And another thing…

They’ll be looking for a SNP Daniel Hannan to defend this guy no doubt . .

Takes a clever weasel to make out that homophobes and nazi remembrance fanciers are ‘just guys, y’know . . “

“Fort Hood murders”? Islamic terrorist attack, please, lets call it what it was.

The problem with Islam is that you have to believe the Qu’ran is the inerrant Word of Allah. To not believe that is to not be a Muslim.

Islam needs to change to fit in with the modern world. Judaism has always been very good at adapting to fit in with the society it finds itself in, Christianity took a long time but eventually decided the Bible is a moral guide (a poor one IMO) rather than literal truth, Islam has to do the same.

However, this country seems to pander to people of strong faith as if that gives them some kind of morality or intelligence, if anything I’s say the opposite, under the guise of being PC. We need to stop this, we need to say that some peoples beliefs are vile and hate filled. We have to say no to Sharia courts, we have to say no to the bigotry shown by the Catholic Church when they said to the Anglicans, “Give us your bigots, your homophobes and your sexists, they can have a home here.”

This used to be a country of the free, a country where ideas could be challenged, not protected. What happened?

honestly Tom, I think you are getting more and more desperate!

For a Labour man to criticise others with dubious links when your pal Mr Blair has set the Muslim world ablaze is breathtaking hypocrisy.

Good job you wont be able to claim you speak for the people of Glasgow south after next may

So do you think Saeed was right to praise these two preachers, or not?

Paul:

The Bible is the Word of God, however you won’t find many Christians following the advice therein for the treatment of venereal diseases I am told.

I think many Muslims take a similar view of the Koran.

Fortunately for us, the vast majority of Muslims in this country are what devout Muslims would call ‘Westernised apostates.’ That is, they don’t obey the strict religious injunction to hunt down and destroy the unbeliever wherever they may be.

Unfortunately for us, there are, according to the security services, at least two thousand of these devout Muslims here.

They are promised eternal paradise,
ten thousand slaves,seventy two virgins and a thick carpet for destroying us.

Laughable in a civilised society, I know, until you remember Madrid, London, New York etc, etc.

I don’t think that Mr Saeed was right to praise these two ‘preachers’, but then again, I am not yearning for a worldwide Islamic caliphate.

Tom, it has just been admitted (not that it was needed) that New Labour allowed many disparate and indeed desperate people to come to the UK simply to make it more ‘multicultural’, i.e. stir things up and then invent ‘hate’ crimes and anti-terror legislation to remove the proles’ freedom.

How do *you* feel about the government’s policy of allowing our enemies to settle here?

No, Stewart, it has not been “admitted” – it has been alleged, and it is an allegation I do not believe.

We are all completely stumped by the great conspiracy theory surrounding Osama.

I don’t even begin to understand it. It would appear that Osama is meant to be some kind of jihadist extremist type. A homophobe, a bigot and a sexist- and Nazi Remembrance Fancier whatever that means?

Since that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the person we all know we just shrug our shoulders and get on with it. It’s actually funny to think of Osama being either a sexist or a homophobe given the make-up of Govan SNP.

But what the hell. The internet is full of weird stuff that makes no sense after all.

Indy: “Since that bears no resemblance whatsoever to the person we all know we just shrug our shoulders and get on with it.”

You mean, he’s a nice guy? Well, why didn’t you say so? Because obviously it’s whether a candidate gets on well with other activists that counts a lot more than whether he’s prepared to give house room to homophobes and terrorist supporters…

We make it easier for the sane Muslims by making clear we believe they exist and are decent people.

Racists who aver otherwise are enemies of our country, saboteurs.

Britain has always been multicultural by any standard of course. But racists commonly like to use “culture” as a pseudonym for “race.”

Tom, this is the allegation from Andrew Neather, who is a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”.

As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants.

And since the announcement, one minister after another has come out to say on immigration, “We got it wrong”.

I’ve known for years that New Labour’s immigration policy was designed to help sell us out to outside interests. Like I wrote on the previous thread: sometimes millions of people can see the danger in something, while countless others wander blindly in.

WHAT? HOW DARE THE SNP HAVE AN ISLAMIC CANDIDATE!

SHOOT THEM! DEPORT THEM!

AFTER ALL, THE UK IS THE KINGDOM OF RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!*

*Except for Islamics who shouldn’t run for public office and Catholics who are banned not only from the monarchy but from being in line from the monarchy or marrying someone who is line to the monarchy. But REALLY, there’s no religious prejudice here! REALLY!

While I agree with all that you say, sections of the Labour PArty aren’t shy when it comes to terrorists or their supporters. The IRA were feted in the 80s by a variety of back-bench MPs like Livingstone. Thank God he was never given a position of power.

It was also the ex-Mayor of London who invited at least one Islamic extremist to City Hall (I forget who this creature was exactly).

And while the Conservatives don’t get involved with small, terrorist groups, some emminent MPs (like PMs) get on famously with state-sponsored butchers like Pinochet.

So every party associates with undesirables.

(PS As a Conservative supporter, I’m ashamed of the way Thatcher feted Pinochet when he was under house arrest. It was a disgrace.)

I see in Quietzapple’s first comment he decides it’s necessary to effectively smear Hannan as racist and homophobic. Nice

Interesting to see that the tactics of McBride haven’t entirely gone away.

Stewart, just to put to put the record straight, Andrew Neather subsequently stated that there was no such plot – and that what he’d said had been ‘distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists.’

[Neather] pinpointed a shift in immigration policy in 2001, when he wrote a speech for Roche outlining changes to make it easier for skilled workers to come to the UK. The speech followed a sensitive report on migration from the Downing Street performance and innovation unit.
“Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when – hard as it is to imagine now – the booming economy was running up against skills shortages,” Neather wrote in the Standard.
He admitted he had a sense from several discussions at the time that there was a subsidiary purpose of boosting diversity and undermining the right’s opposition to multiculturalism, but Neather insisted it was not the main point at issue.
“Somehow this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a ‘plot’ to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot. I’ve worked closely with Ms Roche and Jack Straw and they are both decent, honourable people who I respect … What’s more both were robust on immigration when they needed to be. Straw had driven through a tough Immigration and Asylum Immigration Act in 1999 and Roche had braved particularly cruel flak from the left over asylum seekers.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/labour-immigration-plot-andrew-neather

It’s quite understandable that you didn’t know that Neather had issued this refutation, because it received nowhere near the blanket coverage of the original (inaccurate) story.

There may well be something in what Stewart says there, Tom.
Or there may not.

On the Islamic front, I am troubled by anyone whose religious faith calls them to infringe on the rights of others.
I don’t personally care what you believe, and I’m happy for you to do so, and for you to exercise that belief how you see fit. As long as they don’t infringe on the rights of others.

You can believe whatever daft nonsense you like, be it mythical cosmic telepaths from Nazareth, burning bushes that talk in the desert, invsible beings in the sky that telepathically communicate with goat-herders in Mecca, or anything else for that matter. As long as you don’t try to force it down mine or anyone elses throat, and you respect the absolute rights of other people to think you’re a loon, great.

As soon as you start to do otherwise, be it threatening to kill anyone who refuses to bow to your pink elephant, or pouring faeces on the children of those who think the elephant was red not pink…that’s when I have a problem.

Some Christians and Muslims seem to be doing that, and they have no place in our society as free individuals.
Most are not delusional nutters though, and should not be tarred with the same brush.

My point here? I’ve no idea if Saeed is of the former or the latter. I think it’s clear Anwar is of the former, but I’ve never met, spoken with or had any dealings with Saeed. Everyone from the party thinks he’s a nice, clever bloke. Everyone from Labour I’ve heard on the matter think he’s a raving fanatic. Clearly both parties can’t be right.
It could well be that Saeed didn’t condemn Anwar because no-one asked him, or because he didn’t know what he was talking about and someone brought stuff to his notice.

Or he could secretly be a nutjob. I don’t think the SNP would associate with him if this were true. I really don’t.

Freedom of religion is important to me. My own religious faith (pagan) regularly gets laughed at or demonised by the Sun and christian right-wing respectively. But they have that right. I’m not leading anyone on a crusade to take Scotland back for the heathens. I would defend your right to criticise me for having “loony” beliefs. It’s that important. Likewise, those who are muslim must have the right to believe what hey wish. But if those beliefs are “extreme”, if they are “objectionable” to our secular society, if by following those beliefs they are committing crimes of intimidation or of violence, then they have no place in a public figure, and certainly no place in a mainstream party.
We’ve already got one loony-party with fanatical beliefs, and they recently came fourth in a place I’d prefer not to talk about right now…

NB: Roche refers to the Minister of Immigration and Asylum, Barbara Roche.

@Quietzapple

Firstly Christians do not believe that the bible is the literal word of God.

The old testament is a Jewish book (Christ being a Jew himself) and it is a collection of stories (some historically based), psalms (poems), laws and a lot more collected over a long period of time by originally desert nomads who eventually became known as the Jews.

This allows Jewish scholars to debate about the true meaning of the their faith and adapt it to suit the place or time they are living in.

The new Testament consists of further collections of writing from the early church. This includes second and third hand witness accounts of Jesus and his apostles. Together with letters sent by his followers.

The message of Jesus of course was always one of peace, but eventually got twisted by various churches into something else. The reformation went some way to repairing this damage.

Islam is different as it believers see everything in the Koran as the absolute instruction of God given to his prophet Mohammed. This instruction gives precise details of how they should live their lives and is not open to debate or reinterpretation. The ultimate example of how to live your life was provided by Mohammed. Unfortunately Mohammed by modern standards is a very unsavoury individual.

People who think that Islam is due some kind of reformation are wrong. You can not rewrite or reinterpret the absolute word of God. There can be discussion on vaguer items such as what can be counted as female modesty. However you can not change the idea that every Muslims should strive to spread Islam, or ideas such that where Islam is dominant the best a none Muslim can expect is treatment as a second class citizen.

You just get funnier and funnier Tom. Strange how Anas Sarwar has steered clear of all this Osama is a terrorist sympathiser stuff.

I wonder why.

With the exception of McBride’s accusation vs Osborne (Which had been Big News in the N o W during the Chameleon Leadership election) I think all the accusations he hoped to publicise were clearly made up, or suppositions after some fashion.

Having joined homophobes, anti-semites etc Daniel Hannan has sought to defend the indefensible, and then resigned from the Tory Front Bench.

I suspect I have been subjected to a Tory Smear, hardly noticed, sooo many, never do . . . perhaps it’s this aura . . ?

Jeannie, where does Tom say he’s against Islamic candidates standing for the SNP (or for Labour, or the Monster Raving Loony Party)?

It’s Saeed’s support of the idea of a worldwide Islamic caliphate (which is not a view supported by moderate and peace-loving Muslims) that’s the problem.

@Nicky:

I just love these “EXCITABLE” right wing columnists ROFLMS&AO!

Euphemisms, don’tcha just love ‘em?

Ken Livingstone shared a platform with an Islamo-fascist hoping his calls for moderation would do some good btw.

Wise or not, Cons Govts have dealt with the IRA, Archbishop Makarios, Stern Gang members, etc.

Churchill said: “Jaw Jaw, better than, War War.”

Best to have a suitable stick to hand I suppose,

Nicky,

Fair enough, the Daily Mail got over-excited (so what’s new?), but reading that Guardian article, and Neather still admits that “there was a subsidiary purpose of boosting diversity and undermining the right’s opposition to multiculturalism.”

As for Straw’s “tough Immigration and Asylum Act in 1999″, well that really worked, didn’t it? Just like ‘tough on crime’.

“Britain has always been multicultural by any standards”. Well yes, but that statement hides, rather than illuminates the degree of change brought about by post war immigration.

London (the most multicultural city in the UK) in the early nineteen fifties had substantial Irish, Welsh, Scottish, Welsh, West Indian and Jewish populations and some, but relatively tiny, numbers of many other groups, but it was still overwhelmingly both culturally English and ethnically caucasian.

In 2009 almost half the population of London is African, Afro-Caribbean or Indian in origin. Almost half the new births (not the same half) are to mothers not born in the UK.

That change has taken place within one lifetime but it did not happen only in the last twelve years, although it has been substantially accelerated during that period, It has hugely altered the nature and character of London, England and the United Kingdom.

Many people regard that change as beneficial. They are entitled to their view. Others are too frightened of being called racists to question it. However, note how the supporters of mass immigration have shifted their ground over the years. Once we were told it was part of our Commonwealth obligations and was at a level that could be assimilated (note, assimilated, not just integrated – immigrants would join our culture, not import their own). No one who favoured it openly said that it was making us more multicultural and that was just great. Gradually, however, the original defence became impossible to sustain. The Commonwealth ceased to be mentioned and the idea that being multicultural (usually “vibrantly” multicultural) was an inherently good thing began to be sold to us. Finally, when bombs on the London underground and the problems of dealing with a terrorist movement with roots within the country but loyalties elsewhere made some people begin to wonder whether multicultures might not have a distinct downside, the economic and demographic arguments came to the fore. In a nutshell, you are not having enough children to sustain your ageing population, so we must import them.

To say that the multiculturalism of Britain in the first half of the twentieth century is similar to British multiculture now is like sayiing that a motor assisted bicycle is like top of the range Harley Davidson. There is some truth in both statements, but they are both extremely misleading.

It of course a tenable view for people to claim that multicultural Britain is better than the much more homogenous Britain that preceded it, but it entirely a value judgement and we don’t all have the same values. Some of us quite liked the (more or less) monoculture that we were born into, regarding it as inherently stronger, happier and safer than any multiculture. We would have preferred not to have to deal with all the tensions and social and legal complications which diversity brings. Our view is equally tenable and it is time that it was heard. There is nothing that can be done to change what has happened, but we don’t have to keep adding to it.

The multi-cultural nature of even London in the ’50s was wider than suggested.

Where I was begun to be brought up there were Italians, my first fight on my first day at primary school was with a Man City hardnut, my Dad’s best friend from WW2 was a gentle voiced tyke . . .

My ancestors are from Ireland, Hungary, France among other places.

Greater mobility is inevitable, People up and move; my children have had b/g/fs from the USA, Kazakhstan, Ireland, Eygpt.Most kids like them would say they are 100% English, but we can all see the slight touch of eastern looks in the beautiful eyes of one of my daughters.

It is imagination that 60 years ago our society was culturally monolithic as suggested. many resented the american influence on our culture then, we are always xenophobic, our way. You will find people whom you will regard as recent immigrants who take such a line re the Poles for example.

We, the British, are always much more than the Angles, the Saxons etc.

Tom,

Your lot have done this.

1. The twat who runs Islam4UK is apparently allowed to demand the overthrow of the UK with impunity. That he is a twat makes no difference.

2. Murderers now have the right to go shopping apparently. Human rights, I bet.

Whoops! One escaped

http://burningourmoney.blogspot.com/2009/11/relax-theyre-only-murderers.html

3. Kids – remember. If you find a gun – DON’T hand it into the police like any good citizen would. Just pretend you never saw it

Man gets five years for being a good citizen

http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/2009/11/son-of-gun.html

UK FUBAR. Get out while you can. Five more years of Labour and the UK can … as our friends over the water say – kiss goodbye to its ass.

“They are promised eternal paradise,
ten thousand slaves,seventy two virgins and a thick carpet for destroying us.”

How juvenile! Seventy two virgins? That could only come from a culture where men and women lead separate lives.

Besides, who the hell would want a virgin anyway? An older woman, more experienced and confident, is a much better proposition.

Virgins are for teenagers.

James Matthews

Well said. I lived in an inner City part of Bristol for 20 years; largely Muslim, largely been there for many years. It was a good example of multi-culti diversity. It happened organically, the community built itself. On Christmas Day, whilst Oxfam were hiding their Christmas trees to avoid offense, our Muslim neighbours were saying Happy Christmas to us, and admiring our trees.

New Labour have, however, decided to rub our noses in “diversity” – or rather, not home grown, organic, coming from within the community “diversity”, rather *their* version of it, imposed from it from without, by the likes of the late utterly unlamented Blears, self-appointed Minister For Telling The People What The People Want.

No – now we know that this was a pre-planned assault on England (“The English are not worth saving” – Jack Straw), we know also that the New Labour “project” has been entirely treasonous.

No wonder Blair got capital punishment struck off the books for the crime of treason. No bloody wonder.

QZ,
One of Labour’s greatest heroes was Nye Bevan. Big fan of Stalin’s, and though that the end justified the means with regard to his reign of oppression.

As for Livingstone, I can’t for the life of me work out why he doesn’t just bugger off to Venezuela.

Your defence of him is no more, no less than I would expect from you. Livingstone has only one aim in life, and that is that of self-promotion. Loathsome man.

Where is the evidence that Osama Saeed supports a worldwide caliphate? Where is the evidence that he wishes to impose any form of sharia law on any non muslims? Where is the evidence that he has any link with or any sympathy with terrorists? I haven’t seen any – and I have looked quite hard.

What I have seen are numerous smear jobs and inferences being drawn from dot-to-dot connections which somehow ”prove” that Osama Saeed and the Scottish Islamic Foundation have connections with terrorism. Well I’m sorry but that doesn’t wash with me.

We live in a complex global political system where Islamic countries have been variously invaded, occupied, attacked, and demonised by Western nations including the UK. I don’t know how many muslims have been killed in these actions, but it is one hell of a lot more than Westerners who have been killed by Islamist extremists.

So there is obviously going to be a lot of unrest, and indeed righteous anger in the Islamic world, at the injustices which have been perpetrated, and which continue to be perpetrated, upon muslims and upon Arabs in particular.

It is quite ridiculous to suppose that any politician who is a muslim can isolate himself from that. But what I see is a deliberate campaign to prove Saeed guilty by association, rather than guilty because of anything he has done.

Really, Tom is saying that you can be a muslim who is active in politics, but only if you are a muslim who supports the actions of the UK Govt. If you do not, and if you have any association with muslims abroad who are part of the movement against Western imperialism in the middle East region then you will be damned as a result of it.

This is actually a very dangerous situation, because anger and fear about the prospect of Islamist terrorism has mutated into anger and fear about Islam in general. The things which you routinely read in blogs and on newspaper websites casually demonising Islam and muslims are eerily similar to what the Nazis said about the Jews.

There is nothing in the Koran which does not have an equivalent in the Bible. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that Asians are the biggest victims of racial violence in Scotland, just look at the most recent killing on the south side of Glasgow where an Indian was killed because he was mistaken for a ”paki”.

I really think Tom has some serious thinking to do here, and I would like to see him put his accusations to Osama Saeed to his face or in writing to him, and then publish the response.

Just read your opening salvo QZ.

Are you so red that no smear is beneath you?

To me your comment is worse than any direct ‘hate speech’.

What kind of person would use that stuff for personal gain? Your comment renders anything else you say useless.

Appalling tactics. You should be ashamed.

The Labour Party in Scotland absolutely hates that the SNP enjoy strong support in the Scots Asian community and that it was the SNP who had elected the first Scots Asian (the late Bashir Ahmad) to Holyrood

That is what is behind the attacks on Osama Saeed.

@ Roger:

Perhaps you would let me know which post you refer to, time would help.

I’ve never read any of yours without taking exception, but I’m more recalcitrant.

@JPJ2

All what I have witnessed from the SNP is vast amounts of money thrown at the Asian community for votes.

Which is not a very original tactic as it has been much used by the Labour party in England.

The Muslim community provides a block vote aided by the very corrupt postal voting system.

Check out how much the the Scottish Islamic Foundation was given, 1/2 million for what exactly. Well Islamfest to be exact. I suggest you research what this involved. Personally I think Scottish tax payers money would be best spent on schools and hospitals.

Er… ‘Opening salvo’.

Unsurprisingly I was referring to your first post.

as a representative of a government that has faild to tackle the enemy at home, you are a fine one to talk. put your own house in order before you have a go at others.

Tom again instead of attacking others, just what about this. This is what I so dislike the Labour government for. You are just out to destroy England by stealth.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6569414/Green-belt-threat-to-27-towns-and-cities-revealed.html

So again put your own house in order.

Those who suggest sexual activities in S America might try Bolivia where they may well be entertained as one might infer they wish.

I recall they took the Thatcherite experiment to heart: life is cheap there.

Mildly surprised, of course, for it to be suggested that that the Billionaire Press is “red” (apart from its tops, of course) for their right wing vade mecum is smear – see the Sun last week, and its influence on the BBC, for a change, undid them.

Smears are most commonly blue, twas ever thus.

Amused this morning to read that The Sun changed Mr Chameleon’s Home Secretary: http://url.ie/2v6y

Lord Cashcroft runs (& largely pays for) Tory HQ.

Poor, p poor Mr Chameleon, wannabe Successful Billionaires’ Lackey.

@Plodder Do please read some history if you intend to continue to entertain us. “Uncle Joe” Stalin was pretty popular for a while in Great Britain. He led the USSR into alliance with the Yanks and ourselves, at enormous and inhuman cost, to defeat the nazis.

QZ. I did not say that sixty years ago we were culturally monolithic. I said Britain was more or less monocultural, and it was. I know, I lived it (in an undistinguished school in Hackney, an immigrant area). It is a rather extreme view to characterise a Mancunian and a Yorkshireman as belonging to separate cultures

Your mixed, though apparently mostly European, ancestry is no more relevant than mine. The issue is the number and of immigrants that can reasonably be assimilated in a generation or two and whether they come from readily compatible cultures. Post war immigration has not been assimilable (There has been nothing on a comparable scale since the saxon invasions). That is what is tacitly admitted every time someone bangs on about Britain being multicultural and how wonderful that is.

James;

You are talking still more nonsense I fear. Culture is both practiced and passed on – try Radcliffe-Brown/Malinovsky.

I lived in West London 60 years back, and also recall my late Father’s slight Sussex burr, and my grandmothers’ sharply differing accents.

Also tales of cultures more diverse, and being practiced less than 30 miles apart, than you evidently could imagine it seems. The annual perry wagon from the west arriving in Hailsham at the same time each year.

By contrast subjects gathering outside the palace whenever there was trouble in the capital. People living lives varying far more than mine does from the average Uk muslim’s now.

Cultures converge, without other means towards diversity our greatest asset – the British spirit – would stultify.

Be old, surely: do not congeal.

Tom,

Yesterday saw 1500 of the great unwashed out on the streets of Glasgow DEFENDING the rights of extremist Muslims to stone gays to death, kill apostates, deny free speech, subjugate women and enslave us all in the Middle Ages.

Here are their supporters

http://www.uaf.org.uk/aboutUAF.asp?choice=4

Perhaps you could have a word with a few of them over a pint?

I put a comment on earlier which does not seem to have been published. Never mind.

In summary all the speculation about Osama Saeed’s position on Islamism is pointless. He has made his position clear.

It is set out in this speech:

http://scottishislamic.wordpress.com/2009/09/22/speech-on-islamism/

Anybody who has any genuine interest should read it. On the other hand if you think all Muslims are terrorist sympathisers until proved otherwise there is probably not much point.

It is interesting to read Osama’s take on why he thinks he has been caught up in this witch-hunt. I think he is being a bit too kind. It does after all serve Labour’s purposes if voters in Glasgow Central are left with the impression that the SNP’s campaign is being run from a cave in Afghanistan.

Old Holborn – that is no way to talk about Annabelle Goldie.

Old Holborn coughing bile into his angostura bitters . . .

. . . likely he’ll finish as did the lady who was the object of Enoch Powell’s dishonest allusion in his “Rivers of Blood” speech . . .

. . . an object of immigrants’ gentle solicitude.

It is unfortunate for people like Old Holborn that the rabble of the so-called Scottish Defence League were pictured throwing Nazi salutes.

But I enjoyed the comment made by one of the SDL nutters reported in the Herald. “People were literally laughing at us like we were clowns.”

Yep.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/not-here-1.932520

QZ,
You seem to me getting monomaniac about Old Holborn. Shame on you

‘. . . an object of immigrants’ gentle solicitude.’

Glad you mentioned her Quietzapple. It’s a fascinating and moving story -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-433497/Widow-Enoch-Powells-Rivers-Blood-speech-really-did-exist.html

>> honestly Tom, I think you are getting more and more desperate!

>> For a Labour man to criticise others with dubious links when your pal Mr Blair has set the Muslim world ablaze is breathtaking hypocrisy.

I was going to let my comrade Dhaibhidh post a parody of this racist tosh, but a genuine believer beat me to it.

Remember, these are *meant* as satires, but there clearly are idiots who believe ‘em:

http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/2009/11/15/elm-not-support-killing-american-troops-in-america/

http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/2009/11/13/osama-saeed-azad-al/

>> Strange how Anas Sarwar has steered clear of all this Osama is a terrorist sympathiser stuff.

‘Cos he’s not a former regional director for the Muslim Brotherhood alligned Muslim Association of Britain who has called suicide-terrorism “martyrdom operations”, and invited murderous anti-Jewish racists such as Kemal el-Hebawy to meet with Linda Fabiani… not to mention heads of the Libyan branch of the MB?

Admit it, Indy, you’re scared of Muslims and take the OBL line that a true Muslim can only be anti-West. It’s the bigotry of low expectations.

Good God, this thread is a real box of delights.

>> Where is the evidence that Osama Saeed supports a worldwide caliphate?

His own mouth, ba’ heid.

>> Where is the evidence that he wishes to impose any form of sharia law on any non muslims?

What disgraceful comment. Imposing Sharia on Muslims doesn’t seem to be as important to Observer.

>> Where is the evidence that he has any link with or any sympathy with terrorists?

http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/2009/08/18/blog-pruning/

http://efrafandays.wordpress.com/2009/04/29/osama-saeed-does-not-support-terrorism-or-killing-of-jews-in-britain/

>> I haven’t seen any – and I have looked quite hard.

No you haven’t.

@Quietzapple:
“Cultures converge, without other means towards diversity our greatest asset – the British spirit – would stultify.”

The problem as I see it, which is hopefully the same as others do, is that we do not want our cultures to converge. There is not a single thing that our culture could take from the middle east theocracies that would improve the UK. When we have immigrants from stone age cultures then we want them to assimilate, not converge.

@ Jeannie

“…But REALLY, there’s no religious prejudice here! REALLY!…”

There isn’t much.

But there’s some absolutely terrible prejudice against being blown up on the Underground.

Really. Terrible.

Who or what is Quietapple. Where has it come from. Did it have another name.

He must be a member of the Anti Plain English campagne.

He needs to go back to his theroretical world somewhere.

I used to go to school with a lad called Stan Johnson. He used to talk like that. He went off his head in his late thirties.

Trust me Quietzapple, when I finally expire, I’ll be labelled as toxic waste.

Some already have, mind.

JEANNIE >> “…But REALLY, there’s no religious prejudice here! REALLY!…”

There’s shed-loads from you and other scardy-cats who can’t tell the difference between grubby bigots and supporters of terrorism, and the millions of Muslims who’re not.

Sorry, but I’m becoming increasingly nervous at the tone and content of some comments submitted here (all of the above comments excluded). So this thread is now closed.