Posted on 08/29/2014 9:29:35 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
Among the more nauseating spectacles of the Rotherham child rape scandal has been the squirming evasion and shameless attempts at face-saving by the various authority figures whose job it supposedly was to prevent such horrors happening.
One of them is a man named Javed Khan. He is the head of Britain's largest children's charity Barnardo's which now stands accused of having known about the Muslim rape gang problem for well over a decade - but which chose to do next to nothing to confront it.
In an ugly interview with Sky News, Khan infuriated viewers - and his normally mild-mannered interviewer Eamonn Holmes - with his mealy-mouthed evasiveness.
Not only did Khan refuse to call for the resignation of South Yorkshire Police Commissioner (and former head of Rotherham Council Children's Services) Shaun Wright but it often seemed as though he was trying to make excuses for the various institutions which allowed mass child rape to occur on their watch.
Holmes could barely contain his fury.
"You're the expert in the field. You're the man who people turn to when all else fails. Your charity's job is to protect children, to protect the innocence of those children. I put it to you, Mr Khan, no one else has bothered: are you going to fail them as well?"Khan once again evaded the question. As well he might - for the children's charity he represents is almost as heavily compromised by this scandal as Rotherham Council and South Yorkshire Police.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
They’ll reconsider, yes.
But they’ll also find out it’s too late. I remember several years back when someone in the UK got the bright idea to count all the different spellings of “Mohammed” in the annual most popular baby names survey. And it came out as #2.
Now it’s #1. The UK is, IMHO, past the tipping point. I’m thinking that it would be a good idea for Bess to start dusting off and updating the old WWII contingency plans to have the Royal Family flee to Canada ...
That’s not what I said.
Islam says that when they hit 10% of the population they are to work towards enslaving (literally) and killing non-Muslims and work to make that the policy of the US government.
IOW, this particular “religion” has said that when they reach that point their adherents are to become criminals.
I’m saying that our immigration policies should help them never reach that point. Sort of like limiting the number of ebola patients we will allow to fly into our country...
If another religion said that at some point or another their adherents all have to kill gays (for instance) then they likewise would be COMBATANTS.
I do recognize the need for limits on what is considered criminal. Refusing to bake a wedding cake for gays could be defined as a crime and we’d be in big trouble, unless the measure of what makes somebody an enemy of the nation is that they are actual physical enemy combatants.
What I’m saying is basically, as I understand it, what Geert Wilders was saying: we need to stop Muslims from becoming a large percentage of our population. How to do that without religious discrimination? I think the only way you legally do it is by recognizing Islam as a religion only up to the point where they are required to ALSO be a criminal/terrorist enterprise. Because they preach actual physical violence against non-adherents, which makes them combatants. Refusing to bake wedding cakes does not similarly make somebody an enemy COMBATANT.
I sincerely doubt the Koran or hadiths say any such thing. That may indeed be a common dynamic, but that's very different from it being official written Islamic doctrine.
This is especially so because until recently Islam did not expand by immigrants leaving Islamic countries and moving to secular/Christian countries. Islam expanded by conquest, making the 10% meaningless.
There are characteristics that identify a cult, totally independent of the religious teachings. Stuff like forbidding access to any view besides their own, punishing disagreement with the leader, controlling all the physical conditions of the adherents (such as food, clothes, who adherents can associate with, being imprisoned, etc), threats if they leave the belief system, etc
And Islam fits it all. They are a cult.
Ever think of what Ramadan does? It messes with the meal and sleep cycles. Typical cult practice. The same thing, if used by the US military, would be called torture, used to “soften” the captive’s ability to resist, and making them more vulnerable and suggestible.
Not allowing a woman to be in public without a man with her? It means the only man (the only people who have any power in the society) she can get help from is her husband, who is legally allowed to rape her, etc. It’s a cultist’s dream situation.
If you abandon Islam, you are required to be killed. Threats much? Speak against Islam and you must be killed? The worst mob in the world can’t beat those threats.
Islam is a cult - not because of what they believe but because of what they DO, as official protocol.
And if they can get sharia implemented in certain areas, this kind behavior will cease to be illegal.
I wonder if I’d be able to find that source, to see what was cited.
If the principle of abrogation is specifically stated in the Quran or hadiths then Muslims would be combatants regardless of the percentage issue, since Mohammed’s later, violent commands would replace any of his earlier, more peaceful quotes that people use when claiming that Islam is a “religion of peace”.
It would be interesting to ask Muslims why they don’t routinely kill non-Muslims in America and other places, as commanded in the Quran. It would be interesting to ask them why they haven’t executed Obama as an apostate yet, as commanded in the Quran. For them to have an official excuse, there must be something written about when that command is required and when it is simply a goal to strive for.
Muslims are admonished to fight when strong enough to be victorious over the enemy BUT to engage in hudna when they cannot win a military victory (or when they need to reload).
Since they have no chance of winning a frontal assault at the present time against the West AND since the liberal immigration policies in Europe, Australia, Canada, and U.S. have permitted to enter in great numbers, they do not need to fight at this point to satisfy Koran/Hadiths...they just have an ongoing hudna and engage in Da'wah (proselytize).
When they have built sufficient strength or have a sufficiently well-designed terror infrastructure, they will again engage in military action.
So they can’t eat pork or drink alcohol because that is a sin but they can have sex with children???
Anger, disgust.
This is THE story in Britain at the moment. And its not going away soon. Heads have and will roll.
You would be very, very wrong about that.
Good, good!
They’re just following in the example of Mohammed.
I might be, but why are you so sure?
More Rotherham Horrors: Teen Raped by 250 Men Over Two Years, Police Informed and Did Nothing
UK Police Arrested Parents Trying to Stop Muslims from Raping their Children
I was just thinking that exact same thing.
Like if they’ve had enough manpower come in through our southern border? That’s when they would start an open ISIS-type frontal attack on US soil? The language about sharia coming near to us, ISIS coming here, etc - would that seem to be an indicator that they believe things are close to ready for them to do a frontal assault here?
My original comment about consensuality had to do with the liberal who went to Haiti and was raped.
Not the Rotherham issue.
In a way, what happened in Ferguson was a guerrilla action. It was not based in fact, was illegal, and its target was propaganda not military.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.