American Beaten by Muslims in London for Drinking Beer in 'Sharia Zone'

I've personally known some who do. As a whole, perhaps. I believe Dutch has mentioned knowing quite a few, he's admittedly traveled a lot more than I have.

Again, as a group no, but there's quite a few individuals I know who abuse the vino.

At this point your post has become a serious overgeneralization of various groups.

California, so more like an asylum. Commune is close enough, though.

 

I'm unaware that being a middle-class family is something I should attest to my government's foreign policy. Is my government Jesus Christ in disguise or something?

 

Point being our (uk) government and im talking personal national governance, condones drinking alcohol and driving. This in turn gives the citizens the brevity needed to abuse. That is all weak ppl need.

 

Just to inform (in case anyone missed it.) This was not a case of Muslim patrols attacking anyone. The Daily beast made up a 'connection' between an American being attacked by Asian youth in London and Sharia patrols of a year or so ago.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24635343

 

I'm aware the UK has a serious problem but I would have to compare figures to know the comparative levels of violence between the two countries.
Perhaps you could post links to back up your theory, then we could discuss it.

However, the point is simpler than that. Some people are complaining of one incident, admittedly as nasty one, but totally ignore their own national guilt when they do so.

Glass houses.

 

It's not one incident.

I already demonstrated AND said this.

Moreover, what "national guilt"?

Why should I give a free pass to Pakistani's that murder a kid with hammers and knives, just because they were looking for a white kid to murder?

Remind me when we signed up to that please..?

 

When America and Britain invaded other countries, based on lies.
Of course, much as I have no support for it, you can expect people to be pissed off and attack back.

Britain followed America into stupid wars but doesn't like terrorism and so it these wars brought to those countries.
What, 9/11 was before Afghanistan and Iraq? yes, but the Americans were doing dirty deeds long before that.

Perhaps you can detail the Muslim threat before America decided we were the new enemy.
You could cite examples of Muslim attacks against British targets or terrorist incidents in the UK.

Enjoy your education.

 

No suing isn't limp, it's the correct course of action. People need to start making a scene more often, getting this stuff noticed in public awareness, in the news media, and to embarrass the government officials into taking action.

I don't want to bring race into this, but it seems to me that this "turn the other cheek" attitude is just so very white! Just let everyone walk all over you and don't put up even a whisper because why? Because of what some people did long before you were born? Because you're too proud to make a scene? Do you want to just roll over and die?!

The point is that the people in Europe have learned Political correctness WRONG! They forgot the most important rule: Your rights end where another's rights begin. This Sharia gang business? It shouldn't be an issue because it violates the rights of the other person. The PC movement isn't about allowing criminal behavior and activity to run unchecked. But, the Europeans are so afraid of violating PC that they've already violated one of its basic rules.

Other minority groups have been fighting for their rights and issues for decades. If you want to have rights you have to claim them. Stuff doesn't just happen, you've got to make it happen! Do you really think that everyone always gets the same rights, with each generation receiving them automatically, and so on forever, without the need to stake a claim to them again at some point? Well someday, like today in Europe, it's time to stake a claim on basic rights and dignities. Time to make a scene!

 

they won't try it in Dearborn. their neighbors love their 9s as much as their 40s.

 

Oh my, it isn't a case of Sharia law gangs at all? Just a gang? Well then, that's different. In this case someone or someones are trying to ride the wave of anti-immigrant sentiment to drive a wedge in society. How very un-PC, they should be ashamed!

And the UK police, if they are worried about gang violence, should get into contact with my own New York state Police Force in the USA, being at the forefront of one of the biggest cities in the USA and leading the anti-terrorism efforts here in the states, I'm sure we can show the Europeans all the cutting edge techniques for dealing with gangs and gang violence.

 

Enjoy your one...

 

I don't like it.

For me it is limp wristed.

It just makes lawyers rich men and creates more of them.

I am sick of the suing and reparation culture.


The rest of your post had good points.

 

Five young thugs beat up a young stranger passing through their area after midnight. There was no mention in mainstream reports of any motivation for the attack, no mention of Muslims by the policeman, and no evidence of any connection to any "Muslim patrols".
What DC Mott really said was: “The CCTV footage is exceptionally clear and I believe the suspects to be local. I would ask people to please look closely at the faces of the attackers and help us identify them. I am positive someone would know who they are from looking at the footage.”
..Just another piece of shabby rabble-rousing then.

 

Muslim patrols? Sounds like the natives might want to consider putting together some 'patrols' of their own to keep an eye on those violent religious retards.. For the good of the community as a whole...

 

Indeed, because even if this incident did not happen at all, still it would not alter the fact that, as I have proven, the media are turning a blind eye to racist attacks by ethnics on the host people. It would not alter the fact that not only did our politicians bring them here, but they are now generally silent about what is going on, despite it being an open secret that there is a nation wide cover up on ethnic minority on ethnic European crime.

The far left and those with a vested interest do not want "better" race relations, since I see no evidence at all that being complicit in covering up the truth about this is actually going to help "relations", more likely, even the most tolerant person will, in the end, get sick of the wall of silence from the traitors in politics and the BBC, and it will be the fault of the far left, the BBC and leftist media and the political class when there is an inevitable backlash against this (as Infored almost admitted),war on the host people by Muslims, no matter who the target is, no matter what brute savagery is being implied in his post.

This calls for a full and unashamed removal of the politicians that have remained silent, and the full and immediate implementation of the proposals I laid out before. You need answers to problems, not merely problems. My plan, if followed to the letter and done for a period of 1-2yrs, would be a game changer.

 

Do the non-Euro criminals ever get charged with hate crimes, at least quietly if not publicly?

 

Nope.

If you are black or a Pakistani, you can rape and butcher someone, and as long as the victim is white, then it doesn't count as racially motivated.

Even if it is.

 

Love the avatar Durandal and have seen it before. I agree. If there were a muslim here getting all stupid, he should be watched. We don't have any, but if there were, a close eye should be kept on them.

 

I'm representin'

 

I would if you were capable of teaching but your ideas are flawed.
Many uneducated people blame Muslims (not a few Muslims) for terrorist attacks so, it's hardly a shock when the unintelligent or indoctrinated blame "the British" for British attacks in Muslim countries.
A mix of education and understanding is required on both sides.

What does 9/11 have to do with the lack of Muslim terrorism in the UK prior to UK involvement in illegal invasions?
Get real. There was no terrorism, except from the American funded IRA.
Perhaps you might get a clue from that about who started what.
Of course, I totally disagree with attacking civilians, regardless of the motive (With some exceptions, but not random murder) but, regardless of my objections, some will do it if they have cause they think justifies it.

Had Britain stayed out of Bush's stupidity, there would never have been 7/7 or other attacks.

 

Permit me to try make it more clear.

It is not the fault of the people here, or anywhere in Europe, if the political class have been acting in a manner which they simply do not like but cannot easily stop or control.

I am all for going after the perpetrators of any war criminals, whatever their accent, but I would not place much faith in that, the ICC are money for old rope, and are simply there to give people a war and fuzzy feel inside their tummy, okay? The very concept of "war crimes" were born out of clear and obvious hypocrisy in the first place, so you can forget anything that has grown from that seed bringing even the likes of Blair or a Bush, or their handlers to account. It is simply not going to happen, not under a system that is designed to protect men like that. That is the fact of the matter, we do not like it either, but we long stopped being consulted.

You will never get justice and fair application of justice, for as long as people, like pieces of driftwood, hang on to illusions of justice, be they the ICC, the UN or the EU. None of those will ever deliver or exact justice ever, other than a few bits for show, but in reality no.

But some are such stooges they still think that "they are worth having". Why? Why hang on to something that has proven to either have no will, clout, or desire to ever exact justice? What a set of repeated fails that is, and what a waste of money for repeated fails. Still, I am sure the talking heads won't moan, not with the salaries that go with.

But it is not the doing or the desire of the people, anyone can see that, and only someone defective would ignore the actual cause and go after innocent people that had only welcomed them to their country, and given them refuge.

You do not repay people and the host nation with violence, then make out like you have some moral right.

You do not. Period.

You do not lay claim to all suffering of all Muslims anywhere, and use that as a free pass to rape, assault, kill, and whatever else. Period.

You do not gradually Islamise parts of the capital of a country in which Islam is a minority, impose your own laws, and intimidate anyone that walks around their own country. Period.

You do not, as a broadcast public media, go out of your way to ignore crime against the host people that is racially motivated, if the attackers are black or Asians. Period.

We never stop hearing about the case of Stephen Lawrence, yet how familiar with the names of the examples of white kids being killed in racial attacks, are the public informed about with the same sort of on going saturation?

 

I agree totally but some do not and they are the dangerous, "some".
These dangerous people act in exactly the same silly manner as the British right wing; they blame all for the actions of the few.

I make no excuse or apology for the extremists' stupidity or crimes but I do make one point; had Britain not invaded those countries, there would have been no excuse (however weak) for the terrorist attacks.

 

Yes, some.

And if you look back to my original ideas, it is clearly that some that would be the target of my actions, as laid out.

Those who were not part of that some would not have a high presence in public in that manner, they would be at home or whatever else.

But it is more than "some" as in a 100 or so, that is the issue.

And the other issue is the evils of political correctness are removing all the gloves for them to do as they almost please.

And the last issue is that the Gov and police are meant to protect us in our own country. If they do not do that, and people have shown tolerance of the murders, rapes, and attacks, what then?

Even Sticky The Stick Insect has a natural reaction to fight back to survive, and if the host people feel that they are under threat, and if the media are blacking out coverage, and if the politicians are silent, how do you see that going in the end?

 

Intoxicants were forbidden in the Qur'an through several separate verses revealed at different times over a period of years. At first, it was forbidden for Muslims to attend to prayers while intoxicated (4:43). Then a later verse was revealed which said that alcohol contains some good and some evil, but the evil is greater than the good (2:219). This was the next step in turning people away from consumption of it. Finally, "intoxicants and games of chance" were called "abominations of Satan's handiwork," intended to turn people away from God and forget about prayer, and Muslims were ordered to abstain (5:90-91).
http://islam.about.com/od/health/f/alcohol.htm

In what they did, is is a shift of the imbalance between good and evil,
placing more evil on their side.

 

Doesn't count as racially motivated by whom?