Thanks for the kind words, and a fitting epitaph indeed.

A few thanks first- to Donpaskini for posting what he always believed to be a strawman argument and to 5cc for the spirited resistance to the proposition. Thanks to Just Visiting for his indefatigable research and to Crusade for putting an anti-Islamist argument with more coherence and clarity than I have ever seen.

And apologies to Lee Griffin for accusing him of lack of engagement!!!!

Part of the point of posting in blogs is to explore ones own views and opinions and, sometimes, to have them changed. In the original post and in subsequent comments I was very careful to avoid any mention of Islamism. And for two reasons.

Firstly, it would have detracted from the more general argument about mutliculturalism.

Secondly, I was concerned about being perceived as a racist.

On reflection, I think I fell into the very trap I was suggesting liberals fall into so often- of not being prepared to confront difficult issues for fear of causing offence to others. Because, if I am honest, to talk about the anti-liberal complexion of other cultures in the UK without referring to Islamism was being disingenuous. In truth, Islamism is the elephant in the room.

So let’s all be more honest in future about confronting things that we, as liberals, believe to be wrong. For example, JV pointed out that women in Malaysia accused of adultery and drinking alcohol have been publicly caned.

OK, here’s a start, I’m going to say it.

That’s wrong.

Shia and Sunni lay aside differences in common Jihad goal – to kill Americans.

“Shi’ite Iran had long opposed the Sunni-dominated Taliban. The reason for the change was summarised by one Taliban commander who said of the Iranians: “Our religions and our histories are different but our target is the same. We both want to kill Americans.”

Iranians train Taliban to use roadside bombs:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article7069779.ece

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2010/03/22/malaysia-women039s-group-sued-over-039islam039-name.html

“Muslim activists filed a lawsuit Monday against a Malaysian women’s group, asking it to remove the word “Islam” from its name on the ground that it misleads people to believe it speaks for all Muslims.

“The suit against Sisters in Islam, one of the most well-known nongovernment groups in this Muslim-majority country, comes after it angered conservative Muslims by criticizing Islamic Shariah laws that allow the caning of women for offenses such as drinking alcohol.

“Numerous Muslim groups have in recent months accused Sisters in Islam of misinterpreting religious principles, highlighting a divide between Muslims who demand strict enforcement of Islamic morality laws and others who fear religious intolerance is threatening the moderate practice of their religion.

“The lawsuit was filed by Malaysian Assembly of Mosque Youths, whose leader, Mohammad Nawar Ariffin, said Sisters in Islam never obtained formal approval for the name with the government’s registrar of societies.

“The use of the word ‘Islam’ in names must be restricted and protected,” Mohammad Nawar told The Associated Press. “The so-called Sisters in Islam uses the word to attract attention, but it issues statements that contradict what other Muslims believe. It causes confusion among Muslims who might think that the group represents Islam.”

“Established in 1988, Sisters in Islam has long been the most outspoken advocate of reforms involving Muslim laws that allegedly fail to protect the rights of women, such as regarding polygamy and child marriages. Its official name is SIS Forum (Malaysia), but it uses Sisters in Islam on its Web site and publications.

“Sisters in Islam’s troubles with other Muslim groups began last year when it tried to stop authorities from caning a woman who was sentenced by an Islamic court for drinking beer in public. Since then, three other Muslim women have been caned for having extramarital sex, the first time the punishment has been carried out on Malaysian women.

Comment 302 was directed at pagar, just incase some people aren’t too sure on that one, just incase putting pagar at the top wasn’t enough of a clue.

So far pagar has been proved right and there has been oodles of effort expended to avoid discussion of the issue of how to deal with incoming cultures that have facets that liberals would not approve of.

How about we flip that on it’s head?

To any silent readers (still left eh?) out there:

What would it take for you to be happy to say ‘yes now is the time we liberals should have a discussion about the concerns about an incoming culture’.

What evidence would trigger that?
What violence?
What public statements
What kind of ‘things’ would happen that would make the discussion a good and timely one to be had?

Lee in very post just reveals more that he has lost the debate and won’t talk it calmly.

But there’s no need to kick him when he’s down!

A more persuasive point can often be made by saying less.
Or by moving the debate onwards.

Once again, Lee, you issue just more personal remarks, hot air and not one iota of substance.

Allow me to summarise the evidence that pulled your disingenuous question apart:

“Please show me where, in the UK, there is a larger muslim extremist contingent than there is an EDL/national front contingent and I’ll happily engage with this idiocy.”

The EDL has a stated core of 300 activists / members (1) and the NF had only 150 member in 2007 (2) so the two organisations together have only around 450 members. Maybe a handful more today but not significant numbers by any measure.

Whilst the 2001 census showed 1,591,000 Muslims resident in the UK (3) of which 18.2% are aged 16-24 (4) so roughly 300,000 and of those around 30,000 admire terrorist organisations that kill British soldiers and innocent civilians for the crime of being non-believers.

Around 110,000 want a legal system that punishes and executes homosexuals; executes atheists; executes religious converters; stones adulterous women to death on the say so of her husband and one other; physically punishes women for being raped etc etc

Around 108,000 want to murder people who no longer believe in Islam and around 222,000 view women as second class citizens to be forced into medieval costume.

Of course these figures will actually be significantly higher in 2010 but we can get the general flavour from these available statistics.

Your question has been fully answered with proof, Lee, and I have clearly satisfied your ‘caveat’ so now either fulfil your threat / promise to ‘engage’ or admit that you have nothing but personal remarks to make in lieu of adult debate.

1)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2009/aug/10/english-violence-militant-football-islamist

2)

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/49111/National-Front-Statement-of-Accounts-2007_29250-21722__E__N__S__W__.pdf

3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demography_of_the_United_Kingdom#Religion

4)

http://www.mcb.org.uk/library/statistics.php

I suppose after you were pulled apart at length on comment #288 you need something to cling on to in lieu of any substantive, meaningful and honest debate.

Do check back in soon and find that you have still been thoroughly shredded and have been unable to address it.

You check back in, issue a few more personal remarks rather then any substance, and again totally ignore comment #288 that goes way beyond even the ridiculous ‘proof’ you asked for and destroys your premise totally.

I have more then proved my point. Your point, if you really have one, is yet to be even remotely proven.

The ball is in your court Lee. The onus is on you.

Bear that in mind when you check back in again.

See’s there is still none of the proof he asked for, and yet more whining, including by his new dad Just Visiting who seems like he’s about to get his grounding hat on.

Will check back again later.

Again it begs the question of why you are bothering to post such ludicrously empty comments here now after the debate has ended when you had ample opportunity to take part in the actual debate itself when it was ongoing rather then just pip in for unsolicited abuse and silly accusations that did absolutely nothing but lower the level that you now seem so concerned about.

You didn’t contribute one item of substance to the debate because you didn’t take part in the debate so it is patently absurd that you now feel qualified to make adjudications on this debate.

I suspect that Pagar has hit the nail on the head with his supposition that it is the prohibition (and I say derailment) of debate on a subject that you find a taboo that is your motivation and that that was what your earlier abuse and allegations were designed to do, as I said at the time.

Once more do you actually have anything of substance to say here?

Do you have anything to add to the debate at all?

Which parts do you now claim are ‘horrendous’? Why are they ‘horrendous’? Can you prove these parts are not true? Can you even attempt to justify any of your comment?

What insights into the debate do you offer? Any?

If not, why are you even bothering?

Your interpretation of my comment is wrong, not sure why I have to spell it out for you but here goes:

There are no winners here, means that the level of the debate here, the things people are saying and the format in which it is taking place and the people leaving the comments themselves are not winners.

Even though some people are acting as if it is possible to win here, when it is not.

Hope that helps.

Whilst I clearly do not agree with all the comments on the thread, I asked you for an explanation of your comment because I wanted you to understand what you meant.

My supposition is that you feel the topic is not worthy of debate- that it is an area that should somehow be taboo. As I said above, I can understand why the issue raised may be problematical for some but cannot agree with your prohibiting discussion or adjudicating the outcome.

Well we can all certainly agree that you are not a ‘winner’ here only having contributed unsolicited abuse and unfounded allegations without even one attempt at substance or debate and so I think the real question should be why you felt the need to ‘chip in here’ again with such a ludicrously empty one-liner a day after the debate ended thus contributing absolutely zip to the thread once more.

As for me, I have certainly more then proved my points with facts, reason, logic and links and I can only imagine how ‘horrendous’ that must be for you, but that is debate and what debate is all about, whether you like it or not.
So I’ll ask you again:

Do you actually have anything of substance to say here? Anything to add to the debate at all? Which parts do you now claim are ‘horrendous’? Why are they ‘horrendous’? Can you prove these parts are not true? What insights into the debate do you offer? Any? If not, why are you even bothering?

FFS Daniel.

That’s either incredibly profound, incredibly obtuse or you think you’re announcing the Lottery result.

Please explain.

More personal remarks and jibes but no debate, Lee? Surely not? Not again?

I’m afraid that I have more then proven my point whilst you quite obviously are now just blatantly reduced to exactly what I said in the first place:

“I strongly suspected that you hadn’t come to engage in debate but to lower the exchanges down to a personal level and a farce and I see that is exactly what you are doing.”

All you have done really is to concede that your first question wasn’t even remotely genuine and neither was your second, as if we didn’t already know; and the second question is even more ridiculous then first and it is rooted in some pretty basic ignorance too describing the issue in racial terms when it is not by a long chalk.

At least I have educated on the error of that and you have now modified your position accordingly to “Muslim extremists being proportionally higher than non-muslim ones” instead of a “larger muslim extremist contingent than… extremist white’s”

Some progress. Not much. But some.

I’m asking for the 2nd time:…

Ooh. Get you. I’ve already explained why I mentioned the IRA. It was as an example of people of a religion doing something despicable and not being condemned by their churches for it. It was to show that not condemning something does not mean you support it. RWF offerdd more in 230, but you’ve completely ignored those.

Whether the IRA are as nasty as extremist musllims or not is an irrelevant distraction.

I asked earlier if EVERYONE could leave out the ad hominens.

Can I ask YOU personally now.

289/290 contain no purposeful points.

I’m sure you don ‘t want to leave the impression that you’re losing the debate and are not willing to admit it …. so leave out the ad hominens, stick to the substantive issues, and try to keep the tone neutral.

Otherwise, you are broadcasting to the whole thread that you have indeed lost the plot.