UK : Pakistani men sexually abused 1400 young/minor girls

[Vikrant]

Stick to the topic.

That is the topic. As with the Partition of India, the forced repatriation of non-Brits to their homeland will make for a more peaceful, safe, prosperous and inviting England.

Giants won the wildcard. That means they are going to the playoffs. That means I am happy. That means I am off to watch the game between Giants and Padre. As far as you are concerned, please take advantage of Obama Care and seek some professional help.

Why can't you answer his question? Seems fair and topical. I wouldn't want to send immigrants who were already there back to their homeland, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with having some tight restrictions on immigrants from certain areas of the world.

Here, I am summarizing it for you so that there should be no room for misunderstanding:

a. Every country has right to enforce immigration check. There is nothing wrong with that.

b. There is a difference between enforcing immigration policies and uprooting citizens or killing them or imprisoning them because of their skin color. The latter is called human rights violation and no civilized country would ever do that.

c. I have no desire to engage in discussion with someone who promotes human rights violation. Those who advocate human rights violations are mentally ill or evil, e.g., Adolf Hitler.

Having tighter immigration standards is NOT a human rights violation. Where on EARTH do you get that crazy nonsense? You're weird.

Read it again. This time, do it slowly. Don't read it too fast.

 

[ChrisL]

That is the topic. As with the Partition of India, the forced repatriation of non-Brits to their homeland will make for a more peaceful, safe, prosperous and inviting England.

Giants won the wildcard. That means they are going to the playoffs. That means I am happy. That means I am off to watch the game between Giants and Padre. As far as you are concerned, please take advantage of Obama Care and seek some professional help.

Why can't you answer his question? Seems fair and topical. I wouldn't want to send immigrants who were already there back to their homeland, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with having some tight restrictions on immigrants from certain areas of the world.

Here, I am summarizing it for you so that there should be no room for misunderstanding:

a. Every country has right to enforce immigration check. There is nothing wrong with that.

b. There is a difference between enforcing immigration policies and uprooting citizens or killing them or imprisoning them because of their skin color. The latter is called human rights violation and no civilized country would ever do that.

c. I have no desire to engage in discussion with someone who promotes human rights violation. Those who advocate human rights violations are mentally ill or evil, e.g., Adolf Hitler.

Having tighter immigration standards is NOT a human rights violation. Where on EARTH do you get that crazy nonsense? You're weird.

Read it again. This time, do it slowly. Don't read it too fast.

Oh, I thought you were that letter c was addressed to me. I didn't see where the other poster was advocating for anything like genocide either though.

I agree that we can't just send them all back to their home countries once they've been established here, but that's still not genocide. It's just a little heartless. UNLESS perhaps, they are terrorists, habitual law breakers or something extreme.

 

[Rikurzhen]

I agree that we can't just send them all back to their home countries once they've been established here, but that's still not genocide. It's just a little heartless. UNLESS perhaps, they are terrorists, habitual law breakers or something extreme.

The outcome of your unwillingness to partition is a racial caste system or some form of oppression. Multiculturalism, Democracy, Free Markets. Pick two. If you pick multiculturalism, then be prepared to sacrifice one of the other two or have one, or maybe even both, eroded over time in order to make multiculturalism work.

Look at present-day society and all of the deeply held principles that we have to erode or utterly abandon in order to make multiculturalim work.

When someone has cancer, they never look forward to the treatment. When you say no partition, that's you trying to avoid trauma. I understand why people want to avoid trauma but what you don't see is the trauma which arises from shying away from hard decisions. If you don't make a hard decision, processes will make hard decisions for you.

 

[Vikrant]

Giants won the wildcard. That means they are going to the playoffs. That means I am happy. That means I am off to watch the game between Giants and Padre. As far as you are concerned, please take advantage of Obama Care and seek some professional help.

Why can't you answer his question? Seems fair and topical. I wouldn't want to send immigrants who were already there back to their homeland, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with having some tight restrictions on immigrants from certain areas of the world.

Here, I am summarizing it for you so that there should be no room for misunderstanding:

a. Every country has right to enforce immigration check. There is nothing wrong with that.

b. There is a difference between enforcing immigration policies and uprooting citizens or killing them or imprisoning them because of their skin color. The latter is called human rights violation and no civilized country would ever do that.

c. I have no desire to engage in discussion with someone who promotes human rights violation. Those who advocate human rights violations are mentally ill or evil, e.g., Adolf Hitler.

Having tighter immigration standards is NOT a human rights violation. Where on EARTH do you get that crazy nonsense? You're weird.

Read it again. This time, do it slowly. Don't read it too fast.

Oh, I thought you were that letter c was addressed to me. I didn't see where the other poster was advocating for anything like genocide either though.

I agree that we can't just send them all back to their home countries once they've been established here, but that's still not genocide. It's just a little heartless. UNLESS perhaps, they are terrorists, habitual law breakers or something extreme.

You are not paying attention. White extremists (such as Matthew) on this thread are advocating that all non-whites even those who have been living there for a few generations should be repatriated to their "home" countries. Do I need to explain it to you what is wrong with that? Do I need to tell you how heinous that promotion is?

Most likely no country will take them because they are British citizens which means Britain will have to put them in some sort of internment camp. This sort of action was taken against Japanese Americans during World War II which by the way has become a shameful spot in American history. Do you want to repeat that? If not then take a chill pill.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Do I need to explain it to you what is wrong with that? Do I need to tell you how heinous that promotion is?

Apparently a lot of people need to explain to you how wrong it is to destroy British culture by allowing other cultures to flourish within the borders of the UK. Do you have any idea how heinous that activity is? Human rights are being trampled in order to make multiculturalism work there. People are being arrested for "racial hate" when they criticize groups.

Let me make this very simple for you - No racial groups means no one is ever arrested for racial hate. Freedom of speech can be restored, freedom of association can be restored. Closer community ties can be restored. Multiculturalism has resulted in native Brits in need being placed lower on community welfare lists than newcomers. That's obscene. The welfare infrastructure was established so that Brits could take care of Brits. Now Pakistanis are treated the same as native Brits. This invasion erodes the health of the community.

Your do-nothing proposal simply let's the cancer of multiculturalism metastasize unchecked. When you're dealing with cancer you have to DO SOMETHING. Doing nothing, as you suggest, is not an option.

 

[Rikurzhen]

To expand on the above in the American context. We now have the NSA and other police agencies spying on Americans. Why? Because of Islamist threats. Every American now has to live in a police state in order to make Multiculturalism work. I'd rather deport all ethnic/religious minorities and then tear down the police state like South Africans tore down their Apartheid apparatus.

Suffer the harm during one finite period and then enjoy civil society thereafter. Multiculturalism is the destroyer of culture and community and of freedom. No Muslims in America means no "Americans" fighting for ISIS.

 

[I.P.Freely]

many hundreds of kids abused by christians

With the full cooperation of the government in return for votes. Forcing the police to sit back and let it happen under their noses

STOP DEFENDING RACIST PAKISTANI CHILD RAPISTS

@Phoenall the day I take advice from a christer goy holocaust denying social security cheat will be never.
Ps Yok I have never defended any convicted rapist, so sick note show me where I did.

 

[I.P.Freely]

Do I need to explain it to you what is wrong with that? Do I need to tell you how heinous that promotion is?

Apparently a lot of people need to explain to you how wrong it is to destroy British culture by allowing other cultures to flourish within the borders of the UK. Do you have any idea how heinous that activity is? Human rights are being trampled in order to make multiculturalism work there. People are being arrested for "racial hate" when they criticize groups.

Let me make this very simple for you - No racial groups means no one is ever arrested for racial hate. Freedom of speech can be restored, freedom of association can be restored. Closer community ties can be restored. Multiculturalism has resulted in native Brits in need being placed lower on community welfare lists than newcomers. That's obscene. The welfare infrastructure was established so that Brits could take care of Brits. Now Pakistanis are treated the same as native Brits. This invasion erodes the health of the community.

Your do-nothing proposal simply let's the cancer of multiculturalism metastasize unchecked. When you're dealing with cancer you have to DO SOMETHING. Doing nothing, as you suggest, is not an option.

Absolute drivel. Where are you from? in a yougov poll 80% of Brits were happy with British Muslims living in the UK.

 

[I.P.Freely]

YouGov poll on eve of Ramadan shows Muslims commitment to British values as Islamic Relief announces new government funding -
“Sixty-three per cent of British Muslims declare themselves proud to be British, while the number who do not share that pride is just 13% – less than the 17% of Scots who say the same. Seventy per cent of British Muslims believe in “freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, and respecting and upholding the rule of law” – the core values of Britishness as recently defined by David Cameron – while a tiny 6% do not.”

 

[Rikurzhen]

YouGov poll on eve of Ramadan shows Muslims commitment to British values as Islamic Relief announces new government funding -
“Sixty-three per cent of British Muslims declare themselves proud to be British, while the number who do not share that pride is just 13% – less than the 17% of Scots who say the same. Seventy per cent of British Muslims believe in “freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, and respecting and upholding the rule of law” – the core values of Britishness as recently defined by David Cameron – while a tiny 6% do not.”

What a joke of a poll. Of course Muslims enjoy being British when British values are defined as tolerating others and all of the toleration has had to come from native Brits to the changes DEMANDED by immigrants. Sikhs wearing turbans while serving on police forces, being allowed to carry kirpans while knives for Brits are illegal. Terrific British values - Brits bending over backwards to appease immigrants, what's not to like.

 

[I.P.Freely]

YouGov poll on eve of Ramadan shows Muslims commitment to British values as Islamic Relief announces new government funding -
“Sixty-three per cent of British Muslims declare themselves proud to be British, while the number who do not share that pride is just 13% – less than the 17% of Scots who say the same. Seventy per cent of British Muslims believe in “freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, and respecting and upholding the rule of law” – the core values of Britishness as recently defined by David Cameron – while a tiny 6% do not.”

What a joke of a poll. Of course Muslims enjoy being British when British values are defined as tolerating others and all of the toleration has had to come from native Brits to the changes DEMANDED by immigrants. Sikhs wearing turbans while serving on police forces, being allowed to carry kirpans while knives for Brits are illegal. Terrific British values - Brits bending over backwards to appease immigrants, what's not to like.

and long may it be so,where are you from bigot?
ps Scots can wear Sgian-dubh for celebrations involving national dress.
he BNP has also announced it will be demonstrating in Woolwich. National organiser Adam Walker claims the brutal murder meant a "line has been drawn in the sand and it signals the beginning of the civil war we have predicted for years".

However the YouGov poll provides evidence that Britain does remain a tolerant country and that the far-right support remains at the margins of society. Nearly two-thirds (63%) believe the vast majority of Muslims are good British citizens, up by 1% from last November.

There has also been an increase from 24% to 33% in the proportion who believe Muslims are compatible with the 'British way of life'. Around two-thirds (65%) said on the whole most people tend to get along well with each other.

 

[Rikurzhen]

ps Scots can wear Sgian-dubh for celebrations involving national dress.
he BNP has also announced it will be demonstrating in Woolwich. National organiser Adam Walker claims the brutal murder meant a "line has been drawn in the sand and it signals the beginning of the civil war we have predicted for years".

However the YouGov poll provides evidence that Britain does remain a tolerant country and that the far-right support remains at the margins of society. Nearly two-thirds (63%) believe the vast majority of Muslims are good British citizens, up by 1% from last November.

There has also been an increase from 24% to 33% in the proportion who believe Muslims are compatible with the 'British way of life'. Around two-thirds (65%) said on the whole most people tend to get along well with each other.

How people poll today is immaterial to the issue of the future in that nothing is settled today. Look at the rise of anti-immigrant parties - 10 years ago this would have been unimaginable - so the question is which way are trends moving and what is in store 10 or 30 years from now. When you have John Cleese saying that he doesn't recognize London as an English city any longer then that's an early warning sign of a coming disaster - the only questions are how long away and how severe the solution. If all Muslims changed their religion, changed their names, changed their culture and became Brits, then that might change the trajectory but that's unlikely to happen. Look, civil wars happen all the damn time. Look at how Yugoslavia blew up, right there in Europe, precisely over multiculturalism. You can only push people so far and then they rise and defend their culture and community.

 

[Phoenall]

Time to undo the Partition of India. Right?

Stick to the topic.

That is the topic. As with the Partition of India, the forced repatriation of non-Brits to their homeland will make for a more peaceful, safe, prosperous and inviting England.

Giants won the wildcard. That means they are going to the playoffs. That means I am happy. That means I am off to watch the game between Giants and Padre. As far as you are concerned, please take advantage of Obama Care and seek some professional help.

Why can't you answer his question? Seems fair and topical. I wouldn't want to send immigrants who were already there back to their homeland, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with having some tight restrictions on immigrants from certain areas of the world.

Here, I am summarizing it for you so that there should be no room for misunderstanding:

a. Every country has right to enforce immigration check. There is nothing wrong with that.

b. There is a difference between enforcing immigration policies and uprooting citizens or killing them or imprisoning them because of their skin color. The latter is called human rights violation and no civilized country would ever do that.

c. I have no desire to engage in discussion with someone who promotes human rights violation. Those who advocate human rights violations are mentally ill or evil, e.g., Adolf Hitler.

Is there not a need for uprooting or killing certain citizens when they turn feral and want to take over the country. It is called defending against terrorism and violence and is defending your human rights against violation.

You show you want to engage in human rights violations when they are done to the indigenous, does this make you evil or mentally ill like Mohamed ?

 

[Phoenall]

YouGov poll on eve of Ramadan shows Muslims commitment to British values as Islamic Relief announces new government funding -
“Sixty-three per cent of British Muslims declare themselves proud to be British, while the number who do not share that pride is just 13% – less than the 17% of Scots who say the same. Seventy per cent of British Muslims believe in “freedom, tolerance of others, accepting personal and social responsibility, and respecting and upholding the rule of law” – the core values of Britishness as recently defined by David Cameron – while a tiny 6% do not.”

What a joke of a poll. Of course Muslims enjoy being British when British values are defined as tolerating others and all of the toleration has had to come from native Brits to the changes DEMANDED by immigrants. Sikhs wearing turbans while serving on police forces, being allowed to carry kirpans while knives for Brits are illegal. Terrific British values - Brits bending over backwards to appease immigrants, what's not to like.

and long may it be so,where are you from bigot?
ps Scots can wear Sgian-dubh for celebrations involving national dress.
he BNP has also announced it will be demonstrating in Woolwich. National organiser Adam Walker claims the brutal murder meant a "line has been drawn in the sand and it signals the beginning of the civil war we have predicted for years".

However the YouGov poll provides evidence that Britain does remain a tolerant country and that the far-right support remains at the margins of society. Nearly two-thirds (63%) believe the vast majority of Muslims are good British citizens, up by 1% from last November.

There has also been an increase from 24% to 33% in the proportion who believe Muslims are compatible with the 'British way of life'. Around two-thirds (65%) said on the whole most people tend to get along well with each other.

Kithman and Taqiya

 

[I.P.Freely]

ps Scots can wear Sgian-dubh for celebrations involving national dress.
he BNP has also announced it will be demonstrating in Woolwich. National organiser Adam Walker claims the brutal murder meant a "line has been drawn in the sand and it signals the beginning of the civil war we have predicted for years".

However the YouGov poll provides evidence that Britain does remain a tolerant country and that the far-right support remains at the margins of society. Nearly two-thirds (63%) believe the vast majority of Muslims are good British citizens, up by 1% from last November.

There has also been an increase from 24% to 33% in the proportion who believe Muslims are compatible with the 'British way of life'. Around two-thirds (65%) said on the whole most people tend to get along well with each other.

How people poll today is immaterial to the issue of the future in that nothing is settled today. Look at the rise of anti-immigrant parties - 10 years ago this would have been unimaginable - so the question is which way are trends moving and what is in store 10 or 30 years from now. When you have John Cleese saying that he doesn't recognize London as an English city any longer then that's an early warning sign of a coming disaster - the only questions are how long away and how severe the solution. If all Muslims changed their religion, changed their names, changed their culture and became Brits, then that might change the trajectory but that's unlikely to happen. Look, civil wars happen all the damn time. Look at how Yugoslavia blew up, right there in Europe, precisely over multiculturalism. You can only push people so far and then they rise and defend their culture and community.

John Cleese oh please I repeat where are you from bigot?

 

[I.P.Freely]

Stick to the topic.

That is the topic. As with the Partition of India, the forced repatriation of non-Brits to their homeland will make for a more peaceful, safe, prosperous and inviting England.

Giants won the wildcard. That means they are going to the playoffs. That means I am happy. That means I am off to watch the game between Giants and Padre. As far as you are concerned, please take advantage of Obama Care and seek some professional help.

Why can't you answer his question? Seems fair and topical. I wouldn't want to send immigrants who were already there back to their homeland, but there wouldn't be anything wrong with having some tight restrictions on immigrants from certain areas of the world.

Here, I am summarizing it for you so that there should be no room for misunderstanding:

a. Every country has right to enforce immigration check. There is nothing wrong with that.

b. There is a difference between enforcing immigration policies and uprooting citizens or killing them or imprisoning them because of their skin color. The latter is called human rights violation and no civilized country would ever do that.

c. I have no desire to engage in discussion with someone who promotes human rights violation. Those who advocate human rights violations are mentally ill or evil, e.g., Adolf Hitler.

Is there not a need for uprooting or killing certain citizens when they turn feral and want to take over the country. It is called defending against terrorism and violence and is defending your human rights against violation.

You show you want to engage in human rights violations when they are done to the indigenous, does this make you evil or mentally ill like Mohamed ?

Drivel and drool from sick note

 

[I.P.Freely]

I love the United Kingdom and our next king "Islam this ancient and noble religion".

 

[Rikurzhen]

I love the United Kingdom and our next king "Islam this ancient and noble religion".

At the moment of junction, in the midst of crisis or civil war, who is he going to side with - his people or Muslims?

The issue isn't matters today, there's still slack left in society so that people will chose to put up with multiculturalist garbage being shoved down their throats rather than rebel, which comes with high costs for the rebels, but as that slack gets eaten away and the benefits of submission to Islam no longer outweigh the gains that can be realized by rebelling, then all bets are off. This is when things get interesting. Have you ever seen a husband who swallowed his pride as his wife cheated on him and then finally blows his top? All that humiliation and the reality of what he's lost over all the years come out of him at an amplified rate. That's what happened in Yugoslavia - all those years of forced coexistence blew the lid off the top of the country and various wars were fought. At some point Brits viscerally realize what they've lost. They were already incensed when Powell made his speech and would have elected him PM if there was a way to do that in the immediate aftermath. Matters have only gotten worse since then. When legal avenues are closed with abominations like the Race Relations Act, then that displeasure is going to be expressed via extra-legal means - coup or civil war.

History has never had a successful multiculturalist society. The reasons, the dynamics, are always in play, modern sensibilities don't ease the pressures.

 

[I.P.Freely]

I love the United Kingdom and our next king "Islam this ancient and noble religion".

At the moment of junction, in the midst of crisis or civil war, who is he going to side with - his people or Muslims?

The issue isn't matters today, there's still slack left in society so that people will chose to put up with multiculturalist garbage being shoved down their throats rather than rebel, which comes with high costs for the rebels, but as that slack gets eaten away and the benefits of submission to Islam no longer outweigh the gains that can be realized by rebelling, then all bets are off. This is when things get interesting. Have you ever seen a husband who swallowed his pride as his wife cheated on him and then finally blows his top? All that humiliation and the reality of what he's lost over all the years come out of him at an amplified rate. That's what happened in Yugoslavia - all those years of forced coexistence blew the lid off the top of the country and various wars were fought. At some point Brits viscerally realize what they've lost. They were already incensed when Powell made his speech and would have elected him PM if there was a way to do that in the immediate aftermath. Matters have only gotten worse since then. When legal avenues are closed with abominations like the Race Relations Act, then that displeasure is going to be expressed via extra-legal means - coup or civil war.

History has never had a successful multiculturalist society. The reasons, the dynamics, are always in play, modern sensibilities don't ease the pressures.

absolute drivel.
Ps goy where do you come from, why wont you answer this simple question?

 

[Rikurzhen]

absolute drivel.

Good for you that I'm wrong then. Your Muslim take-over of the UK shall proceed uninterrupted. With the white flight and record number of Brits leaving the country, you may indeed inherit the empty shell they leave behind.