Muslim Immigrants: Importing Terrorists?

[ACPlayer]

Why dont you simply retract your statement. Just admit, that if your side does something it is OK and if the other side does something it is not.

I dont see how the game is over.

Many posters on this forum sighed deeply when hearing about Abu Ghraib/Gitmo and then continued to justify it or even dismiss it as highly unlikely. They see mass round ups of people and extended detentions (and I am not referring to Gitmo) and continue to sip the Latte and discuss the price of CSCO.

[SheetWise]

ACPlayer -

You want to retract my statement simply because you don't understand it? I've spent enough time explaining it to you. If ANYONE ELSE got this far in the thread and does not understand what I'm saying, please post.

For ACPlayer, MMMMMM has started a new subject with your name in it. It might be easier for you to understand.

[Bez]

Blair and his Government lie constantly. BBC is biased, it is extremely liberal.

[ratso]

The nuclear age brings us another dimension, but so did gunpowder when bows and arrows were the norm. Nuclear "dirty bombs" are a terror weapon, not a mass murder weapon. I think Caleb Carr's book is a must read for many who believe that "the end is near".

Rationall will win over extremism, but it will leave a wake of destruction in its path, and many will feel the pain, unfortunately. Ignorance and religious zeltoism (is that a word?) will make a lot of us incomfortable.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
The accurate point, which Felix made a little imprecisely, is that most terrorist attacks against the West are committed by Muslims.

[/ QUOTE ]

And, I trust, you are now making the point precisely ?? [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

FYI, the claim is still wrong.

I challenge you to produce comparative figures, either in number of attacks (incidents) or number of victims.

Because, unless you are thinking in terms of baseball (i.e. World=USA), you are off by quite a bit. You and that other cat Felix.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus, I was waiting for you to take the opposite side of my view. The veracity of my position has thus been confirmed.

[Felix_Nietsche]

http://www.thisislondon.com/news/art...urce=PA%20Feed

Sounds like a good idea. Perahps the USA could take this advice as well. There are millions of hard working and peace loving people that want to live in the USA. Why not let them come and let the islamic-fascists stay in their own countries? Based on the polls, it is easy to determine which muslim countries have the highest percentage of hate mongers. The risk from taking immigrants from Pakistan, Jordan, and Saudia Arabia is too high. Allowing immigrants from this country is anaolgous to lettting ex-cons move into your home. Sure some ex-cons might be rehabilitated but it just takes one psycho raping and knifing up your family to teach you letting ex-cons live with you is probably not agood idea. The polls from the muslim world show STRONG support for Osama Bin Laden and the use of terrorism. I just don't see ANY advantage in giving these people visas to live in your country.

Sorry, but self preservation and self defense should not be a sin.

[MMMMMM]

"British Opinion Surveys from an Islamist Hell
by Daniel Pipes
FrontPageMagazine.com
July 25, 2005

Estimating how many potential terrorists reside in one's country is a highly inexact business, but there's a striking correlation between a British government report recently leaked to London's Times and a new opinion survey commissioned by the Daily Telegraph.

Drawing on unidentified "intelligence," the government report (analyzed by me at "The Next London Bombing") finds as many as 16,000 "British Muslims actively engaged in terrorist activity."

Then, using standard survey research methods, the reputable YouGov polling firm interviewed 526 Muslim adults across Great Britain online during July 15-22, weighing the data to reflect the British Muslim population's age, gender, and countries of origin. The survey found that 1 percent of them, or "about 16,000 individuals, declare themselves willing, possibly even eager, to embrace violence" in the effort to bring an end to "decadent and immoral" Western society.

Should their ranks really be so thick, such a huge number of potential terrorists could cause an unprecedented security crisis for Britain, with all the attendant economic, social, political, and cultural ramifications one can imagine.

The YouGov survey contains many other statistics that should interest, if not shock, Britons and other Westerners.

* Muslims who see the 7/7 bombing attacks in London as justified on balance: 6 percent.
* Who feel sympathy for the "feelings and motives" of those who carried out the 7/7 attacks: 24 percent.
* Understand "why some people behave in that way": 56 percent.
* Disagree with Tony Blair's description of the ideology of the London bombers as "perverted and poisonous": 26 percent.
* Feel not loyal towards Britain: 16 percent.
* Agree that "Western society is decadent and immoral and that Muslims should seek to bring it to an end": 32 percent willing to use non-violent means and (as noted above) 1 percent willing to use violence "if necessary." Just 56 percent of Muslims agree with the statement that "Western society may not be perfect but Muslims should live with it and not seek to bring it to an end."
* Agree that "British political leaders don't mean it when they talk about equality. They regard the lives of white British people as more valuable than the lives of British Muslims": 52 percent.
* Dismiss political party leaders as insincere when saying "they respect Islam and want to co-operate with Britain's Muslim communities": 50 percent.
* Doubt that anyone charged with and tried for the 7/7 attacks would receive a fair trial: 44 percent.
* Would not inform on a Muslim religious leader "trying to ‘radicalise' young Muslims by preaching hatred against the West": 10 percent.
* Do not think people have a duty to go to the police if they "see something in the community that makes them feel suspicious": 14 percent.
* Believe other Muslims would be reluctant to go to the police "about anything they see that makes them suspicious": 41 percent.
* Would inform the police if they believed that knew about the possible planning of a terrorist attack: 73 percent. (In this case, the Daily Telegraph did not make available the negative percentage.)

Another opinion poll, this one commissioned by Sky News and carried out by Communicate Research (which interviewed 462 UK-based Muslims by telephone) found similar results:

* Muslims who agree with what the London suicide bombers did: 2 percent.
* Who believe there is a Koranic justification for the bombings: 5 percent.
* Disagree with the statement that "Muslim clerics who preach violence against the West are out of touch with mainstream Muslim opinion": 46 percent.
* Think of themselves as Muslim first and British second: 46 percent. Another 42 percent do not differentiate between the identities. A mere 12 percent see themselves as British first and Muslim second.

Comments: (1) It is hard to say which is the most alarming of these many worrisome statistics, but two stand out. That less than three-quarters of Muslims in Britain indicate they would tell the police about an impending terrorist attack raises grave doubts about the Blair government's tactic of getting Muslims to police their own community. That one-third of Muslims do not accept British society and want to end it, presumably to pave the way for an Islamic order, casts comparable doubts on Britain's much-vaunted multicultural ideal.

(2) Even the Telegraph's interpreter of its survey, Professor Anthony King of Essex University, feels compelled to sugar the results, calling them "at once reassuring and disturbing, in some ways even alarming," whatever that means. In several specific instances, he turns hair-raising statistics into cheerful ones (that 73 percent would warn of an impending terrorist attack he deems "impressive"). The newspaper's and the professor's panglossian attitude makes one wonder what might wake the British to the Islamist hell growing in their midst."

http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2797

I see nothing wrong with deporting those who have publicly advocated terror OR the overthrow of the government.

Consider it a sort of perpetual citizenship oath: to remain a naturalized citizen, you must NOT advocate the overthrow of the government or terror attacks upon its citizens. A good idea might be requiring naturalized citizens to take a citizenship oath to the effect that they DO NOT advocate or believe in such things--every year.

As for mere visitors, the standards can be much stricter.

Bottom line is: if they don't like the government and/or living here or in England, well, fine! Great, as a matter of fact! Bye!!!

It's only common sense.

Why should the USA and UK have to harbor people committed to their destructions?

Good luck, good riddance, and get out.

[ACPlayer]

The article is full of hot air. Specifically:

Of the four bomber on 7/7 at least three were born in the UK and not naturalized citizens. I believe the fourth was Jamaican. Hard to deport citizens born in the US (dont know about the UK). We could start an ethnic cleansing program and allow only Christians (or perhaps only neo-cons, or perhaps only Christians of certain denomination) to live in the US - that might work though with unknowable consequences for the society.

The positive statistics which Daniel Pipes (a well known propagandist) ignores include the very small numbers of those who believe this sanctioned by the Koran (the correct interpretation of the Koran) and those who think the bombers were justified.

A one percent statistic that he highlights at the start of this "essay" which is used to extrapolate that 16,000 people are ready to use violence in the UK is mathematically flawed. Even you, 6M, can find the flaw there. This is simply propaganda and scare mongering and pandering of the most evil type. Mr Pipes, if he were responsible, should be questioning this rather than highlighting it. Of course there are no links to let us see what exactly the survey was offering.

Mr Pipes is not worth reading. Though I have seen many of his essays.

[Cyrus]

[ QUOTE ]
Cyrus, I was waiting for you to take the opposite side of my view. The veracity of my position has thus been confirmed.

[/ QUOTE ]

What transparent whining. You have been directly challenged to prove your fantastic point, or at least back it up by some figures, and you choose to act all chicken.

It would have been so much easier to scare up a couple of figures and crushingly prove me wrong. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]