Here's a clue... Jew's didn't spread disease. Aspects of the Muslim community do favor segregation, terrorism, gang warfare and fascism. That isn't a right-wing conspiracy against a victimized minority.

Or maybe it would have taken hundreds of years of isolation and hate as they struggled to assert themselves both financially and intellectually in the city with no support other than their own community.

Oh wait.

The Irish bombed London far more than Islam has or probably ever will - whats your point?

Edit - aspects of the white community advocate the above points too - again what's your point?

FWIW...

From this and your other posts you seem to be pretty disingenuous, so let me fill the other readers in on what you conveniently left out, so they don't get the idea that you are somehow the guy on the ground in Britain giving us the "real" story. (and I'm glad you don't agree about the Sharia law parts about cutting off hands and the death penalty for adultery....hmnnn, that kinda makes me worry...I guess I'm being "racist?)

The Sharia issue is massive, and clearly the end-game is to import full Sharia into the British courts step by step. It's already started - Sharia courts already do operate in Britain, for the minor disputes you mention, but also for things like domestic violence, which to me isn't so minor. Both parties have to agree, but in a domestic violence situation I guess the whole point is one party is being scared into submission so I'm sure they will both agree...

Furthermore, all aspects of Muslim life are covered by Sharia. So why would followers of Islam just stop at the minor things? It doesn't make sense....what does make more sense is 1) the people polled aren't all being honest and, ergo, b) are using each Sharia law victory as a stepping-stone to increased Sharia law (and don't say what they really think in a poll but probably want a more strict version of Sharia).

Here's another story on it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ly-binding.htm

(and frankly, as anyone knows, the press in general is incredibly politically correct toward issues like this, so the watered down reporting that gets done usually means that the problem is far worse than what is being reported)

I think in the UK you can also now have mulitple wives if you are Muslim (and get them put on the public dole as well), which is also insane.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ort-wives.html

The issues are way worse than this, but I gotta run, and there are definitely no-go areas where the majority Muslim population has said "non-believers keep out", so I think you're lying, but whatever you can keep your head in the sand and pretend everything's AOK in the UK for all I care....I'm sure you are a BBC-loving Labour follower who prefers to believe that modern Britain is a great place, but from what I've seen and read it's turned into a hellhole of sorts in many areas over the past 20-30 years (read the Hitchens article again please).

So someone in London is clueless about the current state of affairs right where he lives and someone in Moscow knows the true scoop about a place thousands of miles away?

I'm in London a lot and have a lot of British friends and have spent a lot of time there in general.

But WTF - who says you absolutely have to live somewhere to know the score and what's going on? And maybe, just maybe, this guy isn't telling us the whole truth??

Do you really there isn't a slow creep towards more and more Sharia laws in places like the UK and Holland (where 10 years ago they didn't have any forms of this law - you know, like every other sovereign nation that tends to keep it's own laws)?? Islam is both a religion and a political way of life...unlike any other religion I know of.

Saudi Arabia is the #1 builder of Madrassas and mosques globally and exports the most stringent form of Islam around the world (often times much more radical than in the Arab states).

I live in London. Where my mum lives its predominately Muslim and how do I say this without sounding racist.... it's just ****ing horrible. Lots of gangs and just a general feeling of segregation, religious backwardness and depression. I live in a black area and quite like it. I love Brixton, one of the most African/Caribbean areas in London. Full of culture and energy and I love being one of the white people walking around the markets and so on.

er, in the PC leftist-controlled mainstream press, you can't say anything without sounding racist!

Yeah, I've heard this a lot. The Saudis open up all these radical mosques and that's where the Muslims go and it's like stepping back into a time warp....FYI just found this letter from a Londoner online in the comments section of a political magazine on the BNP....

"Unlike many writers here, I am a socialist, living in the multiethnic East End of London.

I am furious at the way New Labour has abandoned ordinary working people. (I don't expect anything of the greedy Tories.) Mass immigration isn't the worst thing New Labour has done, but it is the most visible.

There have been two big changes in recent years. A huge increase in immigration is giving this once-diverse area a large muslim majority. And muslims (including those born here, of Pakistani and north African origin), are taking up Islamic fundamentalism imported from Saudi Arabia.

This is making the area uncomfortable for other people, especially those who lived here during the war. It's not paranoid to feel excluded by masked women or intimidated by people demanding sharia law.

My neighbours (black and white) are not racist, and they don't deserve to feel like unwanted foreigners in their own country.

Add that to all the other losses we've suffered under New Labour, and the contempt routinely shown for working-class people by those in power. It's easy for people in affluent suburbs to sneer at concerns they don't have to face.

The people mentioned in this article feel they have nowhere else to turn.

I truly am frightened that the BNP will pick up votes. Not because the people around me are racist, but because no one else is listening. I can't imagine any of my black neighbours voting BNP but how would I know? No one admits to it.

It's incredible that the major parties are still pretending mass immigration is no big deal. What do any of them have to gain?"

Tbh, right-wing socialism (e.g BNP) scares me even more than the Islamists. Just frustrating that a lot of the BNP's talking points are actually correct e.g. threat to freedom of speech (due to absurd hate speech laws), welfare provision for emigrants, Islamism= fascism, BBC left-wing bias etc.

Meh that's bc the left-wing labour loving BBC press hates them. I'd be more scared of the radical Muslims if I were you - they are the ones making death threats to politicians on a daily basis in Holland and the UK as well.....and killing people like Theo Van Gogh who dare to speak out against them. There would be a lot more dead Dutch politicians if they weren't under 24/7 police protection (like that Danish cartoonist is).

Also, calling the BNP "Far Right" is not entirely corrrect, even thought that's what the mainstream press calls them (mainly bc they are pc left-wing idiots . It is kinda crazy to BNP a "far right party." It could be called a far left party that is ALSO anti-immigration. Workers' councils, protectionism, and higher taxes on "the rich" are NOT the stuff of "far right parties." If the BNP were not a far left party, it could not have taken so much of Labour's vote.

In any event, Labour has RUINED Britain, possibly irreparably, and most of the middle class and underclass have effectively had no vote and not been represented over the past 20 years or so.

That librul media canard does get old.

Yeah, I partially agree (certainly sympathize) with your main points. I'd also be inclined to call the BNP a far-left racist party. I think Sam Harris is correct... the problem is the fascists are currently the only plausible/functional opposition against the far leftist/Islamist apologists. The leftists control the universities, the press and the government so they have heavy influence over the public. Those who have independent thought and speak up for themselves in face of adversity, such as ourselves, are doing so at the risk of being called fascists. Despite the fact its precisely fascism we object to.

Not a very erudite comment. Your last two points really have been pretty poor ones, but I'll indulge you.

Something like 90+% of reporters and journalists are registered Democrats. It's pretty well known outside the media and hardcore Dems that the media leans left on most issues, and with the aforementioned figure of 90+% why wouldn't they?

What part of the NY Times, Wash Post, NBC, ABC, CBS etc. have you not noticed doesn't lean somewhat left on most, and hard left on many, issues??

which explains the animosity.

Not going to contest the overall point, but the journalists themselves tend to be Dems while higher ranking editors tend to be Republicans. So the facts you present are a little skewed.

Feh. Glenn Greenwald skewers the "liberal media" canard with far more erudition than a schlub like me.

You say the BNP's main talking points are correct, and that frustrates you. To me, it is absurd to refer to their points as correct, yet you are scared to vote for them or you are scared of them. Even if you don't agree with all their policies, it's better to vote them as a protest vote until the Establishment understand that we the people do not regard them a having a right to our vote.

If you want a change in politics, and the main 3 parties are all the same, then you have to vote for a different type of party. It's no good expecting the same PC drivel from a party when you desire change from the PC system. Sometimes in life, a nettle must be grasped if one is to progress through a rough path. So don't be scared by propaganda - just vote for a change and if the BNP or UKIP or whatever is best equipped to instill fear into the Establishment, then go for it.

I bet you would rather Margaret Hodge keep her seat in Barking than Nick Griffin upsetting the Establishment. Why??

http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=167
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2.../04/uk.schools
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...rs-735581.html

'BBC-loving Labour follower'. LOL I'm probably about as far from that as possible. Saying that, you do seem to be a right wing daily mail lover who probably believes that broccoli both causes and prevents cancer (pretty standard stuff in the Mail, along with their endless immigration fear mongering).

If anything, much of what you say about some areas is correct. However, the alternatives to these things is extremely worrying. Many populations have assimilated perfectly well into British society who started off being labeled as extremely dangerous (Jews, Irish, Caribbeans as mentioned previously). These things take time, and the fascist alternatives of deportation, restriction of religion and culture, and segregation pose a much greater threat to our society than Sharia law, as the murderous history of the twentieth century shows us.

Edit - You also seem to have a very poor grasp of how law is created and implemented in England if you think there is any real chance of Sharia law 'creeping' into any criminal areas - understandable if your source is the Mail, who misrepresent this stuff all the time to keep their predominantly old, conservative readership scared and buying the paper.

Considering my previous posts about how the black community was viewed fifty years ago I'm hoping people appreciate the irony of this. You would have gone nowhere near Brixton back then - have black people suddenly all stopped being criminals?

Seriously with a few tweaks you could basically reproduce this passage in any extreme press in any part of Western Europe in basically any part of the twentieth century. What exactly are you advocating in terms of political policy here?

I don't want to trivialize the threats against Wilders, but 2Fast is pretty hyperbolic when it comes to the need to protect Dutch politicians.

Wilders is under heavy 24/7 protection, as was Ayaan Hirshi Ali (first of the Labour party, later of the Liberal party). Both were threatened in messages that Theo van Gogh's murderer Mohammed B, an extemist muslim, wrote. Fortuyn, for historical perspective, was murdered by a left-wing environmental activist.

The PVV is not a party, so there are no other leaders than Wilders. It is a movement, and people working under Wilders for the PVV are, i don't know how to best call them, followers. I would guess that the security of them is watched more closely by the secret services, but I am not aware of additional security measures that are taken for them because of publicly known threats.

Protection of politicians in general has gone up since both killings. Even though every threat is one too many, the need for heavy 24/7 protection luckily is still the exception.

WOT? You are all over the place buddy!! This makes no sense!

Read the other posters and Hitchens and stop trying to turn me into a right-wing zealot with your rephrasing of my paragrahps. To claim there isn't a problem and everything is ok and gee anyone who says otherwise is a "racist right-winger" is TEXTBOOK left-speak that Orwell would be proud of

Huh? Other than Fox and NewsCorp which are fairly recent news sources, I don't remember any Republican editors at any of the big papers (NY Times, Wash Post) or networks (ABC, NBC and CBS) for a very long time. What "Conservative" editors do you mean? In the WSJ maybe??

Jees louise, do I really have to hammer this home.... Muslims do not conform with the experiences of blacks, Jews and Irish. It's a unique situation and its an insult to the latter minorities to say they would have acted likewise in modern times. Yes, there were problems with Irish terrorism and public perceptions about blacks and crime decades ago, but the modern problem with the European Muslim diaspora is on a different scale.