top bar
QuickTopic free message boards logo
Skip to Messages

TOPIC:

MUSLIMS - Benefits packages for each wife & family

^               1700-1715 of 1715  1684-1699 >>
1715
Gregory Lauder-FrostPerson was signed in when posted
05-20-2008
02:21 PM ET (US)
I don't know one person who is the slightest bit interested in Israel. My view is this: Palestine was literally invaded by immigrants (Jews) and they have made their bed (of nails) and must now lie upon it. As far as I am concerned they can all battle it out over there and may the best (or strongest) lot triumph. If I never saw one further news report on that place it wouldn't bother me one iota.

Frankly if all those millions of Arabs on the borders cannot defeat these immigrants then they deserve their lot.

I await the Civil War in Britain: the weakling indigenous population against the millions of immigrants they allowed into the country and allowed to breed here like rabbits. I think the end result may be similar.
1714
Patriot
05-20-2008
02:01 PM ET (US)
If Israel wants to survive it would expel the Arabs and the Africans and advertise around the world for all Jews to move to Israel.
To improve the birthrate all child maintenance payments by men should be abolished and all payments by an ex-husband and divorce settlements abolished too.
Then we could look at the legalisation of polygamy.
1713
Patriot
05-20-2008
01:56 PM ET (US)
Pat Buchanan lets his Christianity get carried away with reality.
Banning abortion is a totally reactionary idea that plays straight into the hands of the Left.
Not to mention the fact it would do no good.
Abortion being illegal or only allowed for rape, maternal life, health, mental health, socioecomic factors, and/or fetal defects has done nothing to improve the birthrate in Spain, Poland or Ireland.
1712
Iftikhar Ahmad
05-19-2008
07:31 AM ET (US)
London School of Islamics - An Educational Trust.
63 Margery Park Road London E7 9LD
Email: info@londonschoolofislamics.org.uk
www.londonschoolofislamics.org.uk

Muslim Ghettoisation

We live in a shrunken world and millions of people are on the move; one of
our biggest challenges is how we learn to live in proximity to difference -different skin colours, different beliefs and different way of life.
According to a study by COMPAS, Muslims born and educated here were given the impression of outsiders. The perception among Muslims that they are
unwelcome in Britain is undermining efforts to help them integrate into
wider society. Most of them say that they have experienced race
discrimination and religious prejudice. Muslims and Islam is promoted a
fundamentalist and separatist by the western elite, which have negative
impact on community and social cohesion. The number of racist incidents
occurring in London Borough of Redbridge's schools have reached their
highest levels since record begin.

A City or a locality, where Muslims are in a majority is a ghetto. There is a tendency for people of similar backgrounds to live together in
neighourhoods. The term "ghettoisation" is inappropriate. The original
ghettos in Europe during the middle ages were set up by law to confine the
Jewish population to one area of a city. According to research by an
Australian academic Muslim communities in Britain are being increasingly ghettoized in a trend that sets back hopes of assimilation by years.

Britain has now eight cities in the top 100 most ghettoized cities.
The people from the Pakistani community in Bradford and Oldham and Leicester had trebled during the decade. A report by the academic Dr Alan Carling stated that Bradford risks becoming a front line in the global clash between the West and Islam.

The native flight from Bradford's inner-city wards showed clear evidence of an increase in segregation in the city since 1991. Native parents are avoiding sending their children to state schools where Muslims and other minorities are in majority. The dominance of Pakistani Muslims in the city has meant that Bradford has become bi-cultural.

Immigrants are the creators of Britain's new wealth, otherwise, inner-city deprived areas could not get new lease of life. The native Brits regard such areas as ghettoes. Integration is not religious and cultural, it is economic and Muslims are well integrated into British society and at the same time they are proud of their Islamic, linguistic and cultural identities, despite discrimination which they have been facing in all walks of life. According to the UN, 80% of British Muslims feel discriminated against.

Immigrants made up 8.7% of the population, but account for 10.2% of all collected income tax. It is often quoted by the Western media that Muslim schools ghettoizse the children, and even lead to their radicalisation if they are not integrated.
 
There is no evidence that faith schools lead to a "ghettoized education
system. In British schools, pupils are encouraged to focus too much on their similarities rather than their differences. The integrationist approach merely results in Muslims feeling that their faith, language and culture is not respected.

Iftikhar Ahmad
1711
dave
05-18-2008
02:50 PM ET (US)
This Pat Buchanan's view on Israel's duture -

May 15, 2008 Is Time On Israel’s Side? Patrick J. Buchanan

As Israel enters its 61st year, Israelis may look back with pride. Yet, the realists among them must also look forward with foreboding.
Israel is a modern democracy with the highest standard of living in the Middle East. In the high-tech industries of the future, she is in the first rank. From a nation of fewer than a million in 1948, Israel's population has grown to 7 million. In seven wars—the 1948 War of Independence, the Sinai invasion of 1956, the Six-Day War of 1967, the Yom Kippur War of 1973, and the Lebanon wars of 1982 and 2006—Israel has prevailed, though some of these wars were, as Wellington said of Waterloo, "a damn near-run thing."
Israel has revived Hebrew, created a new currency, immersed her children in the history, ancient and modern, of her people, and established a homeland for Jews from all over the world, millions of whom have migrated there to settle. Israel is now home to the largest concentration of Jews anywhere on earth.
Here, however, we come to the heart of the existential crisis.
Israel became home to the largest Jewish population on earth in part because American Jews in the 1990s fell in number from 5.5 million to 5.2 million, a loss of 300,000, or 6 percent of the U.S. Jewish population.
According to Charles Krauthammer, by 2050, the U.S. Jewish population will have shrunk another 50 percent to 2.5 million. American Jews are slowly vanishing. How and why is this happening? It is the collective decision of American Jews themselves, who have led the battles for birth control and a woman's right to choose.
As Jews were roughly 2 percent of the U.S. population from Roe v. Wade to today, perhaps 2 percent of the 50 million legal abortions since Roe were likely performed on Jewish girls or women, resulting in 1 million lost members of the Jewish community in 35 years.
And if demography is destiny, Israel's future, too, appears grim.
As former Ambassador Zalman Shoval writes, Israel's population of 7 million is 80 percent Jewish. [Israel celebrates 60 years, Washington Times, May 8, 2008]But the Palestinian population of Israel has risen to 20 percent and is growing much faster.
One Israel blogger, using Shoval's totals, writes that among the Israeli population between 1 and 4 years old, roughly 30 percent is Arab. The future of Israel is thus increasingly Arab and less Jewish.

According to the United Nations, by 2050, Israel will have 10 million people. By then, the Arab population, at present birth rates, is likely to be close to 30 percent of the Israeli population. On the West Bank and Gaza, today's 4 million Arabs are to explode to 10 million, far outstripping the growth in Israel. Jordan's population of 5 million, 60 percent Palestinian, will also double to 10 million.
Thus, not even counting Palestinians in Lebanon, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Syria and the Gulf states, Israel's 7 million to 8 million Jews in 2050 will be living with 13 million Palestinians in Israel, Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank. If Israel is to survive as a Jewish state, a separate and independent Palestinian state would seem an imperative.
Yet, as Israelis continue to build outposts and expand and add settlements, the possibility of a Palestinian state recedes. Indeed, many Israelis, seeing what an end to the occupation produced in Gaza, refuse to consider any pullout at all from the West Bank.
Such a policy of holding on and digging in is sometimes the best one—but only if time is on one's side. Is time on Israel's side?
According to the world population statistics from the National Policy Institute, the worldwide Arabic population in 1950 was only 94 million, less than 4 percent of the world population. But by 2050, it will be 700 million, 7 percent of a world population of almost 10 billion.
According to U.N. population experts, Lebanon's population will grow to 5 million in 2050, but Syria's will almost double from today's 20 million to 34 million. The population of Saudi Arabia will rise from 24 million to 45 million. Egypt will grow by more than 50 million to 121 million Egyptians by 2050. The Islamic Republic of Iran, 71 million today, is expected to reach 100 million at mid-century.
And, demography aside, the Islamic faith of Israel's neighbors is becoming militant. Hamas now controls Gaza. Hezbollah now controls Southern Lebanon and is becoming the power in Beirut. While Egypt is headed by a pro-American autocrat, the principal rival for power is the widely popular Muslim Brotherhood.
Those who do not like the Saudi monarchy should consider what is likely to rise in its place, should the House of Saud fall.
The same is true of the Jordanian and Moroccan monarchies, and the sheikdoms, emirates and sultanates of the Persian Gulf.
In any struggle of generations, the critical question is often: Whose side is time on? As President Bush celebrates Israel's 60th birthday, and is celebrated in turn as Israel's best friend ever, it is a fair question to ask.
1710
Multiple wives
03-31-2008
08:16 AM ET (US)
None dare call it Genocide.
 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml.../03/nbenefit103.xml
1709
Dave
03-07-2008
07:33 PM ET (US)
Robert, here are your co-religionists trying to fight a war against us. Which one are you on the film?

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AX-i-ZWLT7s&NR=1
1708
Deleted by topic administrator 03-06-2008 01:28 PM
1707
mike smithPerson was signed in when posted
03-06-2008
12:16 PM ET (US)
The Vichy puppet government was a regime of traitors and Nazi sympathisers, many of whom received their just deserts at the end of the war.

Vichy was recognised only by the enemies of freedom and civilisation.

Is that where you see yourself, Peter Crane?
1706
Peter Crane
03-06-2008
04:28 AM ET (US)
Portlander, the government which removed to Vichy was the legitimate government of France. Now you might not like that but that is factual. It was the last elected government prior to the war and they having considered their options declared an armistice to avoid total defeat and further suffering. That was their absolute right, just as it would have been the government of Great Britain's absolute right. They recalled their forces who had been evacuated to Britain and about 65% did return to France. But not de Gaulle and the others, who were effectively thereafter a private army. These are facts. Unpallatable they may be to some but there is nothing I can do about that.
1705
mike smithPerson was signed in when posted
03-06-2008
01:46 AM ET (US)
I met de Gaulle Junior in Brighton at Sir James Goldsmith's huge anti-EU bash.

He couldn't remember how to get back to his hotel so we walked along the promenade together talking until I found it for him.

He struch me as a very nice chap indeed.
1704
Patriot
03-05-2008
06:37 PM ET (US)
De Gaulle was a greatman.
His grandson said he joined Front National as it best represented his Grandfathers beliefs.
1703
Portlander
03-05-2008
05:34 PM ET (US)
Can I assume, Peter, that you would have preferred it if he had supported the Vichy regime?

Actually, seeing how I think it was you who described Vichy as "the legitimate government of France" or similar, I think I certainly can assume that you would have preferred that ...
1702
Peter Crane
03-05-2008
12:34 PM ET (US)
Personally I thought de Gaulle was an arrogant renegade and he was almost universally unpopular in Britain during the war, and after the war also.

He may have been personally sound on Muslims but the end result is clear to us all.
Edited 03-05-2008 12:35 PM
1701
John BoltonPerson was signed in when posted
03-05-2008
05:36 AM ET (US)
In 1959 the President of the French Republic, Charles de Gaulle, made the following statement;
 
"We are, above all, a European people of the white race, of Greek and Latin culture and of the Christian religion. The Muslims - have you seen them with their turbans and their jelubas? You can see clearly that they are not French. Try to mix oil and vinegar. Shake them up. After a minute they are separate again.

Arabs are Arabs. French are French. Do you think that French society can absorb 10 million Muslims who tomorrow will be 20 million and the day after that 40 million? If we integrate, if all the Arabs and Berbers of Algeria were to be considered French, how would we stop them from coming to the metropolis where the standard of living is so much higher?

My village would no longer be Colombey les deux Eglises but Colombey les deux Mosquees".
 
Per BBC Radio 4 "Thinking Allowed" broadcast at 4 pm on 23rd January 2008.
When I heard it on BBC radio my first thought was that it must be a spoof programme. Not at all, it is genuine as I ascertained when I checked it on the BBC website. According to BBC Radio 4, the above quote is an extract from the recently published book "The Politics of the Veil" by Joan Scott, Professor of Social Science at Princeton University.
1700
mike smithPerson was signed in when posted
03-04-2008
08:51 AM ET (US)
No. That is not at all certain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magyars

The word "Hungarian" is thought to be derived from the Bulgar-Turkic Onogur, possibly because the Magyars were neighbours (or confederates) of the Empire of the Onogurs in the sixth century, whose leading tribal union was called the "Onogurs" (meaning "ten tribes" in Old Turkic)[citation needed].

The "H-" prefix in many languages (Hungarians, Hongrois, Hungarus etc.) is a later addition. It was taken over from the name of the "Huns", a semi-nomadic tribe that briefly lived in the area of present-day Hungary and, according to legends originating in the medieval period, was the people from which the Magyars arose.

The identification of the "Hungarians" with the "Huns" has often occurred in historiography and literature. Even today, Hun names like Attila, Réka, and Ildiko are popular among Hungarians. This identification began to be disputed in the late nineteenth century, and is still a source of major controversy among scholars who insist that there could be no direct connection between the two.
^               1700-1715 of 1715  1684-1699 >>

Print | RSS Views: 16521 (Unique: 2299 ) / Subscribers: 1 | What's this?