Originally Posted by castlereagh

Originally Posted by armourer

Originally Posted by Bombard

I'm not excusing any terrorist-Muslim

Yes you are.

No he's not

I dont think any brit can excuse muslim terrorism, definately not recently!

Originally Posted by Awol

For too long, just having reservations about immigration has been taboo in polite society, almost akin to announcing a sexual predilection for lightly oiled toddlers at a dinner party. If a situation has arisen, (and we all know that it has), that the issues are not even allowed to be discussed openly, then the extremists have almost won.

Reservations about immigration are one thing but telling people that muslims: "breed like rats, and they piss in baptismal fonts." Is just plain old nasty racism and has no place in a constructive and reasoned debate about immigration.

Muslims are not a race. People have said for years that Catholics (not a race) breed like rats. Uproar? No. Not even from Catholics.

Chavs breed like rats (can't speak for their toilet habits).

Seadog listens for uproar...........nothing heard.

Originally Posted by Bombard

Well, at least the french and Brits didn't completly rape the colonies they aquired: Unlike Portogese Angola or Belgian Congo.

just wondering what you mean here? Not agreeing or disagreeing - I just don't know much about the history of Angola and the Congo?

Tricam.

Originally Posted by Seadog

Muslims are not a race.

Fine, you fatwa writing son of a pedant :P

Fallaci engages in religious bigotry which is intended to be linked to certain immigrant communities, whose members happen to be followers of Islam. In her demonisation of Islam, Fallaci encourages the erroneous belief that Muslims are in some way inhuman and devoid of any civilised traits. Comments which she is unable to justify or support in any way, but engages in so to encourage ill feeling towards these non-Christian immigrants
Such ignorant and nasty rhetoric has no place in a reasoned debate about immigration

Happy? By the way if you can't hear the uproar maybe you need to turn down your Erasure CD

From what I've read Belgian and Portugese empire builders had no problems with mass murder (wiping out villages), slavery (mines) and exploitation. (take your pick)

I'm kinda hoping that a Belgian or Portugese will pipe up and argue back.

Whereas, While the Brits and French had their own ways, In general they were less brutal- though in Algeria the French came fairly close, by all accounts. Kenya was not very nice for the natives either during the 60's.

Originally Posted by Bombard

From what I've read Belgian and Portugese empire builders had no problems with mass murder (wiping out villages), slavery (mines) and exploitation. (take your pick)

I'm kinda hoping that a Belgian or Portugese will pipe up and argue back.

Whereas, While the Brits and French had their own ways, In general they were less brutal- though in Algeria the French came fairly close, by all accounts. Kenya was not very nice for the natives either during the 60's.

Not portugese but have to say that I don't think the portuguese were as bad as the Belgians. In many ways portuguese colonialism was more enlightened that British and French colonialism. All colonial subjects could receive citizenship provided they met the educational bar. Racial mixing was also not frowned upon, unlike in the British and French empires. If anything Portuguese colonialism was not able to give certain benefits to their colonies like French and British did because they lacked the resources not because of any racial or cultural indifference towards their subjects.Their putting down of insurrections or independence movements was no worse of that of the British or French. (In saying that I do exclude extreme examples of French and british colonial policing i.e. Kenya, Malyasia - for the british and Algeria and Indo-China for the French)
The belgians were of course in a league of their own, no doubt spurred on by the fact that the congo was orginally a private business of the then Belgian king.

Castlereagh wrote

if you can't hear the uproar maybe you need to turn down your Erasure CD

It's not that, it was my turn in the barrel. But I'm out now and listening.........................nothing heard.

I recently acquired a copy of Orianna Fallaci's 'The Rage & the Pride' whilst passing through Rome (as one does). I had heard of her before, and was intrigued by the fact that her name seems to drive Italians to extremes of opposition or support (as Italians are wont to do). I haven't read it all, but can say that I find that her book is somewhat muddled in its thinking - this may be due to the fact that she translated it into English herself. If one is in any way an adherent of multiculturalism or is politically or socially liberal, then one will not like the tone of what she says. She is guilty of quite simplistic and sometimes extremist language that I feel undermines the points she is trying to make, namely that extreme liberalism and repackaged communism has left the West more critically weakened - politically, culturally, socially, and morally - than at any other time in its recent history, and that militant Islam is currently the greatest threat.

Fallaci has been living in a self-imposed exile in America for quite some time. Now, her detractors will dismiss this as just so much showboating, but I can see why, based on my own experiences in Italy. Academic and intellectual life in Italy - as is becoming increasingly the case elsewhere in the West - is highly politicized, and merely voicing an opinion that flies in the face of the perceived 'official' position or belief can leave one marked down as an undesirable both personally and professionally. For instance, the sterotypical image of the 'marxist professor' may be something that we in the English-speaking world laugh at, but in Italy - until recently the home of the largest and most powerful communist party in Western Europe - the stereotype is alive and well and dominates the arts and humanities of Italian universities.

A quick fact for those on this thread - in Europe in 1945 there were some 1 million Muslims; in 2005 there are now some 20 million (the unofficial number is greater). Muslim communities in Europe have a higher birthrate than native Europeans, and on current trends a significant number of European cities will have a Muslim majority within a generation, soon therafter followed by European states with a Muslim majority.

From what I picked up, the Portugese were far the most "enlightened" imperial rulers in the New Labour sense. Take Mozambique. They decided it was wrong to "interfere" with the lives of the locals, and so made sure they went as unaffected by the detail of Portugese imperial life as possible. We and the Frogs set about introducing the Law, Christianity etc etc, down to educating the folk in the jungle with Shakespeare and the works. Sure we indellibly changed, uprooted, altered, screwed-up (choose your politically preferred term) their cultures. However, come exit time, most Commonwealth and Francophonie countries functioned fairly well, even if since then they decended into war and chaos later. By contrast, suddenly the Mozambiqueans has no-one to run their infrastructure and had not the faintest clue how to do so themselves. Instant chaos. That's why all former Portugese territories (think East Timor too) have been total basket cases. It's like raising a kid in Disneyland without school etc until he's 16 then saying goodbye, forever. Bonkers!