answers to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:54 AM

Not talking about arguments and opinions Lox.
Just asking for your alternative theories.

Just complete, "I think the over representation might be caused by ...., or ......., or ......"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 08:10 AM

I have offered possible reasons, though not gone into depth, nor claimed that they were "the reason".

I have also been asking you to read my posts since quite early on in this thread.

I offered alternatives AFTER this fact.

So you ignoring my posts was an issue BEFORE I suggested alternatives.

Which is why you have no idea of any aspect of my position.


On the other hand, the reason it has beeen so easy for me to rebutt your position is that I have read your arguments to the point that I am able to synopsize them in a way that you find satisfactory.


Consequently, your argument has relied on wearing blinkers and making shit up.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 10:25 AM

"I have offered possible reasons"

No you have not.
They are not in your posts.
I am not making shit up.
You have not given any.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 03:52 PM

We have been debating the massive over representation for weeks now.
You have dismissed a perfectly reasonable theory put forward by entirely reputable people.
And in all that time you have come up with nothing.
A totally negative contribution.

Don, you claimed to remember Lox's non existant theories, and actually castigated me for failing to debate them!

Lox has made a complete ARSE of you.

And if YOU had bothered to read his posts, you would have known that his theories do not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:05 PM

Well keith, if its expert testimony you want:

The people who are responsible for the original study ...

... (thats research to you and me) ...

... are concerned that the results of their study are being misrepresented by those with a racial axe to grind.

- snip -

"they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type""

- snip -

and then ...

- snip -

"The authors, Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain, from UCL's Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread."

- snip -


So keith, that reads to me like such claims "that such offences were widespread" are false.


But what about Ake's fears for white girls?

Well the researchers say "Comparing the percentage of white people in the areas with black and ethnic minorities, their data, they said, showed "black and ethnic minority girls over-represented among the victims"."

Oh really?

"This challenges the view that white girls are sought out by offenders, suggesting instead that convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims."

Gosh!



Well now there's a surprise.



So it wasn't because those dirty slimy "BP's" couldn't wait to get their hands on some underage white flesh ...

The only bit of Verifiable research posted on this thread i.e. NOT JUST OPINION

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:10 PM

Now you wanted an alternative theory didn't you?

Well I reckon the most reliable explanation is the one deduced by the experts don't you keith?

Which is "convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims".


Now where were you?


Oh yes - I remember - British Pakistani men have a closet predisposition to traffcking, pimping and raping underage girls ...


Discuss...(ting)

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:13 PM

Lox: "Well the researchers say "Comparing the percentage of white people in the areas with black and ethnic minorities, their data, they said, showed "black and ethnic minority girls over-represented among the victims"."


...and I'm surprised YOU aren't raising an issue of discrimination, because the rapists are only targeting girls!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 05:21 PM

GfS

You should award yourself a prize for deducing that rapists discriminate against their victims.

Well done.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 06:02 PM

Lox, as I said on 8th Feb, they believed their report had been overstated, not that it should be rejected.
You quoted from the Guardian but missed some bits.

"The authors, Helen Brayley and Ella Cockbain, from UCL's Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science, said they were surprised their research, confined to just two police operations in the north and Midlands, which found perpetrators were predominantly but not exclusively from the British Pakistani community, had been cited in support of the claims that such offences were widespread."

OK the report was limited but we know from Hilary Wilmer, the police and the others that it was widespread.
Wilmer had worked with 400 families of victims and said the perps were BPs.

"The view points to the convictions of 56 men, all but three of whom were Asian and most from the British Pakistani community, found guilty of sexual offences involving on-street grooming. There have been 17 court cases in 13 urban areas in the north and Midlands since 1997.

The most recent case involved the conviction of nine men in November on sexual offence charges, relating to 27 victims in Derby, 22 of whom where white."

I said at the start that not all victims were white, just not Muslim
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping

I agree that "convenience and accessibility may be the prime drivers for those looking for new victims".
The question is why are those looking for victims all BPs almost without exception.
I have put forward a theory, you still have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 06:27 PM

"The question is why are those looking for victims all BPs almost without exception."

Not true.

Only Those in a very select area.

i.e. only those in areas affected by Pakistani gangs.

"they were concerned that data from a small, geographically concentrated, sample of cases had been "generalised to an entire crime type""

i.e exactly what you are saying.

I have checked back through my posts and found my suggestions, both stated and implied.

You on the other hand continue to Misrepresent Helen Wilmer, Me and British Pakistanis.

Helen Wilmer states that these crimes have the character of INTERNATIONAL gangs.

You are arguing that these crimes are somehow Peculiar to British Pakistanis.

Her 'Testimony' as you call it CONTRADICTS your opinion.



Why are you so determined to hang on to your opinion that British Pakistani men are closet perverts?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 23 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM

Now then, here's an interesting thing. Armchair Keith has gone all the way through this thread doing what he does best. In short, he has consistentlt proven himself to be a Wiki Warrior of the highest order. His use of Google Search could well feature on any Internet 101 course. Unfortunately for Monsieur Le Fauteuil (Google it, Keef!) all he has achieved is a first class outlining of the weakness of use of t'internet for purposes of cut-and-paste.

Up until yesterday Keith had not actually offered an opinion of his own. His (only) debating ploy has been to seek to shift the argument when he has been challenged, moving the goalposts has been his response to any direct challenge to his increasingly outlandish statements.

I have extended you the courtesy of reading through your posts in this thread - I would suggest that you extend a similar courtesy to Lox -and it strikes me that you have consistently cited newspaper quotes from your chosen sources but not once have you actually stated your own position. I would be very happy to be proven wrong on this point.

So, sir, here is a direct challenge to you. Without deviation, sophistry, manipulation or downright distortion can you please do the following, using your own logic and argument and not depending on filleting (for your own purposes) other more learned sources such as Straw, Yasmin etc, etc:-

1. Set out your precise issues with regard to crime within predominantly Muslim communities.

2. Confirm that you do not have an agenda driven by intolerance based on race or religion.

3. Share your perspective on how - if there is, indeed, a major sociological issue to be addressed/ dealt with - any problems might be dealt with and resolutions achieved. As an aside on this point, I do not know whether you are old enough to remember the riots in Brixton, St Pauls, Leicester, Handsworth and Toxteth in the seventies and eighties. If you are, do you think there may be some lessons to be learnt about inclusivity? Were you concerned about the way in which young white women were associated with the West Indian community during that period? Are you old enough to remember how thge NINA culture was applied to the Irish in the 1950s? And, of course, going a bit further back, you will be only too well aware of the demonisation of Jews in Whitechapel in the thirties cf. Cable Street?

Keith, as a personal favour, I would implore you to please set out your concerns on the subject of Muslim "issues" . I know that Mr May started the thread but, for whatever reason, you have picked up the baton. And with some abandon, I have to say. Or, at least, that is how it appears, give the number of your posts.... You have used a numnber of Googled quotes and articles to articulate a position. For the sake of clarity, will you please set out YOUR OWN stall and stop dissembling and cliaming that you have "no view" of your own. That is disingenuous and disrespectful to the people you seek to engage.

Oh, and finally, I note that on 14 February in this very thread you suggested that Lox was siding with someone you described as "bitter, twisted and agenda ridden ...(as Cobra)..." (see post dated 14 February). I would be grateful for an understanding as to how you reached that view. As far as I am aware we have no personal history. I believe your statement reflects an ad hominem attack of the worst kind. I am also intrigued to hear from you how you have deduced that I am "agenda ridden" . Pray tell, what is my agenda and what proof do you have for your assertion? In specific terms, how, when and where have I articulated a "twisted agenda"?

However, whilst I look forward to getting an insight into your proof regarding my "world view£, I am much more interested in seeing you set out your views regarding Mr May's position at the head of this thread. And I will be eternally grateful if you can please set out your own position rather than C&P various Guardian and Goofle articles.

Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:42 AM

Lox, we know from several reliable sources that this crime is rife in cities with a large BP minority.
The study looked at a limited area, and found the crime was indeed rife there, and those convicted almost all BPs.
The study unfortunately was limited. That is all the authors said.

I do not understand Wilmer's enigmatic statement about the "character" of the gangs.
I do understand her unequivocal statement, quoted in Guardian and elsewhere, that the abusers are BPs.

I have provided an explanation.
You have provided nothing.
You say "I have checked back through my posts and found my suggestions, both stated and implied."

I ask you what they are because I have searched and found no such thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:57 AM

Cobra, I can not answer all your points in a readably short post.
Those I skip feel free to restate, one or two at a time, if you want me to respond.
I joined the debate about grooming days after Lox.
My interest is Mudcat, and there was an interesting contrast between the outrage expressed here about clerical abuse, and the silence on this abuse. (e.g. Lox and Jim).
That is how I was drawn in.
I have little knowledge so I researched it and shared my findings.
OK?

We have previous, on NI threads.
I speak against paramiltaries, blaming them for immense suffering and setting back the cause of a United Ireland.
You speak for Republican paramilitaries, and against Britain and me.
That is the agenda I referred to.
You have previously called me "STAB Keith."
My understanding is that the S is for stupid, and the B for bastard.
Your agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:07 AM

On the subject of the teacher who's face was slashed by Muslims for teaching yound students about other faiths, I see there is still no comment.

Another example of double standards?

The threads on race and homosexual marriage are full of references to brutality towards minorities, yet in this case not a word on what is without doubt a "cultural" crime.

Although I speak against "multiculturalism" and see the promotion of a behaviour which carries with it horrific health figures as folly, I am completely opposed to physical abuse of minorities.

It is my opinion that there is little "tolerance" in the form of Islam being promoted in large parts of this country.

Thr abuse of these young girls by predominantly British Pakistani Muslim families is another symptom of this "intolerance".
"After grooming, the victims are usually passed on to other family members to be used as sex objects"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:17 AM

If these crimes are culturally motivated, it stands to reason that they will only occur in areas wherer there is a large population of one predominant culture....in this case BPM's.

One would not expect to see this pattern duplicated nationwide, and the fact that it is not, does not prove in any way that these crimes are not culturally motivated.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:19 AM

Keith, please feel free to take as many posts and as long as you need to respond to my points.

I would prefer that you take your time and deal with each of the points rather than - as has been your wont so far, in this thread and in others - ignoring questions asked, moving goalposts and generally being disingenuous in selecting what you will or will not address. Oh, and for the avoidance of doubt, the specific points I would like you to address are set out. Like Lox and others, I do not and will not accept that they should be reiterated simply because you want to subvert the argument and claim that others will not respond to your requests, Requests which are unreasonable and tactically transparent.

Real life is not like that. If you adopt a position, you need to respond to the specific concerns which are raised. It is inappropriate and disrespectful to constantly ask for a recasting of questions. That is not a legitimate debating ploy and, whilst it may be reasonable to request a re. statement once, to do so continually actually undermines your position.

On the subject of NI, the simple act of taking an opposing view to you means that I have a "twisted agenda"???? Ainsi soit-il, but it is disappointing that you look to play the man rather than play the ball. However, I suppose you are consistent in that respect. FWIW, my position on both NI and Muslims in Britain is informed not solely by Google and/ or selective use of newspaper sources. In both cases I have spent a long time in situ. As a consequence I can tell you that not everything comes nicely packaged in black and white, that there are a myriad of factors which influence real life, that not everything you read in newspapers is either accurate or appropriately reported.

The infuriating thing about your position is that you freely acknowledge, on one level, that you have no real knowledge of the subject under discussion, yet you build a wall around a construct derived from newspaper cuttings and Google. You then repel all boarders by simply refusing to engage in any intellectual way.

I would much rather that you share your own views - forget Straw et al .

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:16 AM

"there was an interesting contrast between the outrage expressed here about clerical abuse, and the silence on this abuse. (e.g. Lox and Jim)."

More made up shit.

I have hardly posted anything at all on the subject of clerical abuse.

The idea that I hhave a fascination with one and not the other is an outright lie.


Then this from your reply to Cobra:

"Those I skip feel free to restate, one or two at a time, if you want me to respond."

... indemnifyng yourself from having to read the whole of a posters argument.

Keith, this is not kindergarten.

Meanngful discussion of COMPLEX issues requires COMPLEX argument.

Your approach is FUNDAMENTALIST.

ie, you completely ignore what the argument actually is, and you focus on a small part of it - hence you have NO IDEA what the view is that you are disagreeing with.


By refusing to deal with any except short facile opinions, you define your own position and arguments as facile and simplistic.


Here are the facts.


You have spent nearly a month fighting tooth and nail to defend a hypothesis based EXCLUSIVELY on racial generalizations and judgements thereof.

You base it on the OPINION of POLITICIANS, who don't actually express your view anyway, and on the opinions of experts whose views CONTRADICT yours.

When you discovered this issue, your concern was not to study it and find out the causes, but to support the conclusion that British Pakistani men are closet rapists.

YOUR CONCLUSION CAME BEFORE YOUR STUDY.

Keith, you are without any shadow of a doubt loyal to a racist view of British Pakistanis to the deliberate exclusion of all other possibilities which you refuse to consider.

I have given you the benefit of the doubt so many times that I have lost count.

But you still hang on to it like a good british bulldog.

You lie about my views again and again, you lie about your "witnesses" views and you lie about British Pakistanis.

So just in case there is any doubt, you are a racist Liar.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:55 AM

Lox, Jim posted copiously on clerical abuse, and I am sorry if I overstated your interest.
But, you say,"I have hardly posted anything at all on the subject of clerical abuse." whereas you posted nothing at all on BP abuse of children, except to understate it.

You say I "defend a hypothesis based EXCLUSIVELY on racial generalizations and judgements thereof."
Not true.
The hypothesis is based EXCLUSIVELY on sexual repression.

Nothing racist.
No lies.

Here again is the Guardian piece on the Dando report.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/06/child-sex-trafficking-racial-stereotyping
The authors do not refute that BPs are the abusers, only that all the victims are white, which I always acknowledged.Then it says, "Hilary Willmer, of the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping, said that since 2002 her group had supported 400 families where girls were the victims of grooming and sex abuse by mainly Pakistani men. "The vast majority are white families and the perpetrators are Pakistani Asians. We think this is the tip of the iceberg."

That requires an explanation.
You claimed to have provided some.
You have not.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 06:01 AM

Cobra, these complex issues are not best dealt with by tackling numerous points simultaneously.
I will respond to any points you care to raise, but only one or two at a time.
Take it or leave it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 06:59 AM

So "..... these complex issues are not best dealt with by tackling numerous points simultaneously..."??? Tell me Keith, do you have to turn the shower off to sing? Do you pull over to the side of the road so you can toot your horn?

You already have the points I raised. So, rather than prevaricate, just answer them. In any way you choose. Singly or in combination is fine. But please do try to be coherent and please do not insult me with Googled C&Ps. Please let me have the benefit of your own wisdom and input. By all means cite sources if you must but do try and avoid massive slabs of texts from your research (sic), presented as incontrovertible evidence to support your theses. That is, purely and simply, lazy and intellectually incompetent. You see, as others have pointed out, the sources you quote from are invariably selective (that's ok) and often misrepresentative of the wider perspective which these people hold (that's not ok). Much better that you actually apply yourself and set out your position logically, lucidly and coherently.

Also, I would be grateful for further elaboration of my "twisted agenda". Please explain how you deduce that I have an agenda in the first place.Also, what you perceive that "agenda" to be. And,finally, please tell me how and why you label it "twisted". And, no, simply stating that I have had the temerity to disagree with you previously will not cut it.

Over to you.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 07:33 AM

I have nothing more to add about your agenda.
Perhaps twisted was a bit strong.
I withdraw it.
I have answered some of your points, and I will not keep referring back to your post because this could take days.
How badly do you want answers?
One or two at a time please.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: cobra
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 07:43 AM

Thank you for that bit of clarification.

Interesting that you feel you can choose what you will or will not answer, yet you hector and bully others to respond to often specious issues which you raise. Unfortunately, these are frequently non sequiturs or, worse, downright distortions and untruths.

Given your refusal to respond, I will now take my own advice and vote with my feet. As a rule of thumb, I believe one can always learn something new in any discussion with those of a different mindset. On this thread, you have disappointed.

Over and out.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 11:47 AM

Cobra, we are all free to choose what we will or will not answer, but I undertake to answer EVERYTHING that is put to me in a reasonable way.
You only have to ask.
Out to you.

Lox,
You call me liar, but it was you you pretended to have given alternative theories.
That was not true.
Poor Don believed you and made an arse of himself over it.

You call me racist because of the theory I have adopted.
But Lord Ahmed, a BP, believes it too.
Only an arse would call him racist!
Mohammed Shafiq, chief executive of the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth organisation believes it too.
Only a total arse would call him racist!
Jasmin Alibhai-Brown believes it too.
Only a total and complete ARSE would call her racist!!

So Lox, either I am not racist, or YOU ARE A TOTAL AND COMPLETE ARSE!!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 12:19 PM

Just got home - haven's had time to catch up byt a clarification on Keith's psychobabble;
"I believe that sexual repression is behind this crime."
So if - say, a Catholic or a jew or a hindu or an atheist becomes a pimp, this is the result of sexual oppresssion - yes?

While I was away I recieved this peice of hate filled billiousness from Charles J Sanders - I presume othes have received the same
Jim Carroll

People were sick of the creeping Islamification of Britain and the failure of mainstream politicians to protect our "democratic freedoms" from the medieval dogma of militant Muslims and their Sharia law.
There are more than 100 Sharia courts practising on a daily basis.
Sharia law is a racist, fascist, paedophilic law a law which condones child marriage, imprisons women behind burkhas, legitimises female circumcision and wants to take over the world.
British Muslim MP Shahid Malik publicly declared his intent for Islam to take over Britain. An example, a Catholic school faces being taken over by a mosque after it was revealed that 95% of its pupils are Muslim. It is believed to be the first case of its kind in Britain.
Church leaders say it is no longer "appropriate" for them to run Sacred Heart RC Primary School which has just six Christian pupils.
Just 10 years ago more than 90% of pupils were Catholic. But now most are of Asian origin, do not speak English as their first language and follow Islam.
The school in Blackburn, Lancs, could be handed to the nearby Masjid-e-Tauheedul mosque.
The dhimmis are trying to obliterate the memory of Sept, 11th and July 7th by renaming the anniversary 'Fluffy Bunny Day' or something similar.
Could all catters please remember to mark these anniversary with maximum publicity at all times.
Also, another anniversary that the dhimmis would like to slip from public consciousness occurs on the first of September when a group of Islamic terrorists, following the example of their prophet 'the perfect man' , began the siege of Beslan school which resulted in the deaths of nearly 200 Christian children,. Many of the children were humiliated by being forced to drink their own urine before being killed.
Please ensure these acts of Islamic infamy are not forgotten.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:06 PM

Sorry Keith, didn't finish.
Are you claiming that criminals from other religions/cultures/nationalities commit crimes because they are weak, poor, have fallen into bad company, are morally bereft..... but Moslems commit crimes because they are culturally damaged?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:09 PM

Jim,
"So if - say, a Catholic or a jew or a hindu or an atheist becomes a pimp, this is the result of sexual oppresssion - yes?"

No.
Repression of sexuality could predispose someone of any race or faith to offend.
How can that be racist.
It is not, and I am not.

Lox resorts to that personal attack when he has no other answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 01:10 PM

Er, no.
Finished now?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 02:01 PM

"No. Repression of sexuality could predispose someone of any race or faith to offend."
Sorry, you have me confused - are you saying that Muslims are committing these crimes because they are sexually repressed, are you saying that these crimes are committed only by people who are sexually repressed, or are you saying that everbody who commits them is sexually oppressed.
Where does being a Musilm fit into all this?
What you appear to be saying is that no Muslim can be trusted with women because his/her culture makes him/her a potential pimp (not to mantion a violent thug - also connected by to Muslims in Britain)
WHAT IS YOUR POINT?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 02:49 PM

That BPs are massively over represented is a fact.
An explanation is required.

You are asking me to repeat what has been explained several times now.
Lox or Don would just say "Read the f*****g posts!"
(Except that they had never posted any explanations!)

BP men marry late and are not allowed intimate relationships before marriage.
Ahmed says that even after marriage sex is a problem for many BPs.

Repressed sexuality can be expected to predispose some, a minority, to deviant behaviour.
That would be true of any ethnic group.
This theory is not mine.
People on my list provided it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 02:53 PM

Keith,

Maybe we can agree and put this to an end.


You appear to have changed your opinion.


It used to be, that British Pakistani Men are culturally predisposed to pimping and raping underage girls.


Now it is that Sexual repression can lead to pimping and raping underage girls.


They are two extremely different statements.



I agree with the second statement.


But pay attention.


Sexual repression "CAN" be "A" factor leading to sexual deviation, and sometimes that can be the cause of sex crimes.

Pakistani culture "CAN" be sexually repressive.

It does not follow that "British" Pakistani men ALL have a predisposition to sex crimes.

Which was what your hypothesis.



The other essential part of your argument was to do with the specific new crime type of street grooming.

The experts on this subject, i.e. the ones who have done research andd arenb't just shooting their mouths off for political purposes, state that there is no "new crime type" and that this misrepresents the data.



But I am happy to rest on a conclusion that sexual repression "CAN" be "A" cause of sexual abuse (that is, in a tiny minority of cases as we have seen in the priesthood).

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:09 PM

"That would be true of any ethnic group."
Then why have you singled out Muslims?
This is all very rminiscent of the good old Enoch Powell days when all 'blacks were here to steal our jobs and defile our women' - do 'they' all have big willies like the West Indians were said to have?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 03:53 PM

Lox,
"It does not follow that "British" Pakistani men ALL have a predisposition to sex crimes.
Which was what your hypothesis."

No I have never said "all."
I have always been clear it is only a small minority, the weak and wicked, who succumb.

Jim I have not singled out Muslims.
We are talking about BPs.
The culture is quite sexually repressive, such as might drive anyone to misbehave.
You would expect a small minority to succumb.
That fits the observed pattern.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:19 PM

"I have always been clear it is only a small minority, the weak and wicked, who succumb."

Not quite.

Succumb to what?

The answer is, to a slight predisposition.

ie, a predisposition not shared by other racial groups.

Your view was that only a small minority succumb to this predisposition, whilst the others overcome it.


This view is unsupportable.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:57 PM

Lox, In response to Keith...

Lox: "So just in case there is any doubt, you are a racist Liar."

Then:

Lox: "You should award yourself a prize for deducing that rapists discriminate against their victims."

..as a response to: GfS:"...and I'm surprised YOU aren't raising an issue of discrimination, because the rapists are only targeting girls!"

Twice, you have shown, that you have the depthy comprehension of a mayfly!

You must think its just hunky dory, to throw around 'race' and 'bigotry' accusations to anyone who posts a logical disagreement to your banal crap. That, in itself, tells me you have nothing of value to say, regarding the topic, other than you standard 'one size fits all' childish, worn-out from the '60's cliches. Not everything revolves around 'bigotry' and 'racism'...unless you are one of those mental midgets, who get lost, and don't understand anything, then proceed to project that everyone else is as small minded as you! Some things require a discussion, or debate, instead of taking refuge into your isolation blanket of, "Gosh what did he say??..he must be a 'racist'..now that I told him off, I can go back to sucking my thumb".
Get real!!!
See if you can comprehend the basic idea here

Later,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 04:58 PM

ooops, the prior post was mine..if you could fix the 'Guest' to 'Guest from Sanity'

Thank you,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:06 PM

A small minority succumb to this predisposition, others overcome it, and some are not predisposed at all.
That would be my guess.
We know there is something.
Your explanation now Lox?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:08 PM

"if you could fix the 'Guest'"

I fear this guest is beyond repair ...


P.S. how's my spelling?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 05:12 PM

Better. Its nice to see that something is sinking in!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 06:41 PM

Or rather - a small minority MAY have this predisposition, but the vast majority don't, and in fact Pakistani British culture is definable, just like the rest of British culture, as being predisposed to a revulsion of such activities.

I refer you to my explanations above.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 24 Feb 11 - 10:51 PM

800! Blimey ~~~ just noticed this thread still, incredibly, going & have logged back on to it for 1st time in days.

Thanks GfS for x-refce to a thread of mine in order to try & make the egregious grottiLox see some sort of sense or logic. A vain endeavour, I fear ~~ for saying which I wonder what unfortunate and unavoidable, but in my case inaccurate, disability he will accuse me of this time.

I wonder you all go on & on feeding the foolish fellow.