BS: Muslim prejudice

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 10:03 AM

Thank you, but I do not require your leave to "go ahead" and "compare away."
Another who compared to you knows nothing.

As a resident of Rotherham, Ahmed has spoken on behalf of the communities in that region, particularly the families of the former steelworkers of the 1960s, from the Indian subcontinent who are now second or third generation British. He has expressed that he is anxious to see that these regions continue to live peacefully amidst the growing move towards the far right across Europe, and strives to encourage positive integration into society so that people of all cultures can live together harmoniously.

Born in the region, Ahmed has a personal interest in seeing a peaceful resolve to the ongoing bloody dispute in Kashmir and seeks international mediation to achieve this. As well as being an active figure in the Indian Subcontinent, he has worked on the plight of Muslims around the world ranging from the collapse of former Yugoslavia, especially to the Bosniaks and Palestinians. He has been on many delegations to the Arab world, the US, Eastern Europe, Africa, the former states of the USSR and the Far East, meeting with heads of state to discuss their respective problems and how he may be able to assist them.

Ahmed helps with various charitable causes and is on the board of several organisations from local groups such as his position as President of South Yorkshire Victim Support, to international bodies such as his board membership on the SAARC Foundation.

Ahmed was among the founders of The World Forum, an organization set up to promote world peace in the after math of the 9/11 with an effort to build bridges of understanding between The Muslim World and the West by reviving a tradition of Dialogue between people, cultures and civilizations based on tolerance

But, Lox has spotted flaws in his testimony, so we should discard it.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:52 AM

Go ahead.

Compare away, it means nothing.

You have nothing better to argue which shows how weak your position is.

And I'm not bothered about whether anyone is devastated or not.

It is irrelevant.

In this debate, my criticisms of their comments stand unchallenged, in particular those of cryer and Brown.

Khan and Straw two merely give an opinion without saying why they have that opinion.

So just like you, they provide no real evidence.

I think Alan and others, including me, would be very interested to learn more about this subject.

The longer we spend discussing one of the weaker hypotheses to the exclusion of others, the less likely we will be to ever learning anything of any real value.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:42 AM

400
Alibhai-Brown.
Ugandan-born British journalist and author of Indian descent. Currently a regular columnist for The Independent and the Evening Standard,[1] she is a well-known commentator on issues of immigration, diversity and multiculturalism.[2][3] She is a founder member of British Muslims for Secular Democracy.

But what does she know compared to the great Lox, who lived near some Muslims for a while.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:39 AM

I will compare you to them Lox, because you are asking us to believe you and dismiss what they say.
You say that "Their arguments are fundamentally flawed and I have shown how."
They must be devatated!
Straw.
He served as Home Secretary from 1997 to 2001, Foreign Secretary from 2001 to 2006 and Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons from 2006 to 2007 under Tony Blair. From 2007-2010 he was the Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and the Secretary of State for Justice, appointed as part of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's first Cabinet. Straw is one of only three people to have served in Cabinet continuously from 1997 to 2010.

But you can spot flaws invisible to him.
Or, you could be wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 09:26 AM

"You call people names like racist"

No - I've been repeatedly clarifying for some time now that the hypothesis that British Pakistanis and Moslems are culturally predisposed to the enslavement and abuse of underage girls is a racist hypothesis.

It is a racist hypothesis.

Discussion is a good idea.

Investigating a subject with a view to finding out what is going on and why is a good idea.

Starting off with a racist hypothesis and then defending it thoruhg thick and thin is not a helpful way of learning anythng about the subject.

That is a single minded approach, which merely investigates the marit of a single hypothesis.

If you investigate the crimes and their causes properly, and at the end of your investigation you have eliminated all possible variables except the one which discriminates based on race/religion, and if the evidence you uncover supports that hypothesis repeatedly, then pperhaps you might be onto something.

In this case neither of the above has been true. There is no real evidence and there remain many alternatives.

The fact is that Misogyny is a global issue, and if you doubt that then just go down to your local newsagent and look at all the magazines on the top shelf which feature young white girls alomost exclusively, or type in the word "sex" to google and follow up on one of the many porn links that will come up, and notice that young white girls predominantly are being treated as a commodity by men of every culture all over the world.

It is not a peculiarly Pakistani fascination.

Alan, I would like to invite you to actually read my posts instead of just stating, as keith has been, that i just go around calling people racist.

What I did do was ask wy he was so loyal to these ideas.

The cinversation has of course moved on since then and so, it seems, has Keith, so I have no wish to revive it as it was a headache.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 08:48 AM

I see Cameron has played the race card today.

I wonder Lox if you're maybe making it too easy for Cameron. You call people names like racist, when they are voicing quite legitimate concerns. If moderate politicians can't debate openly - can't say something is going wrong with a part of the community that is producing suicide bombers and now these terrible sex crimes, you are making it very easy for the tory party - which as we have we have seen in the past is a far from moderate party.

Kinnock did the same sort of thing when he he insisted on a going for a policy of nuclear disarmament - at a time when Galtieri could have solved all his problems with one nuclear bomb, had we been so disarmed.

Principles are something that people will respect when you are in power - not a way of demonstrating to the electorate that you are too weak to face up to the problems and responsibilities of power.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 08:07 AM

Ake,

I posted this video on its own thread a while back.

Watch it the whole way through, and listen to his story.

The dehumanization of Women and young girls is not limited to any culture.

I would suspect that the reason why gangs prey mainly on white girls is the same reason as the internet is full predominantly of porn featuring young white girls.

But here's the video anyway.

I hope you watch it as whether you look at it in or out of context, it is a powerful one.

You have to see it all though to get the point, so don't be fooled at the start into thinking its something you've heard before.

Misogyny


.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 07:07 AM

"Was Alibhai-Brown and Ahmed lying, and Straw and Cryer deluded?"

Their arguments are fundamentally flawed and I have shown how.


Keiths repeated tactic of comparing them with me is maeningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 Feb 11 - 02:43 AM

Was Alibhai-Brown and Ahmed lying, and Straw and Cryer deluded?
If not, Lox is wrong and the grooming and abuse of young girls by BP gangs IS a signicant issue.

Which is easier to believe?

He lived in a muslim area for a year and a bit.
The others have rather better credentials.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 11:45 AM

What makes these gangs different, is that they target non Muslims.

They then "groom" them and "traffick them to other members of the Pakistani community...mainly relatives.
The children are then dehumanised and treated as commodities...as Mr Straw says, like pieces of meat.
In my opinion this crime is aggravated by the cultural background of the criminals, who are taught that young mainly white young Non Musil girls are unclean and immoral.

Even if these children were deemed immoral by the self righteous bastards who teach Islamic Fundamentalism, the practice of trafficking these young girls would still be racially inspired.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 11:08 AM

Well Ake, of the last 2 reports I have read about Trafficking, the first referred to a romanian gang in manchester, the ringleaders of whom (another family operation) were also convicted. The second stated that the vast Majority of trafficking of children goes on in London and the largest group of victims are african children.

"street grooming is part of the process of "trafficking". "

Trafficking is not exclusive to Pakistanis by even the wildest Margin of error.

The only thing that makes these gangs different is the way they capture their victims - on the street.

You state that "street grooming is part of the process of "trafficking"", but you are merely expressing an opinion, you are not referring to any legal definition.

In fact, upon analysis, it is clear that trafficking, which is the process of exchanging commodities (in this case the young girls are treated as commodities) does not include "street grooming".

First the victims are captured, then they are trafficked.

Street grooming is merely the method of capture.

Trafficking of minors, majors, boys, girls, men or women is not a crime committed predominantly by Pakistanis.



Good Soldier Schweik, I agree whole heartedly with your last post.

If you were concerned that i had left anyone out, perhaps we should make sure we don't neglect haermaphrodites and transexuals who also should never be subject to rape or trafficking for the purposes of abuse.

I think we have covered that now.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 10:42 AM

The latest convictions of Pakistani Muslims in the North of England, were brought under "section 53 of the 2003 sexual offences Act"

The crime of rape does not constitute part of that section.

Amendments relating to prostitution

.Trafficking

57.Trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation.
58.Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation.
59.Trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation.

The charges were brought under section 58....rape need not be involved....street grooming is part of the process of "trafficking".

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 09:00 AM

"You allege that you don't have time to read my posts,"

No, I do have the time, but this is a hobby, not a job!
No one has to read all of your posts, or mine.
Everyone is free to pick what they respond to.

I am sure I am not the only one who glazes over when your mega posts appear.
If you want to be read, be brief.

Try to be a bit more like me Lox.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:53 AM

I would hope that all rapists fo all women, underage or not, were given proper trials and convicted of their crimes.
not just women, abusers of all nationalities and all tastes, that includes homosexuals who abuse minors too.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:38 AM

"You somehow just know that they must be wrong, but you can not articulate how you know this."

No Keith, I have given very thorough attention to this view and found it to be shallow its premise fundamentally flawed and unsupported.

You wouldn't know this as you haven't bothered to read, let alone digest and understand my posts.

Your reason for backing ut is that I am thorough.


GSS,

"If a Muslim or Hindu or jehovahs witness or anyone else commits an illegal act in England, they must expect to be dealt with by English Law"

The criminals who committed the crimes reported in the times wre convicted andd jailed.

This debate is about keith and Ake arguing that these crimes are the somehow unque to British Pakistanis and that this is becausde British Pakistani Moslem clture makes them slightly more predisposed to committing such crimes.

Such a hypothesis is not only unsupportable, but constitutes little more than paranod delusion.


I am concerned that one of Keiths star witnesses, as reported by Yasmin Brown, has apparently got away with his crimes.

His other star witness, Lord Ahmed is of course already a convicted criminal for an unconnected offence.


I would hope that all rapists fo all women, underage or not, were given proper trials and convicted of their crimes.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: The Sandman
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:19 AM

I am Equally disgusted by Muslim anti women attitudes, and the sexual and physical abuse of minors, that has been carried out by RC priests and condoned and ignored by the higher e3chelons of the Roman catholic church.
Abuse is abuse, whoever the abusers, or whatever their religion , they should be punished according to the law of the country that the abuse was commited in.
If I went to a Muslim country and committed an offence AGAINST THE LAW OF THAT COUNTRY, I would expect to be dealt with according to the law of that country, Not by English Law, If a Muslim or Hindu or jehovahs witness or anyone else commits an illegal act in England, they must expect to be dealt with by English Law

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 08:06 AM

Not true.
I have not the knowledge or experience to explain what has happened.

Essentially the same explanation has now been given by Straw, Cryer, Ahmed and Alibhai-Brown.

I think they are probably right, and certainly merit attention.
You somehow just know that they must be wrong, but you can not articulate how you know this.

Let us leave it there.

I will answer any questions not buried in screenfuls of text, but let us leave it there.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:48 AM

"It can sometimes broaden my own outlook."

Your outlook is fixated on proving that British Pakistanis commit these crimes, not for the same reasons as other demographcs do, but because they are British Pakistanis.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:46 AM

Once again Keith, you attempt to divert attention away fromn the fact that you have failed utterly to explain your long string of self contadictions and to answer any of the questions or arguments put to you.

You allege that you don't have time to read my posts, but you do have time to go trawling through the Daily Mail.


But of course you haven't actually taken the time to read the article she posted.

It talks about violence against a wife from her husband.

It talks about Pakistani men being unfaithful to their wives with white girlfriends.

it talks about young Pakistani men cruising for White girls.

And it talks about a man who subjected his wife to violence and rape and then subjected young white girls to rape.

i.e. he was a brute and a rapist from the word go.

Why hasn't he been arrested for these crimes?

Why didn't Yasmin Alibhai Brown go straight to the police - "officer, a man has just confessed to me that he has committed numerous acts of statutory rape"?

She holds him up as a martyr and glowingly reports as to his helpful charity work ...

There are deep and unpleasant inconsistencies in her story.

In addition, we know from the verified report that the crimes reported in the times were organized by a gang annd that the ringleaders were convicted.

Why has this guy been spared?

Keith meanwhile argues that when men are lonely they go out to rape to seek emotional succour.

What the fuck do you think rape is?

Do you think its about lonely people looking for someone to make them feel less lonely?

Such an outrageous load of tripe deserves no response.

On the subject of cultural disposition toward violence agiainst wives,

did you know that in the UK marital rape wasn't a crime until 1992 because legally a wife was considered the property of her husband in common Law?

So how much does that cultural aspect of BRITISH Pakistanis lives affect cases of domestic violence?

Is there anything peculiarly pakistani about the crime of domestic violence?

NO!


And finally, Keith thinks that my contention that there is no support for the idea that British Pakistani culture is responsible for the abduction and rape of white girls does not represent British Pakistani views but only Moslem clerics.

In that case he must believe, if I am wrong, that British Pakistanis accept that they have a cultural predisposition to abduction and rape of underage girls.

hmmm ... how likely is that?

I think you would have to travel quite deep into the recesses of Keiths fantasy world to find existence of that paradigm.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:38 AM

I do know what this bloke thinks.
I enjoy exchanging views with people of a different outlook.
It can sometimes broaden my own outlook.
(Not Lox or Jim obviously.)

I do not understand why those two, and Don, get so angry and nasty.

It should be just folk, with a love the same songs, having a friendly banter.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: GUEST,Alan Whittle
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:29 AM

Why do you keep on squabbling Keith?

You know what this bloke thinks - you know you don't agree with him. Nuff said, really. Last week it was with Jim Carrol.

Don't you feel the need for peace in your life?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 07:05 AM

Lord Ahmed of ­Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the ­religious and cultural guardians of those ­communities"

Just the religious and cultural guardians.
(and you of course)
Not the whole community.

Who represents them?
LOX!
"that's who"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 06:52 AM

Just been reading your post Keith,

Yasmin Browns comments included this phrase:

"Lord Ahmed of ­Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the ­religious and cultural guardians of those ­communities"

eh?

Hang on ...


I though you were saying that he represented those communities?

Is that not true?

Are they in fact angry with him?

So he doesn't actually speak for British Pakistanis as you claim?

Well thanks for clarifying that.


"Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead ­relationships become ­frustrated, their desires ­emotionally distorted"

How interesting - is this a phenomenon that only exists in Asian Marriages?

Or could it be possible that it applies across the board?

Or is the point perhaps that only Asian men respond to being in loveless marriages by committing rape?

Why don't white people in loveless marriages respond by committing rape?

If they do, is rape a realistic consequence of being trapped in a loveless marriage?

So now we know - rapists are not vilent men who seek to control and humiliate women, but they are lonely unloved men who are looking for enotional succour for their poor neglected souls.

But back to these communities and elders etc who are allegedly rounding on Lord Ahmed in such numbers ...

... do their opinions not matter, or is it only the opinion of a wealthy journalist and a wealthy aristorat that represent the views of British Pakistani communities?

It seems to me that Lord Ahmend has alienated himself from the actual community who DISAGREE with him.

So now whose views represent Grassroots British Pakistanis more accurately Keith?

Mine thats who!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:39 AM

Some Asian husbands trapped in loveless, dead ­relationships become ­frustrated, their desires ­emotionally distorted. And yes, as Lord Ahmed says, they prey on young white girls for their perverse sexual satisfaction.
Sex, for them, is not reciprocal or an act of consent. It is taken as a right, regardless of what their wives — or indeed, those young girls they prey on — think.

I recently met a young ­Muslim woman called Munee, who told me she was brought over from Pakistan to marry her cousin when she was 17.

With brutal candour, she said to me: 'It was like rape every time because he didn't want me and I didn't want him.' She ran away. And, she told me, her husband now has a 13-year-old white 'girlfriend'.
But her husband is far from acting alone in the Pakistani community. One man I met, called Taher, looks back with ­revulsion at his previous self, for he too used to prey on young white girls. Today he works for a charity and says he feels desperately sorry for the ­victims of arranged marriages. 'I was crazy — a young man with sexual needs married off to a young virgin. She was very sweet, but there was nothing between us,' he says.

'I would not sleep with her, so I started cruising with these guys looking for easy sex with white girls.'

A Number of Asian men run off to get away from forced marriages. I know of stories of savage sexual and physical abuse and ­emotional persecution meted out to rebellious sons.
He continues: 'There was one really sweet teenager — her mother was a drunk — who really got attached to me. She changed my attitude. Everybody had failed her, so I stopped behaving like that.

'I still feel guilty and filthy for what I did in the past. And I now want to help these families.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1353512/Forced-marriages-A-Muslim-peer-linked-unhappy-arranged-marriages-Asian-gangs-g

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:26 AM

It did start with that comparison, and then went on to discuss the nature of the abuse.

Left Wing Liberal Muslim journalist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown has just commented on Ahmed's contention.
"It was time, he told the British Muslim ­community, to look more closely at the ­underlying causes of the crimes committed by such grooming gangs. Time for Muslims to do more to promote UK-based marriages.
For giving an honest, informed and ­heartfelt opinion, Lord Ahmed of ­Rotherham has been assailed, abused and ripped apart by the ­religious and cultural guardians of those ­communities in a reaction that has been utterly disgraceful.
So let me say loud and clear that the coerced marriages Lord Ahmed is talking about are inhuman. Those parents who enforce them claim they are legitimate and say they provide the only way to ensure their young remain linked to extended ­family networks and prevent them becoming 'westernised'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:22 AM

Ake,

the crime of "street grooming", does not exist.

See Richard Bridges posts above which offer the most informed opinion on this subject.

Then pay attention to my subsequent post in which I argue that it should be illegal as it is comparable to kerb crawling which is illegal.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:18 AM

Here's a funny video of a boxer who keeps on punching long after he has been knocked out ...


hee hee

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:12 AM

As far as I am aware, the crime of "grooming and trafficking" for sexual purposes does not necessarily include the crime of "rape".

A groomer and trafficker may not have sexually assaulted his victim to be guilty of the crime.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:10 AM

Sorry mate, that Back Door leads straight into a brick wall.

"Street Grooming" exists nowhere in the statute books.

It is a media term used to describe the way these particular rapists go about capturing their victims.

But why stop there when I am able to point out yet another self contradiction.


You claimed (wrongly) that this debate started with a comparison between Abuse committed by clergy and Abuse committed by Predominantly Pakistani Gangs.


Now you say its about street grooming.


Now, either you are suggesting that Catholic priests have been "strreet grooming", i.e cruising around in low riders, smooth talking underage victims into ther cars and then abducting them, or you are talking about rape.


As if the issue of "street grooming" means anything without the crime of rape being committed at the end anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 05:08 AM

Keith is correct again.

"The story, carried by the Times, states that these are first cases in the UK to brought under section 53 of the 2003 sexual offences act, which outlaws "trafficking" within the UK."

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:54 AM

How would I have the knowledge to come up with such a hypothesis?
I have not even lived in a Muslim area for nearly two years, like some experts.

The crime everyone else has been discussing is not rape.
It is street grooming, though it did often lead to rape.
That is the only crime with an over representation.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:52 AM

"Is life really so full of coincidence?"


Interesting question.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:44 AM

"The crime we are discussing is street grooming."

More disingenuous claptrap.

The crime mate is Rape.

Street Grooming is the means by which these rapists capture their victims.


"Er, because there are so many, buried in long, multiple posts."

and

"There are some things I intended to address but overlooked."

are both at odds with the claim: "you can not challenge what I say".


In addition, you admit that you aren't even reading my posts properly before you reply to them and that that is somehow my fault for posting thorough argument.


Which in turn shpws that you are respondiong to selectively chosen lines out of context.

I suggest that before you respond to my posts any more, you Read them and digest what my actual arguments are.

It will require the use of your brain, and concentration, which you may find arduous and inconvenient, but which may help you at least to stop contradicting yourself.

Who knows, you may even find a genuine argument to support your hypothesis.


By the way keith, a SMEAR is a LIE told to discredit somebody.

Lord Ahmed is a convicted criminal, convicted in a criminal court, of a crime, and jailed for it.

No smear there, all evidentially supportable fact.

Not that it has any bearing on the argument, I just thought it funny that you should be condemning the criminal tendancies of british Pakistanis on the basis of a comment from ... a Pakistani criminal ...


Finally, I laughed at loud at your mealy mouthed dissociation from your own hypothesis ...

... how did it go again? it wasn't your hypothesis it was theirs, it was only yours because you argued it on this thread ... so if you hadn't been on this thread it wouldn't have been your hypothesis ...

Ahhh .... so its the threads fault you had that hypothesis is it ... did it make you have that hypothesis? ...

... nasty mean thread!


What other preposterous self satirizing crap are you going to come up with next I wonder ...

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:36 AM

I would also ask again, if this crime is purely "money orientated", why are the perpetrators predominately Muslim and the unfortunate child victims exclusively non Muslim?

Is life really so full of coincidence?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:14 AM

"PS - I note you have also ignored my many quuestions ... why is that? "

Er, because there are so many, buried in long, multiple posts.

The crime we are discussing is street grooming.
Only BP gangs have been shown to be doing it.
That is probably significant.

No one has just looked at BP gang crime and said "BP gangs are doing these BP gang crimes."
We are saying "why are BP gangs and no one else doing these crimes?"

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 04:07 AM

There are some things I intended to address but overlooked.
Inevitable when dealing with Lox's multiple, long, ranting posts.

Ahmed the convicted criminal.
He was culpable in a fatal road accident.
Inexcusable, but a driving offence, however serious, does not undermine his testimony on this issue.
A low attempt to discredit by smear.

You call me "liar" because I referred to "my hypothesis" when I claimed it was that of Straw and Ahmed.
It would have been more friendly to ask me to clarify.
I did not come up with the hypothesis.
It is not of my making.
It is only mine in that I put it into this debate.

Let us not call each other liar without making sure first.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 03:51 AM

"It is an established fact anyway, so there can not be a predisposition to rape."

Oh Good - so you don't think this any more:

""you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."


Your last post again fails to affress any of my pointsm but just gives yet another inaccurate synopsis of the discussion.

"Is it fair to say that you think it wrong to speculate on the reason?"

No - but this speculation has been wrung out and hung out to dry.

It is wrong to concentrate solely on blaming "British Pakistani culture" (as if it were somehoow isolated) to the deliberate exclusion of all other possibilities.


"The massive over representation in this crime is also a fact."

Again, this is misleading and disingenuous.

In all crimes committed by Raul Moat, Raul Moa was overrepresented.

In all crimes committed by the Sicilian Mafia, Sicilians have been overrepresented.

In all crimes committed by predominantly Pakistani gangs, Pakistanis have been overrepresented.

All are meaningless statements.

The only thing that differentiates these crimes is the manner of abduction, and the oly thing unique about the methods employed by these gangs is that they abduct their victims from the street in flash cars.

That distinction is not a factor that can be attributeds to Pakistani cylture.


"Lox, you can not challenge what I say, so you must impugn my motive."

This is another lie very clearly contradicted by the fact that all your arguments have been answered and rebutted.


So - what other aarguments would you like to dredge up to support this racist hypothesis?

PS - I note you have also ignored my many quuestions ... why is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 03:36 AM

Islamophobia is reminiscent of the great Red Scare.*
Not much difference in the level of violence between the Christian Bible and the Muslim Koran.**
You want power and control politically?   First you have to find a scapegoat.*** Stringsinger
=====
Three statements liable to rebound on the asserter's head:~~

* Anyone who remembers such incidents as the Berlin Airlift; the Czech takeover; crushing of Hungarian uprising by Soviet tanks 1956 (cont p 94); and can still use the term Red Scare as an attempt at diminishing litotes is an idiot, frankly. There was plenty to be genuinely scared of; just as there is with Islamism now.

** For differences between present differences in proselytising intent between Xtianity & some, smallish but predominant, forms of Islamism, please see my post above of 2 Feb 07.52 AM.

*** A perfect description, surely of the present attitude & activities of Bin-Laden, Al-Qaeda, the Islamist "Brotherhood", &c?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 04 Feb 11 - 12:13 AM

Lox, you can not challenge what I say, so you must impugn my motive.

I have stated repeatedly that BPs are under represented in all other non terror crime including other sex crime.
It is an established fact anyway, so there can not be a predisposition to rape.

The massive over representation in this crime is also a fact.
Is it fair to say that you think it wrong to speculate on the reason?
Was it wrong to speculate on the reason for their massive over representation in infant mortality and crippling inherited diseases?
Both devastate young lives.

When eminent people with impeccable credentials produced an explanation, I chose to listen, but you just got angry.
You dismissed them with much abuse.
Why?
Ideology!
An ideology that meant you knew with unerring certainty that they had to be wrong.
Like a religious conviction.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:53 PM

Personally, I think the most telling feature of these abductions, is the FACT that not one of the unfortunate victims has been Muslim......am I the only one to find that strange, considering that these criminals must have access to Muslin children.

Surely it is not for moral reasons, as these creatures must be completely immoral?

Why don't you just have done with it and claim that these guys shagged all these underage white girls in the name of Islam? Can't you see how stupid this is? Maybe you are only allowed to shag white girls whilst your bare wagging arse is pointing to Mecca. Somebody help this bloke!

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:28 PM

"Beware of belligerent certainty."

Keith posts a hypothesis that Pakistanis, as a result of the pressures of their culture, are slightly more predisposed to sexually abusing underage girls than other demographics.

He insists, beyond all doubt that his hypothesis is reasonable ... ie it is a legitimate and supportable point of view.

He argues to support his hypothesis for A WEEK.

He provides no evidence, and his arguments all depend on a deliberate tunnel vision to function, if not outright lies.

And he warns about belligerent certainty.

Are you having a laugh?


Keith,

My position is that neither you nor I nor anyone else is qualified to assert the causes of these crimes.

My position is that to understand the causes, a proper study would have to be done as there are many variables that COULD have contributed.

My position is that your hypothesis is uncertain, unreliable and tenuous.

My position is that your hypothesis lacks evidence and even a meaningful argument to support it.

My position is that we cannot be certain about why these crimes are happening.

Let me say that again ... "we cannot be certain" ... and in the case of your hypothesis, there is no evidence at all to give it even the vaguest legitimacy.

We cannot be certain but ... no ... no buts ... we have no evidence at all.

But your certainty that it is reasonable, despite being unable to support it, means that you have defended it through thick and thin FOR A WEEK.

Your determination to prove a racist hypothesis, i.e. a hypothesis that has as its foundation assumptions that discriminate on grounds of race and its culture to the exclusion of all other variables, and in fact which rejects other variables out of hand before even considering what they might be, is very worrying.

Why would you spend so much of your life trying to sell a racist idea?

Your posts get more farcical by the hour.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 07:03 PM

"It then says that in all cases of abuse there is not an ethnic dimension.
I have acknowledged that from the start.
Only in street grooming."

Not true, you have also confirmed that you believe that British Pakistani Culture predisposes British Pakistanis to the rape of teenagers.

To be precise, you posted the following.



"You said of Ake and me "you are suggesting that their culture inspires an inevitable predisposition to the grooming and abuse of underage girls,"

Delete "inevitable" with "slight" and that, for me, is fair comment."



It follows according to your Logic that British Pakistanis are more predisposed than other demographics to abusing underage girls, on the basis that they are British Pakistanis (I am unaware of any other demographics that can be said to be representative of British Pakistani culture).

Perhaps you could clarify Keith what YOU think - in YOUR opinion, are British Pakistanis, as a result of their culture or otherwise, more predisposed to abusiing young teenagers than other demographics?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:48 PM

Futile occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, economic pillage in the U.S. by the Military Industrial Complex, Boeing, Martin Marietta, etc. Wall Street and adding to this the demonization of Muslims; Osama is laughing at the U.S. and the world. Al Quaeda seems to be on the rise.

Islamophobia is reminiscent of the great Red Scare.

Not much difference in the level of violence between the Christian Bible and the Muslim Koran.

You want power and control politically?   First you have to find a scapegoat.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:30 PM

Read it again Don.
"It's an undeniable fact that many of the defendants in these cases are from a Pakistani background"
It then says that in all cases of abuse there is not an ethnic dimension.
I have acknowledged that from the start.
Only in street grooming.

I do not dispute your figure for grooming.
We are only discussing street grooming by gangs.
The have only been these 17 cases.

Frothing at the mouth.
Your posts are full of anger and aggression.
Mine are not.

Dave, it is OK to be unsure and open minded.
Beware of belligerent certainty.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:16 PM

""Only 17 cases of this particular crime actually.

Even in those areas, they are much less than half the population, so they are massively over represented.""

You are doing it again!!!

Only seventeen cases involving Pakistani or Muslim defendants, and an unknown number of cases which did not involve those groupings......i.e. White perpetrators.

Now, are you going to insult everybody's intelligence again, and pretend that the foregoing isn't true?

In just the five years from 2004 to 2009 there were 1330 cases of sexual grooming nationwide. There are no figures for the other eight years, but it seems reasonable to assume that the 1330 would be at least doubled.

The area under discussion would surely have produced many more than seventeen of those.

In answer to your reliance on cut'n paste from newspapers, here's one for you to read.

""Joan Smith   The Independent


The truth is more prosaic, in that these horrific crimes against children are not racially-motivated in the obvious sense; bluntly, they are about a business opportunity. Gangs are making money out of a demand for very young girls, and Straw is right to suggest that the victims who are most easily available tend to be white.

It's an undeniable fact that many of the defendants in these cases are from a Pakistani background. But there's no evidence that men from one ethnic origin are more likely to abuse girls than any other. External trafficking to the UK often involves gangs from Eastern Europe, but that isn't to say there's something in the genetic make-up of Russian or Ukrainian men that makes them more likely to turn young women into sex slaves. Former Soviet states have high levels of unemployment, alcoholism and domestic violence, conditions in which sexual abuse and trafficking flourish.""

What makes your sources right and this one wrong?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 06:00 PM

Dave, would there not have been some outcry from the community, or the liberal press, if that were the case?

Probably, Keith, probably. Like I said. I don't have the answer like some seem to think they do. I just know it's a difficult, distasteful and often dishertening subject.

When people get so tied up in whether the crime is a racial or cultural one they loose track of the unfortunate victims I think it may be time to call it a day. Surely it should just suffice to say that these people are criminals of the worst kind. Maybe if identifying why there is a spate of predominantly asian gangs doing these attrocius things in the UK then it would help to stop them. But we all know such arguments are primarily for our own self gratification and to show how much more intelligent our arguments are than our neighbours.

In this case I am afraid none of them are. Including this one. Sorry.

D.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:17 PM

""All the anger and abuse comes from your side.
We have been very measured in the terms we have used in comparison.""

Classic Keith.....Accuse others of what you do yourself.

Quote the posts in which I have abused you personally rather than attacking your arguments and attitudes!

If you can't then STFU!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Lox
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 05:03 PM

"The explanation for the BP gangs was not mine."

Oh really? Then what is this?

"My hypothesis is that the absence of girls available for sexual relationships in the BP culture may be linked to their young men being over represented in this type of crime."

So you are not only lying about British Pakistanis and about my words, but also about your words.

By the way, could your expert witness and arbiter of Morality possibly be convicted criminal Lord Ahmed? Expelled from the Labour Party in 2009?


You have nothing Keith.

Your summary is "feebly" provocative at best and sheer deluded fantasy at worst.

The first post is about "Muslim Prejudice".

The posts about Pakistanis were made in this context.

Your defence of these posts, and your hypothesis were made in this context.

Your argument has been torn yto ribbons, so the only tactic you have left is to shut your eyes, pretend it never happened, and tell lies.


And I love Akes preposterous argument that if the liberal press didn't make an outcry against something then it never happened.


You are a couple of poisonous old fools.

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: akenaton
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 04:14 PM

Personally, I think the most telling feature of these abductions, is the FACT that not one of the unfortunate victims has been Muslim......am I the only one to find that strange, considering that these criminals must have access to Muslin children.

Surely it is not for moral reasons, as these creatures must be completely immoral?

Subject: RE: BS: Muslim prejudice
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Feb 11 - 12:57 PM

Dave's suggestion.
"I am not disagreeing or agreeing - just wondering if the figures have been skewed by an inherent predjudice against asian gangs by police? Or are the groups of non-moslem paedophiles more sophisticated and not as easy to convict?"

Dave, would there not have been some outcry from the community, or the liberal press, if that were the case?