https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/12/05/rotherham-rapist-to-be-released-from-prison-early/
"A member of a Rotherham grooming gang who raped and tortured his victims is set to be released from prison after serving only nine years of a 19-year sentence.
Banaras Hussain, 44, who is also a convicted drug dealer, will be allowed out on licence on Friday after being jailed for violent sexual offences in 2016.
He was sentenced after admitting 10 charges including rape, indecent assault and actual bodily harm.
Hussain abused his victims, some of whom were as young as 11, over more than a decade and was one of six members of a grooming gang jailed for a total of 103 years. "
The Rotherham Rape Rings is one of the biggest indictments of both Islam and the political left of recent years. That the UK justice system ignored this animal forcing a child to give him oral sex in public, and e subsequent light sentences, and now grants him early release, is an indication of the ongoing fall of the UK. The fact is that the UK is actively pursuing a two tiered sentencing system that favors Muslims, and that the government allows Muslims to behave in ways that they allow from no other demographic group. Simply because they fear riots if they enforce the laws of the UK appropriately.
It's also an indictment of Islam. That there is not a peep from "moderate Muslims" about this ongoing rape gang strongly suggests that here really is no "moderate" wing of Islam. That Pakistani culture embraces the rape of children and cousin marriage, which they've graciously brought to the UK, with nary a word from "moderate" Muslims, is again and indictment of Islam. That Islamic clerics (videos elsewhere) encourage and justify these behaviors simply reinforces the impression that their view of "Kaffirs" as being less than human is accurate.
All in all, I can't understand why anyone would travel to the UK at this point.
23 comments:
My wife and I have long spoken of our desire to travel to Europe and the UK. Things like this have dampened that desire considerably. The tolerance...fear, actually...of muslims (true "islamophobia") is a threat to all non-muslims. The threat it is to muslims also is on the muslims themselves and for which I don't much care.
But the overall leftist bent of governments abroad, added to the fact that we are Americans, inclines us to believe that any travel there would require constantly watching what we say and where we go and among whom we find ourselves.
I continue to favor real restrictions against muslim immigration to this country and the current roundup of illegals needs to gather as many of those from muslim majority countries and rid ourselves of them. From there, the DOJ and other law enforcement agencies need to act against those pockets of sharia ruled neighborhoods which exist in our country and hold accountable to our laws any whose allegiance to sharia and Gazan causes have caused harm or incited it.
At this point, given how unjustly the UK government is acting, I can't imagine visiting there. The one European country that is still on my bucket list, is coincidentally the one that has held the line on immigration, is Poland.
The restrictions on the freedoms we take for granted in the UK specifically, combined with the "free pass" that Muslims are given indicates an abdication of their government's responsibilities to their citizens.
Without rehashing a conversation we've had before, I favor restrictions yet struggle with the implications. I favor restrictions linked to individual speech or action, not broadly based on a religion.
Which is not to say the the actions of Muslim immigrants in Europe aren't pushing me towards your position. The fact that so many European governments refuse to deport, execute, or jail the vile humans who engage in vile behavior is kind of their own fault as well.
While some insist on referring to islam as a religion, it's certainly far more...if not different...than what would otherwise be regarded as one. It's more restricting on ideology which they insist is God decreed. I don't like that we basically kowtow to their insistence that they are a ROP, when they certainly aren't that, and there are few who actually stand up boldly from among them to speak truthfully about what they are, even if they want to pretend the "religious" aspects are worth keeping, and on that basis alone, I see no reason to give them the same regard we would to a member of most any other actual religion. It's too bad there may exist those who don't deserve to be painted with the same broad brush which would protect our people. I'm unwilling to take the slightest risk no the exploited principle of not judging these books by their covers, nor do I feel the least bit ashamed or concerned that I'm in breach of any Christian teaching to put the safety of my people above the well known history of theirs.
Whatever Islam is or is not, a religion is definitely a (the) significant part of their identity. It's the commands from Allah that justify everything else.
Is it a messed up, works based, religion founded on slaughter, conquest, enslavement, and abuse of women, sure. No question. Does it have a governmental aspect to it, and a desire to establish a theocracy, yes.
Again, I see no reason to repeat this conversation. You are comfortable judging an entire group based on religion/ideology and I'm more on the side of judging individuals based on words and actions. The only difference, is that I'm not insisting that I'm right.
Don't see where I insisted on anything but the position I hold for myself. There's no arguing it's the safest position for the sake and protection of our own people.
But I will disagree on it actually being a religion. From what I've read regarding the founding of it, it was never truly a religion so much as a scam to force compliance to the personal preferences of a single person, for personal power. It is disguised as a religion, but truly isn't one. There's nothing at all to support any of the claims of it. I'll not get into the details, but there's plenty written about it. So long as there is no way to get around the "lying for the cause" aspect of this ideology, how do you ever ascertain the credibility of any who claim they don't have the same aspirations as the most violent and despotic of them? Again, while some in Gaza are looking to rid themselves of Hamas, I've seen nothing thus far which suggests there are any committed to aligning with Jews, Christians and other non-muslims. If you have any evidence of such, bring it. I'll be happy to review it. So far, I've come up dry. Thus, to judge them all as if they are all dedicated to any degree at all to the universal dominance of islamic law, without true tolerance of other beliefs, is the most rational position to take. That's not on me. It's on the them.
In the meantime, while you aren't "insisting that you're right", you're at the same time allowing for the very real possibility that you're wrong. I can back off from my position if an individual can convince me they are no threat at all and are totally opposed to forcing their beliefs on other under pain of death. If you're wrong, people die. It's not a matter of comfort. It's a matter of self-preservation and the protection of those I love and my fellow Americans/Christians/Jews. They made their bed.
Previously, you seem to have been arguing that your position is the correct position. I'm I'm mistaken, I apologize.
Whether or not you agree, Islam is and has been considered to be a religion for quite some time. Much like LDS or JW are religions despite having virtually all of the same characteristics you mention for Islam.
As far as the protesters in Gaza, the first hurdle for them to overcome is to get rid of Hamas. If they can't get rid of Hamas, none of the rest of the stuff you mention matters.
You are correct, I am not insisting that I'm right. Further, I am allowing for the possibility that new evidence will become available or something will happen that will change my mind. But, as of today, I'll stick with the position that we don't judge an entire group by the actions of a portion of that group. Unfortunately, people die for a myriad of reasons, many of which are not preventable.
Let's start with this. Hypothetically, Europe chooses to immediately deport, execute, or imprison every Muslim who commits a crime. They embrace a zero tolerance policy for Muslims/immigrants. Had they done this 5 years ago would they be in the situation they are now? I doubt it.
Further, US law is predicated on punishing action not preventing it. Preventing criminal actions would require criminalizing thought, or preemptively imprisoning people based on something other than their actions. Deporting legal immigrants just because they're Muslim seems legally and constitutionally problematic. As does preventing legal immigrants from immigrating solely because they are Muslim.
Therefore, the question is, (or should be) how can we balance between the two?
Finally, I saw something today that 15-25% of Muslims are "radicals", which means that we have between 180 and 300 million "radical" Muslims floating around right now. How about if we focus on those first, before we worry about the potential that Mohammad who owns a grocery store might be plotting something. Let's focus on eradicating Hamas and other terrorist groups, eliminating the threat posed by Iran and other countries that fund terror, let's deal with the worst/most immediate problems first. Like many things, I suspect that if we could cut off the financing and leadership, we'd see a reduction in the threat.
Who gets to determine which Muslims are radicals? And are radicals only those who are behaving that way now but not counting those who have a radical ideology (Islam) but are biding their time as to when to start their radical behavior?
"Previously, you seem to have been arguing that your position is the correct position..."
Perhaps I was. But I would have simply said it's the "best" position, given it isn't totally fleshed out and "correct" is at this point in time more or less theoretical. I regard it as best because it has as its baseline the safety of the American people. We know the history of islam, and despite attempts to separate most from the worst, the percentage of the total muslim population which favors the total annihilation of the Jews primarily, to the total domination of islam worldwide is unique to them, as it does not allow for equality. (You mention a comparison to LDS or JW, but it's a very weak one, for I'm unaware they seek to dominate through force if necessary, anymore than Christians hope all the world comes to Christ). Anyway, you cite likely numbers of "radicals" (or more likely and accurately, "the devoted") which is a huge number. Yet, right behind them are those who support the radicalism and the circle expands. What might such so should we come to blows? Likely feel emboldened to join the radicals.
Anyway, despite all that, we as a nation are still not obliged to allow anyone and everyone to enter. We don't need a reason to deny anybody, particular those who are in any way related to the ROP. We're not obliged to wait until those we think are cool really aren't. They history of the islam is enough to insist they stay the hell away until several generations of peace and brotherhood can be observed of them.
So as this baseline is established...that none may enter...we can seek to find ways to determine safe exceptions if we feel we must. I don't care if we never do. While of course our focus should be on the obvious and most savage, we just can't know...based on their own "religious" teaching about dealing with the infidels...if those who seem less harmful aren't just waiting for a safe opportunity.
Finally, given their overall goal is to claim every inch of earth for "Allah" (they still think Spain is theirs), I see every one of them as a sleeper cell type and the safety of my people argues against taking any chances.
Interesting attempt to present your position as the correct position, while trying to deny that you've done so.
The comparison to JW/LDS was simply to point out that false religions are still considered religions.
You're welcome to your opinions, as always.
Well, let's start with the ones wearing headscarves, carrying AKs, , RPGs, and those who exhort them to do so.
Holy crap. What in the hell is wrong with focusing on the most obvious, pressing, present problem first?
So what's your answer to solve this problem? Reconquer the countries that Islam has conquered? Wipe them out? Refuse asylum to sects like the Alawites who are oppressed by Sunni and Shia? Refuse asylum to Iranian women who risk death by protesting the forced wearing of the hijab? Deport law abiding Muslims because they're easy targets? Deport 'em all and let someone else sort it out? Kill 'em all and let God sort it out? What adherents of other religions should we ban from entry based solely on their religion?
Based on what I heard the other day, there are 180-300 million "radical Muslims" floating around. How about y'all figure out how to deal with that threat, before trying to guess at which Muslim immigrants might be "sleeper agents".
I get that global Islam is a serious problem, and we see that the European model of dealing with Muslim immigrants isn't working, so how about if we start by focusing on individuals and their actions before going all FDR and rounding them up and putting them in camps?
Well, let's start with the ones wearing headscarves, carrying AKs, , RPGs, and those who exhort them to do so.
But you have no way of know what the rest of them are thinking/planning and the media won't tell you. I have studied Islam for almost 4 decades and I wouldn't trust a single one of them no matter how peaceful or friendly they behave. Their religion is more political than religious.
I believe a new Crusade to get them all back to their homelands would be the best way to handle Muslims.
Well, as I said, we START with the obvious, and work from there. It might take a while to deal with 180-300 million of the obvious ones, and doing so might smoke out some of the less obvious ones.
Awesome, so we should drive 1.8 billion (give or take) Muslims back to Saudi Arabia, great plan. Is the plan to liberate all the countries they've conquered, or let them keep those as their "homeland"? Wouldn't killing them be easier and more efficient?
I applaud your willingness to propose a relatively specific plan, it sounds like global war for an indefinite period of time, but it is a plan.
Let's take the UK, as an example. What if they chose not to coddle Muslims, but instead they immediately deported or executed those found guilty of crimes, or harassment? If they predicated their response on severely punishing those found guilty of crimes, what might the UK look like in a few years? Rape rings, gone? Crime down?
Might severely punishing individuals for their action be an alternative to global war, nation sized concentration camps, and the like?
Say your crusade idea worked. Say that the non Muslim nations across the globe combined to relocate 1.8 billion (give or take) Muslims to Saudi Arabia, what next? Do they get to be a part of the world economy? Do we sell them things? Do we continue to buy their oil? I'm legitimately curious how this works, and how this doesn't simply piss them off even further. How many non Muslim casualties are acceptable to achieve this goal? So, so many questions.
"Interesting attempt to present your position as the correct position, while trying to deny that you've done so."
Interesting you continue to believe you're scoring any points with these semantic diversions. If it helps you to believe I regard my position as "the correct position", fine. What's clear is that my position takes into account all the most salient points of the issue with regard to the safety of the American people, and the starting point of policy being no entry for muslims will enhance that safety. I don't apologize for caring about my own over others where the others have a history of violence and the desire for world domination by any means. Sue me.
"The comparison to JW/LDS was simply to point out that false religions are still considered religions."
But it's a "fact" of no value here. What matters is that islam isn't at all like either of these two or most other "officially" recognized religions. I'm concerned with what it actually is based on its origin. I'm also concerned with the fact that by our regarding it as a religion, we have no way to truly address the consequences of its existence in our world. They will always hide behind the claim of religion to continue doing what they're doing because their ideology demands it.
With that in mind, and with the knowledge that in this country, what is preached is anathema to our nation's best interests, we are compelled to walk an interminably fine line between the 1st Amendment and radicalization of their adherents because they hide behind "religion" to stoke islamic extremism and assimilation/devotion to it.
"So what's your answer to solve this problem?"
I stated the basic principle already: Deny further immigration from muslim majority countries. America first.
I would most certainly love to see islam wiped from the face of the earth. Unlike the muslims, I don't regard wiping out all muslims to be the first order of business, and potentially unnecessary.
There is uncertainty about the regard of Jews by Alawites. While they have appealed to Israel for help against the Sunnis, that could be self-preservation than any true regard or concern for the Jews.
All in all, pushing our ideology in the sense of comparing its advantages over the disadvantages of islam, as well as facts and evidence which promote Christianity as true and islam as fiction, will aid in true conversions of hearts which is what we Christians hope for the world. Some places, like Iran, are ripe for conversion of a sort, as dislike for the ruling class there is fairly widespread and needs to be supported. Iran was fairly westernized before the 1970s, and that serves our purposes.
"What adherents of other religions should we ban from entry based solely on their religion?"
Again, this is a totally bullshit lie of a question, as a ban isn't based "solely" on their religion. It's not based on their "religion" at all except for their behaviors which are mandated by it. I don't give a flying rat's ass if they say it's compelled by religion or politics.
The rest of your stuff is equally bullshit, because it suggests we can truly live in peace with a population for which peace is contingent upon our conversion to their ways, rather than by a desire of theirs to be assimilated to ours. There's no evidence this is possible just because those you wish to defend those who haven't as yet displayed any violent intentions.
Nothing. You act like that wouldn't be in any plan. It's the same with illegals. We've started with the most criminal.
How many non-muslim casualites are acceptable to do nothing to alter the status quo?
I am all for prosecuting any who break our laws and sentencing them accordingly. I keep thinking of that story about the British officer running India as he was opposed for threatening Indians who continued to burn to death the wives of deceased men on his funeral pyre. They said it was their custom. He said effectively, "You have your customs and we have ours. Break our laws and find out." This concept works well enough and no muslim practice which conflicts with our laws and customs should go unpunished if necessary and unaddressed otherwise. If muslims can't handle rejecting such practices which conflict with our laws and customs, they will not come here and others might possibly leave. For those who are pissed but don't want to leave, they will cease those practices (or indulge them on the sly) and they will die out here.
I'm not worried about pissing off those who hate us anyway. Why would you be?
No points, just mentioning the obvious.
Given that your point, which prompted my response, was to refer to Islam as not an "actual religion", my comparison stands in the limited capacity it was intended. Which was to point out that false religions are still "actual" religions, by any definition but yours.
Again, a first step, not a plan.
The point is that Alawites are Muslim, yet are persecuted by Sunni and Shia. That you'd deny them even consideration for asylum is telling.
At least your honest about wanting what would amount to a global war against Muslims. Good luck with that.
If one's religion motivates behaviors, how is the religion not the problem?
If it's the behaviors you object to, rather than the religion that motivates the behaviors, why not simply focus on the behaviors?
That you "don't give a flying rats ass" is immaterial. You keep repeating that you want to "ban Muslims" or "eradicate Islam", yet also claim that it's not a solely based on religion. Seems contradictory to me, but you do you.
As I've never suggested that, I fail to see how inventing a straw man and trying to pass it off as my position helps you at all.
The problem with your "haven't as yet displayed any violent intentions" is that current US legal code doesn't permit punishing or acting against people based on the possibility that they might "display violent intentions" at some point in the future.
Given that you've been arguing against my position (deal with the worst first) and suggesting that this position is somehow ignoring the problem, it's strange to hear you agree with the position you've been arguing against.
Speaking from the perspective of US law (which is focused on punishing the guilty after the fact rather than preventing crimes), I'd say that our entire justice system is based on responding to those who inflict casualties not preventing casualties. So I'm not sure there's a precise number as US law isn't intended to prevent casualties.
Yet we do know that a relatively small number of criminals commit the majority of crimes, so simple math suggests that taking that small group off the street permanently would lower the number of casualties.
Had the UK prosecuted and imprisoned, executed, or deported those in the rape rings immediately, how many few UK women would have been rapes?
On a related note, let's say that the UK deported that rape ring guys after the first rape, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the rapes would have continued somewhere else? I guess raping Pakistani girls isn't as important as raping Brits.
Glenn suggested a global "crusade" to eliminate every Muslim on earth. As we know, many Muslims would fight back. So asking how many millions of non Muslim casualties are acceptable to achieve his goal is a reasonable question. Obviously this crusade would be to the death or concentration camps, as Muslims can lie to protect Islam so allowing them to renounce Islam and go free is off of the table.
FYI, I'm not defending the status quo.
Again, you seem to be making my point. Swift, harsh punishment for those who break the law and for terrorists as the starting place. You'd certainly hope that doing so would encourage others to leave on their own. Eventually you'd be left with those who are willing to assimilate or who are pretend to assimilate for extended periods of time, which seems like a significant improvement over the status quo.
I don't care about pissing off those who hate us. I see no reason to punish those who don't, because of those who do.
Post a Comment