[BrewDog]

(03-23-2017 07:52 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

Maybe BrewDog was just injecting a bit of levity into proceedings, but if not...

Sikhs are held in extremely high regard in this country. Yes, they keep themselves to themselves, even more than the Indians do (who are also held in very high regard, for the most part), but they are judged by their actions, being men, oftentimes, of little words.

I've heard enough in this thread about Sikhs to believe you guys about their loyalty and honor. I don't doubt any of you.

Perhaps my responding pic that I posted regarding Affirmative Action wasn't a prime example. I just don't get the whole "Hat Religion" thing.

"I have to wear this funny hat or else I'll burn in hell for eternity." And then the Brit Police let them wear that dumb shit on duty. It's completely rubbish that some people want to be police and can't wear the uniform everyone else does. That's what "uniform" means: everyone wears the same thing.

This is the appropriate response to this political correctness: "Are you willing to wear this uniform on duty as a police officer?"

"No, I have to wear a funny hat or else God will send me to hell."

"Well then, good day sir. There's the door."

[Rigsby]

(03-23-2017 08:07 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:00 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:49 PM)nomadbrah Wrote:  

Do people really believe someone like that veiled Somali woman is a Brit?

I don't.

She is an invader and she has to go back.

I don't think she is Somali at all. If she is, she is in the 10 percent.

Who are you to say she is an invader? Maybe she really is a doctor, perhaps married to a white indigenous man with children.

And who are you to say she has to go back? Go back to where? She may hold a British passport.

I'm all for perpetrating memes, but persecuting easy targets? Low-rent my brother. I expect better of the men of this forum.

The truth is, we have all sorts here now. We can not put the cat back in to the bag. Don't like the look of her? Where do you draw the line? Don't like the look of blacks? Do they have to go back as well? Don't think so.

You draw an arbitrary distinction. She is a soft target. Let me hear that you donated at least a fiver to the gay march opposing sharia in the UK. Then you would be doing something, other than just making divisions deeper. We don't need that. I'm all for memeing the fuck out of her. But I don't think it's your call as to who goes back.

She is not Somali. Ethiopian perhaps. North African most likely. Highly doubtful she is Somalian. She is too beautiful for a start.

The islamic veil itself signals her loyalty. It's a big fuck you to Europe and European men for one.

Don't you think there is at least some minimum of loyalty and assimilation needed to be accepted in a foreign nation? Is "Brit" just any dolt who manages to swim across the canal and stay there for 7 years legally? Of course not. If you want to be accepted in a foreign country, you accept the local customs or like your Sikh example, prove that by exemplary behavior, that you are a positive, despite your foreign appearance.

I know that oftentimes the hijab and the niqab is a fuckyou to us all. But it bothers me not. What bothers me is that certain parts of London it is impossible to walk down the street without seeing anything else.

They could be wearing pink spacemen's helmets for all I care. But if the street I walk down has nothing but pink spacemen's helmets, then there is a problem.

Don't conflate the two. What someone wears is the least of our worries. Even if it is a subtle 'up yours'. Proportion. The reason she is getting flak is because, for the most part, her 'people' don't even pretend to give a shit.

I'm all for well-behaved, respectful, hijab wearing women. But it's a problem of SCALE.

In fact, just talking about that woman in particular for the moment. She looks to have a deep level of shame on her face that she is trying to hide by being aloof and arrogant. I might be wrong.

For me, I want to attack the government, the politicians and the press. The police I don't have a problem with, and the odd hijab wearing woman can be contained. But parts of London are lost. I saw that 10 years ago before I got out. Not a white person in site. White flight.

What to do?

[nomadbrah]

Let's play the stupid questions game for one second.

Why should a Somali become a Brit, when a Brit can't become a Somali?

[Rigsby]

(03-23-2017 08:28 PM)BrewDog Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 07:52 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

Maybe BrewDog was just injecting a bit of levity into proceedings, but if not...

Sikhs are held in extremely high regard in this country. Yes, they keep themselves to themselves, even more than the Indians do (who are also held in very high regard, for the most part), but they are judged by their actions, being men, oftentimes, of little words.

I've heard enough in this thread about Sikhs to believe you guys about their loyalty and honor. I don't doubt any of you.

Perhaps my responding pic that I posted regarding Affirmative Action wasn't a prime example. I just don't get the whole "Hat Religion" thing.

"I have to wear this funny hat or else I'll burn in hell for eternity." And then the Brit Police let them wear that dumb shit on duty. It's completely rubbish that some people want to be police and can't wear the uniform everyone else does. That's what "uniform" means: everyone wears the same thing.

This is the appropriate response to this political correctness: "Are you willing to wear this uniform on duty as a police officer?"

"No, I have to wear a funny hat or else God will send me to hell."

"Well then, good day sir. There's the door."

There is a reason why Sikhs wear a Turban - because they do not cut their hair. It would be down below their arse, if they did not.

Really, the Sikh population is very small here. Very outnumbered. I think they get left alone because if they didn't, well, it wouldn't end well. But I am sure they feel threatened. And I am sure, should it come to blood, they would have much respect for us white people of the UK, before they would have respect for other 'certain types'. Perhaps this is a romantic image. May be. But you just about never hear of any Sikh bringing shame on his family or his religion.

And as for their military record? Well, there's always the Gurkhas to compare to. No need to romanticize - there are many examples of low-character. But on the whole? They command respect.

I had a very famous Sikh friend who was an alcoholic. He died from liver failure and in shame. He did his spot in the curry houses. He did his bit on the stage. Very few mourned him. In fact, he was deeply hated by the muslim community which I had close connection to at the time.

But never mind all that. The Turban is for them to contain their hair. It's a pretty practical thing really.

My mate 'Poppy' (Popinder) would unravel his hair before swimming classes at school, and what a magnificent mane it was! Almost to his knees. He go bullied to fuck. So did I. We both got out alive. And better for it. More than most the other wankers anyway. He'd take the hits and look at me. And I'd take the hits and look at him. To fight back would have meant almost certain near-death. I worked for his father later on and he turned out to be a fine young chap. Still with his Turban. Still not giving any shit to those that had given shit to him.

That is what I call character. I'm sure he has a beautiful wife now, and a successful business. And I bet he has children. Who wear the Turban.

Good for him.

Contrary to popular belief, we are not a nation of racist beasts here in the UK.

Our roots with black people and with other religions go back a long way. I can talk about this more if anyone is interested. But I'm sure I bored the pants of y'all for now.

:-)

[Leonard D Neubache]

(03-23-2017 08:31 PM)Rigsby Wrote:  

...
I know that oftentimes the hijab and the niqab is a fuckyou to us all. But it bothers me not. What bothers me is that certain parts of London it is impossible to walk down the street without seeing anything else.

They could be wearing pink spacemen's helmets for all I care. But if the street I walk down has nothing but pink spacemen's helmets, then there is a problem.

Don't conflate the two. What someone wears is the least of our worries. Even if it is a subtle 'up yours'. Proportion. The reason she is getting flak is because, for the most part, her 'people' don't even pretend to give a shit.

I'm all for well-behaved, respectful, hijab wearing women. But it's a problem of SCALE.

In fact, just talking about that woman in particular for the moment. She looks to have a deep level of shame on her face that she is trying to hide by being aloof and arrogant. I might be wrong.

For me, I want to attack the government, the politicians and the press. The police I don't have a problem with, and the odd hijab wearing woman can be contained. But parts of London are lost. I saw that 10 years ago before I got out. Not a white person in site. White flight.

What to do?

Here's the problem. You're stuck in a no-man's land in the middle of "do whatever you want" and "I want Britain to stay Britain".

You can't reasonably tell muslims "sorry but we've reached our 'stupid outfit' quota and saturation levels have gone from 'amusing' to 'disturbing'. We're not issuing any more stupid outfit licenses".

Either they all have the right or none have the right.

I'm with camp ban-islam. It's a criminal cult (not a religion) and needs to be dismantled as if it were a fundamentalist version of the mafia.

[Valentine]

^ Agreed.

Geert Wilders has the right idea - ban all mosques, headscarves and the Quran. It's simply impossible to assimilate such a barbaric cult into modern Western culture and needs to be dealt with with an absolute ban if we are to have a hope of avoiding a war between Islam and the West.

[Bushido]

(03-23-2017 05:21 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:25 PM)Bushido Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:52 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

We must be very careful, in voicing our rightful hatred for the regressive factions of Islam which are so inimical to our way of life, that we do not lose sight of the freedoms and rights that made us civilized in the first place. Tommy Robinson's calls for a 'Guantanamo' on the Falklands where anyone who the government deems a terrorist can be sent without trial is one that should be resisted by every decent, civilised person. Such arbitrary exercise of executive power, immune from consequences or proper scrutiny, is something that has been recognised as a threat to ordinary people since Magna Carta, the document which underpins the many and varied freedoms we enjoy today.

It is one thing not to grant a man citizenship lightly, and to reserve the right to send him or his descendants back from whence they came, so long as they are not recognised as subjects. However, once those rights of citizenship have been given, he must be accorded all the rights that go with his status as a citizen of a free and civilised nation - which most crucially includes the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. It appalls me that we grant citizenship so quickly and so easily.

It appalls me that these Islamist yahoos are roaming our streets and taking over large swathes of our cities. It is still more appalling that we should abandon the rule of law, and all the freedoms it entails, for the kind of ill-conceived quick fix that this approach (Gitmo-style) advocates.

I agree with much of this. The rule of law and magna carta should be upheld. However, these ideals were not designed to be used towards our enemies.

Perhaps terrorism (or attempted terrorism) by so-called British citizens should be punished with a stripping of citizenship and immediate deportation of the direct family. Those joining jihadist organizations calling for violence against the UK should also be deported. This would provide more disincentive from engaging in extremism. And yes i would include 2nd or 3rd generations in this.

The alternative is much more terrible, though more likely, and it will only end badly for Muslims in Europe I'm afraid.

These ideas were designed for every freeborn Englishman, which in the modern age can only usefully be applied to every British Citizen.

If you can strip a man of citizenship, then that citizenship is meaningless in the first place. Your line of reasoning hold citizenship and its implicit values and freedoms in the same contempt as the line taken by leftists. One does not strip a man of something which should go to the very core of his being. One cannot. How do you strip a man who is a British citizen of his nationality? Unless you view that marker as of relatively little consequence it is impossible to do such a thing.

The only answer is to be very selective in who you accord this, the greatest of all the world's privileges (British citizenship) to. Once given, it cannot be taken away, because it is sacred, and protected by 800 years of law. It is the most monumental inheritance, quite possibly the thing that has done most to define the modern western world and all its wonders.

There is no such thing as a 'so-called' British citizen - before the law, as it must be, he and I are of the same legal personality, subject to the same duties, and with the same freedoms enshrined. To think otherwise seems to me to lead one down a very frightening path.

I understand your point, but this is a new kind of war that we are fighting. In the past citizens were united against external enemies. We are now fighting an enemy from within. Our legal institutions developed to protect British subjects, NOT our enemies. These people are raping our women and we do nothing?

Futher, historically speaking, any citizen who wasn't loyal to the Crown would very often pay for it with their life (treason, court marshall and so on). There's clear precedent there. We have become far too soft.

What I was pondering aloud (deporting convicted terrorists and their families) is surely preferable to the alternative - a murderous purge. Conservatives have one big weakness and that is being overly principled when times call for a different response. Ask yourself if your beliefs help us to defeat Islam.

We are now stuck in a place where we are literally digging our own graves. Giving citizenship to peoples who are opposed to the very Britishness you clearly hold dear and then sitting back and letting them kill us will ultimately lead to our own destruction.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Doesn't matter what you guys think.

Most European countries will be gone in the current form within the next decades. Sure - there are more favorable immigrants who will even look the same like French, Polish (8% of all births in the UK are by Polish mothers - their kids will feel, talk and act more or less like Brits). There will be others who will look different, but will have a strong loyalty towards Britain - Sikhs, Indians, some Christian Africans, Persians, Japanese, Chinese etc.

And then there will be those who hate Britian while living in it - mostly Muslims, but certainly also gypsies, some Africans as well.

When the difference in the mindset, culture, religion is too big, then there is little assimilation and with numbers of the unassimiliable there is a destruction of the original ethnic and cultural makeup of the country. That destruction would even happen if you invited too many of the loyal, but highly different immigrants. But at least that transition would be peaceful and many could live with that.

However if you invite too many of the violent and hostile tribes, well then it goes down in blood and tears some day. We could also muse whether the Jewish tribe was hostile and there are signs that at least their elite certainly is, but that is another matter of discussion.

The plans of the globalists encompass utter disintegration of all Western countries with massive promotion of race mixing (recent example - Beauty and the Beast children movie where in medieval France there are multiple black/white couples shown for the kids - I don't care if that happens occasionally but that is clear propaganda directed at the young) and destruction of the ethnic makeup of the Europe - so much that a few can rule at ease over a dumber deeply divided European population. This will be a population so divided that they will never be able to rise in unison against their oppressors. The best draconian austerity laws are not even here yet - Green Fascism Agenda21 will be so brutal and so stifling that most people will only be able to afford sitting in their small apartments hooked up to VR-sets.

A sane solution for immigration would be to only accept a certain quota of people who are of different makeup, then the original character of the nation would remain. Hostile immigrants of hostile ideology like Islam should not even be allowed to stay at all.

But this won't happen - Europe is about to become an Orwellian melting pot likely descending into a massive war. Afterwards the remaining people will be forced to believe in whatever the elite tells you to believe - 2+2=5.

Diversity is our strength.
Slavery is freedom.
Propaganda is truth.

Then on to the next candle vigil.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

[url=https://twitter.com/GarethSoye/status/845171450399014913][/url]

Heh - the fake news media - car terror is indeed so difficult. What next?

The manual GOES LIKE THIS:

Get a car.
Drive it over pedestrians at great speed.
Get out.
Scream Allahu Akbar and stab anyone you see.
When shot, be happy - your 72 virgins are waiting for you.

Seriously - the media is just nuts.

[Nineteen84]

   

Posters showing the Union Flag on fire were put up on a bus station the morning after the London terror attacks.

The shocking image of the burning flag, on a day when most flags are at half-past is now being investigated by the police.

The poster was found on the side of a bus shelter in Ladbroke Grove in Kensington and Chelsea and has since been taken down by police.
Witnesses claimed that cops dusted for finger prints on the advertising plastic frame that it had been slipped into.

Paul Pavli, who took a photo of the poster, told Mirror.co.uk: ‘There were police taking fingerprints. Any time I’d have thought “what the hell?”, but after yesterday I was just so angry.

‘I think this was done by someone who wants to stir more trouble.

‘There are people in this world who would like to cause problems in our communities.’
The Met Police said: ‘On Thursday, 23 March at 10:18am police were called to Ladbroke Grove, W10.’
‘It was reported a poster of a Union Jack flag burning had been placed in the bus stop poster display.
‘Transport for London attended and removed the poster.

http://metro.co.uk/2017/03/23/posters-of...z4cEn0gNFR

[H1N1]

(03-24-2017 12:33 AM)Bushido Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 05:21 PM)H1N1 Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 02:25 PM)Bushido Wrote:  

(03-23-2017 08:52 AM)H1N1 Wrote:  

We must be very careful, in voicing our rightful hatred for the regressive factions of Islam which are so inimical to our way of life, that we do not lose sight of the freedoms and rights that made us civilized in the first place. Tommy Robinson's calls for a 'Guantanamo' on the Falklands where anyone who the government deems a terrorist can be sent without trial is one that should be resisted by every decent, civilised person. Such arbitrary exercise of executive power, immune from consequences or proper scrutiny, is something that has been recognised as a threat to ordinary people since Magna Carta, the document which underpins the many and varied freedoms we enjoy today.

It is one thing not to grant a man citizenship lightly, and to reserve the right to send him or his descendants back from whence they came, so long as they are not recognised as subjects. However, once those rights of citizenship have been given, he must be accorded all the rights that go with his status as a citizen of a free and civilised nation - which most crucially includes the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence. It appalls me that we grant citizenship so quickly and so easily.

It appalls me that these Islamist yahoos are roaming our streets and taking over large swathes of our cities. It is still more appalling that we should abandon the rule of law, and all the freedoms it entails, for the kind of ill-conceived quick fix that this approach (Gitmo-style) advocates.

I agree with much of this. The rule of law and magna carta should be upheld. However, these ideals were not designed to be used towards our enemies.

Perhaps terrorism (or attempted terrorism) by so-called British citizens should be punished with a stripping of citizenship and immediate deportation of the direct family. Those joining jihadist organizations calling for violence against the UK should also be deported. This would provide more disincentive from engaging in extremism. And yes i would include 2nd or 3rd generations in this.

The alternative is much more terrible, though more likely, and it will only end badly for Muslims in Europe I'm afraid.

These ideas were designed for every freeborn Englishman, which in the modern age can only usefully be applied to every British Citizen.

If you can strip a man of citizenship, then that citizenship is meaningless in the first place. Your line of reasoning hold citizenship and its implicit values and freedoms in the same contempt as the line taken by leftists. One does not strip a man of something which should go to the very core of his being. One cannot. How do you strip a man who is a British citizen of his nationality? Unless you view that marker as of relatively little consequence it is impossible to do such a thing.

The only answer is to be very selective in who you accord this, the greatest of all the world's privileges (British citizenship) to. Once given, it cannot be taken away, because it is sacred, and protected by 800 years of law. It is the most monumental inheritance, quite possibly the thing that has done most to define the modern western world and all its wonders.

There is no such thing as a 'so-called' British citizen - before the law, as it must be, he and I are of the same legal personality, subject to the same duties, and with the same freedoms enshrined. To think otherwise seems to me to lead one down a very frightening path.

I understand your point, but this is a new kind of war that we are fighting. In the past citizens were united against external enemies. We are now fighting an enemy from within. Our legal institutions developed to protect British subjects, NOT our enemies. These people are raping our women and we do nothing?

Futher, historically speaking, any citizen who wasn't loyal to the Crown would very often pay for it with their life (treason, court marshall and so on). There's clear precedent there. We have become far too soft.

What I was pondering aloud (deporting convicted terrorists and their families) is surely preferable to the alternative - a murderous purge. Conservatives have one big weakness and that is being overly principled when times call for a different response. Ask yourself if your beliefs help us to defeat Islam.

We are now stuck in a place where we are literally digging our own graves. Giving citizenship to peoples who are opposed to the very Britishness you clearly hold dear and then sitting back and letting them kill us will ultimately lead to our own destruction.

My point, such as it is, is that since we are dealing in hypotheticals it is preferable that citizenship is not given to our enemies, which requires no reevaluation or compromise of our principles - rather than what you advocate, which is a stripping of citizenship. Once given, I have no problem with capital punishment, I don't think, where a very high burden of evidence is met, precisely because that is entirely compatible with the values we cherish. One can be sentenced to death for mass murder by a jury of one's peers, and justice can be handed out. This is a cost of citizenship, and a cost of civilization.

What you are advocating is a kind of relativism which has no ultimate arbitrator against which it's victims can appeal. It's the might makes right approach, and the trouble with that is that when someone else gets the power, who doesn't like the right, or black guys, or whatever, then the same reprisals and renderings you'd be happy seeing visited upon the Islamists can be used against you.

I see many people in this thread, who regularly, rightly, complain about the Government, the power it wields and the way it abuses it, now advocating the unilateral removal of a citizen's rights on the grounds that 'he's a terrorist'.

Can you imagine the conversation with the Government on why someone was being sent to prison, far away, and without trial and on an indefinite sentence? These same crooked people we complain about, and many on the forum conspiracy theorise about, these are the guys you want deciding who is rendered without trial because 'he's a potential terrorist'?

[Going strong]

About the attacker:

"Masood was born in Kent, on Christmas Day in 1964, to 17-year-old single mother, Janet Elms.

Just under two years later she married Phillip Ajao. Masood grew up in a £300,000 house.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...other.html
"

Born to a 17-year-old single mother... who later remarried to Soetoro, sorry I meant, Ajao, to live in (relative) luxury... Plus, he's "half-afro(descendant)", Muslim, radicalized in Saudi Arabia, and changed his legal name. Reminds you of someone? Could have been the destiny of Barry himself...

Except Barry's billionaire Saudi sponsors, had greater plans for him, still do...

[Bushido]

H1N1,

Who said it would be without trial? We are basically talking in semantics now. You advocate execution, I'm merely pondering stripping traitors of citizenship and legal deportations (direct family included). Parliament can make any law it pleases so long as it does not bind itself.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-24-2017 06:03 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

About the attacker:

"Masood was born in Kent, on Christmas Day in 1964, to 17-year-old single mother, Janet Elms.

Just under two years later she married Phillip Ajao. Masood grew up in a £300,000 house.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...other.html
"

Born to a 17-year-old single mother... who later remarried to Soetoro, sorry I meant, Ajao, to live in (relative) luxury... Plus, he's "half-afro(descendant)", Muslim, radicalized in Saudi Arabia, and changed his legal name. Reminds you of someone? Could have been the destiny of Barry himself...

Except Barry's billionaire Saudi sponsors, had greater plans for him, still do...

White mother has a kid with a black man, then marries another black man and has two additional sons with that other man.

One step brother even claims he does not know him despite having grown up with him.

Again a Middle Class Jihadi who turned to Islam because it gave him a structure and meaning and a certain belonging. Islam does that, because then you are instantly part of the big Jihadi army, you are the believers while everyone else is a degenerate dirty unbeliever, also you get instantly an acceptance into a tribal community. It is an ideology that works wonders on those.

His half-brother owns businesses while Masood likely lived off welfare or petty unknown crime. But my bet is that this Masood fellow had a highly different genetic stock than her husband who obviously provided well for his family.

Single mothers kill civilization just as Islam does.

[britchard]

Is it really that hard to understand what H1N1 is saying? Once a man has British citizenship, he should be afforded all the rights that accompany that, regardless of whether or not he is Muslim. On June 15 1215 at Runnymede, King John signed the Magna Carta that made no man above the law, and no man subject to illegal imprisonment and limited the Crown's power. Due process and a fair trial must be respected.

Also, I'm quite shocked that I've seen Sikhism being referred to as a branch of Islam. It is pretty much the antithesis of Islam, and statements like that just feed the 'uneducated' (I hate that word) american stereotype.

[Bushido]

(03-24-2017 08:44 AM)britchard Wrote:  

Is it really that hard to understand what H1N1 is saying? Once a man has British citizenship, he should be afforded all the rights that accompany that, regardless of whether or not he is Muslim. On June 15 1215 at Runnymede, King John signed the Magna Carta that made no man above the law, and no man subject to illegal imprisonment and limited the Crown's power. Due process and a fair trial must be respected.

I understood him perfectly well. Seems like you are missing my point. This isn't 1215 and Britain might not exist in a few decades if we keep this up. I don't think we should build a British Guantanamo either, but the "we are too principled" madness needs to stop. We need to find solutions to fix this problem or we are done for.

Also, may I point out the obvious that Britain is the homeland of its native people, the British. Yes we allow immigration for those who adapt but let's not forget who the country belongs to culturally, historically and spiritually. You don't get to become truly British overnight just because some corrupt politicians hastily give you a passport. Please before people pick my point apart again - I'm not talking in a legal sense here.

[Going strong]

Britchard and H1N1 probably are classic, respectable, typically English gentlemen (maybe even, who knows, and in the case of H1N1, the ex-military officer type). Much respect to them.

But, we don't live in a gentleman's world anymore. Here in the West, we've let millions upon millions of hardly-civilized (penniless) illegals enter our lands, mainly single males from Africa, or crazy jihadists, and as a result, our world is now filled with violence, danger, unemployment, and general ugliness. (Plus, ultra-feminism and faggotry+lesbianism, but these cannot be pinned onto the migrants, quite the contrary, come to think of it)

So, the age of Gentlemen has come and go.

The times have come for efficient, military action, in Europe; the gentlemen can take over after the cleaning has been done... and hopefully, we're heading for a massive cleaning, once the Elites understand that their own survival is also at stakes.

(By the way, britchard, regarding your avatar, do you know that the original Fleming's Bond, was, in the books, very rough, a killer, kind of blood-thirsty, not a Sean Connery-like gentleman)

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Famous world renowned Muslim scholars Teresa May and some of her cuck MPs clearly prove that Islamic terror has nothing to do with Islam - never mind the hundreds of violent verses which specifically urge Muslims to do this.

And he makes an interesting example by pulling out old IRA crimes. Well - honestly we should stress with the IRA, that it was more a marxist-leftist group like the then existing German anti-capitalist terrorists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Official_I...lican_Army

Later on after more bloodshed and repercussions it took on more facets, but the main pull of that ideology was COMMUNISM, MARXISM - not CHRISTIANITY!

As we noted often the main terrorists in the recent years and decades were :

1. Muslims
2. Marxists

Christians who kill abortion doctors truly use a perversion of the faith, because it is hard to justify those actions by anything that Jesus has done or said. And no - the Old Testament is not Christianity - that is Judaism and not even they stick to it literally.

[Going strong]

(03-24-2017 06:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(03-24-2017 06:03 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

About the attacker:

"Masood was born in Kent, on Christmas Day in 1964, to 17-year-old single mother, Janet Elms.

Just under two years later she married Phillip Ajao. Masood grew up in a £300,000 house.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...other.html
"

Born to a 17-year-old single mother... who later remarried to Soetoro, sorry I meant, Ajao, to live in (relative) luxury... Plus, he's "half-afro(descendant)", Muslim, radicalized in Saudi Arabia, and changed his legal name. Reminds you of someone? Could have been the destiny of Barry himself...

Except Barry's billionaire Saudi sponsors, had greater plans for him, still do...

White mother has a kid with a black man, then marries another black man and has two additional sons with that other man.

One step brother even claims he does not know him despite having grown up with him.

Again, a Middle Class Jihadi who turned to Islam because it gave him a structure and meaning and a certain belonging. Islam does that, because then you are instantly part of the big Jihadi army, you are the believers while everyone else is a degenerate dirty unbeliever, also you get instantly an acceptance into a tribal community.

Very similar to the profile of "p'tit Noir de Grigny", the dwarfish African migrant and "kosher-shop" terrorist, who grew up in a Parisian Islamic suburb, and converted to Islam to be accepted by his pairs, to be respected. Ah, and also, to fuck Arab girls: p'tit Noir de Grigny had gotten himself a very beautiful Arab girlfriend, once converted, whereas before, he was the joke of the suburbs, being a useless small virgin...

Because yes, half of the convert terrorists (in Western countries) became terrorists, mainly to get into the pants of Arab chicks. Then they evolve to full-time terrorists.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(03-24-2017 10:07 AM)Going strong Wrote:  

Very similar to the profile of "p'tit Noir de Grigny", the dwarfish African migrant and "kosher-shop" terrorist, who grew up in a Parisian Islamic suburb, and converted to Islam to be accepted by his pairs, to be respected. Ah, and also, to fuck Arab girls: p'tit Noir de Grigny had gotten himself a very beautiful Arab girlfriend, once converted, whereas before, he was the joke of the suburbs, being a useless small virgin...

Because yes, half of the convert terrorists (in Western countries) became terrorists, mainly to get into the pants of Arab chicks. Then they evolve to full-time terrorists.

Got a link to that guy?

But yeah - pussy and social acceptance are strong reasons to join a less than logical ideology. I had a very extended family cousin who was once a Neonazi for a couple of years. He grew up on the streets without a father and those guys were the only ones who treated him like family. Later he left that negative ideology on his own volition when he baceme older and he turned into a born-again Christian, married and is a pillar of the community. Well - he is almost a radical Christian which means that he talks about Jesus often - heh. I guess he exchanged ideologies there, but certainly for the better.

[RaccoonFace]

[Phoenix]

^ Says it all really. They'd be getting run over by that very car and they'd be posting on reddit how that was no excuse for islamaphobia up until they passed out. Sick fucks.

[nomadbrah]

(03-24-2017 09:57 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

Christians who kill abortion doctors truly use a perversion of the faith, because it is hard to justify those actions by anything that Jesus has done or said. And no - the Old Testament is not Christianity - that is Judaism and not even they stick to it literally.

Let's not forget, that the original feminists, the suffragettes and prohibitionists, were christian or used christian rethoric. That atheist talking point "I dont need religion to tell me what is good or bad", that's actually true for smart and decent people, not easy still, but my belief is that christianity was actually exactly that for the r-selected people. It told them what was good and what was bad, because as we see with their shifting alliances, they have no idea of it by themselves. It should be no surprise there is an overlap of christians and leftists.

[Renzy]

(03-24-2017 06:25 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

White mother has a kid with a black man, then marries another black man and has two additional sons with that other man.

One step brother even claims he does not know him despite having grown up with him.

Again a Middle Class Jihadi who turned to Islam because it gave him a structure and meaning and a certain belonging. Islam does that, because then you are instantly part of the big Jihadi army, you are the believers while everyone else is a degenerate dirty unbeliever, also you get instantly an acceptance into a tribal community. It is an ideology that works wonders on those.

His half-brother owns businesses while Masood likely lived off welfare or petty unknown crime. But my bet is that this Masood fellow had a highly different genetic stock than her husband who obviously provided well for his family.

Single mothers kill civilization just as Islam does.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan made this same point back in the 60s after studying the black community's rising rates children born out-of-wedlock:

Quote:

From the wild Irish slums of the 19th century Eastern seaboard, to the riot-torn suburbs of Los Angeles, there is one unmistakable lesson in American history; a community that allows a large number of men to grow up in broken families, dominated by women, never acquiring any stable relationship to male authority, never acquiring any set of rational expectations about the future -- that community asks for and gets chaos. Crime, violence, unrest, disorder -- most particularly the furious, unrestrained lashing out at the whole social structure -- that is not only to be expected; it is very near to inevitable. And it is richly deserved.

At the time, illegitimacy rates within the black community were 20% versus 3% for the white community. That was considered alarming back then.

Now, fifty years later the black community's out-of-wedlock birthrate is upwards of 70% and the white community's is at 30%.

You don't have to be a fortune teller to see where the West is headed...

[Simeon_Strangelight]

Quote:

Police probe past of British Muslim convert who wrought carnage
Kent-born Khalid Masood was career criminal and father of three
Ten suspects in custody as police in huge data trawl after raids
Prince Charles visits Westminster victims and medics in hospital
The killer: How he went from football-loving teenager to terrorist
The victims: Pc, American tourist, British mother and pensioner
Reconstruction: The day terror struck at heart of democracy

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03/...terrorist/

Quote:

Muslims condemned the "heinous and appalling" Westminster terror attack as they joined together with Christian and Jewish leaders just metres from the scene of the horror.

Sheikh Mohammed Al-Hilli, representing Shia Muslims, and Sunni Sheikh Khalifa Ezzat, head Imam at the London Central Mosque, stood side-by-side with Justin Welby, Ephriam Mirvis and Cardinal Vincent Nichols outside Westminster Abbey.

Muslim leaders can go suck it. Where are the tens of thousands of protesters against this crime? No - they come out when there are some MOhammed cartoons, some Muslim criminal getting arrested by cops and getting hurt.

Fuck you and your Taqyia leaders who spout one thing, then turn around and hand out brochures to Muslims where they urge the Muslims to not talk with the police on terrorists. (Dr. Robert Spencer even saw those brochures handed out by the Muslim Brotherhood affiliated mosques.)

The reason why this guy went from British bi-racial soccer fan to psychopath is because of your shitty violent ideology.

There is no doubt in my mind that Islam will be destroyed in this century, because the true elite don't believe in this peaceful coexistence.

And here you have secular Arabs clearly stating that ISIS is Islam - the difference in ISIS is that it is a more informal adherence to sharia with judges, cops, but the basic punishments and sharia law is identical. And guys like him clearly state that there will be no improvement until the Islamic world becomes secular and separates the public life from the religious life which should be private.

It is too sad that in the future WWIII with Islam good men like that will be carpet bombed as well. They are essentially sitting on our side here, but are unable to change the status quo and will be punished just as we may be if we are dumb enough to stick around in the West when the big slaughter really starts happening.