Posted on 01/14/2008 2:48:12 AM PST by forkinsocket
A Tory town council mayor has sparked an outcry after saying Muslims "cause mayhem with explosives". Tory Mirfield mayor Robert Bennett made the remarks in an email to the town council clerk. Today his comments were branded as unacceptable and disgraceful by his party.
The email, passed to the Yorkshire Evening Post, follows a request by the Huddersfield-based Ahmidiyya Muslim Association to appear before the town council to ask for funding.
Part of his email response to the request, says: "I am aware Islamic organisations are keen to promote a view that they are peaceful, forward thinking individuals who wish to integrate into the British way of life. The policy of clothing the feminine population of Dewsbury in black sack-like clothing from head to toe, the occasional trip out to cause mayhem with explosives and the proposal that all those of homosexual persuasion should be killed by shooting or other means is adequate and practical testimony to the level of progress being made in this direction."
He goes on: "I, for one, am not prepared to spend the time on something that can be dealt with elsewhere... We have enough non-religious problems to address in Mirfield at this time without adding a religious dimension to our discussions."
(Excerpt) Read more at yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk ...
Ping.
Wow! A modern Brit politician with some real cajones who dared to speak the truth and was disavowed by his own Conservative Party. Who woulda thunk it?
Coun Keith Sibbald, Dewsbury Tory constituency chairman, said: "You cannot say things like that."
...or else the local Muslims might riot and kill us all!
Mayhem is such a wimpy word — maybe that is what the muslims are objecting to — “we don’t cause mayhem, we cause death and destruction!”
Interesting that the fellow gets dinged for the “mayhem with explosives” part, but not the “dress the women in sacks” and “kill the homosexuals” parts. Such... selective outrage.
Why is it the general consensus here that all muslims deserve to be tarred with the terrorist or extremist brush? How many of you people actually know any muslims?
I know plenty and not one has have ever disavowed 9/11 or the numerous acts of Muslim violence in the world since then.
They already have, while killing 50 people in a subway and double decker bus in the process. What the hell is wrong with these people??
Liberalism by its nature is totalitarian. This is why liberals HAVE TO try to shut people up. This Mayor has the right to free speech. Liberal PC-thugs: Stuff it!
Having a "Neville Chamberlain Moment"? 
I've met at least four English-speaking Muslims—including two Moderates: one was a beer-swilling Saudi cop. Another was a very gabby/friendly forensic lab technician from the UAE.
Two were creepy-scary—both Pakistani firearms technicians. The one with the long beard couldn't look me in the eye.
Unlike Neville, I put great trust in my senses.
I don’t know any muslims, fascists, or satanists, but I know what they represent: the willful destruction of MY culture & way of life & the freedoms I hold dear.
It is as simple as this for me:
The koran clearly allows & encourages muslims to cheat, lie, steal, murder, rape, & enslave people who refuse to submit to islam. Since I would NEVER submit to islam, which I believe is a concoction of satan, islam & muslims are my mortal & immortal enemies.
Say what you will, but these are MY beliefs, & I am as entitled to them as muslims are entitled to believe Jews & Christians are sons of apes & pigs.
Clearly, you don’t understand Islam... or maybe you do from the inside...?
The reason all are tarred with the terrorism tag is three-fold:
1) The basic tenet of Islam is to turn Dar Al-Harb (the world at war) into Dar al-Islam (the world which has submitted). Doesn’t matter if you are an extremist or a “moderate”, this is your goal. You can liken this to a military engagement... the smaller faction of your forces is actually the killing force. The rest are the support. Well, charity is one of the five pillars of the faith. Guess what? Only charity to muslim charities qualifies. These have been shown to overwhelmingly support terrorism. Therefore, “moderates” have the same goals and provide support to those who perpetrate terrorism.
2) There are few, if any, who denounce terrorism against “innocents”. The reason is because they don’t see innocents among the infidels. Again, we are part of the world at war until such time as we submit. Anything goes... including lies to advance your agenda. This is called “Taqqiyah”. Why should anyone accept the word of one for whom lying is religious requirement?
3) Experience. Look at Muslim advancement around the world and you will see the same model repeated. When they are weak, they are “peaceful”. When they gain strength, they exert their influence. More strength and they join the struggle violently. Lather rince repeat.
I have studied the middle east and Islam. I know many Muslims. I would wager you are either one of them practicing Taqqiyah here or you are an appeasing limp-wrist who throws inane challenges at the beliefs of others when lacking his own personal knowledge.
As an historian, I think you’re comparison of what you perceive me to be with Neville Chamberlain absurd, but I’ll let that go for now...
So you’ve met ‘at least’ four muslims then eh? Well, I guess you know all there is to know about an entire demographic group based on a casual acquaintence with FOUR of them. Please tell me more...
The Brits are masters of understatement - “mayhem” was a perfect description of the WHOLE situation. I applaud the man.
Oh heavens, anyone should state the obvious.
Frankly, the Christian bible and the Jewish Torah also contains some pretty whacky stuff. However, not everyone who calls themselves Jewish or Christian takes it as seriously, otherwise we would still be burning witches, as per Exodus 22:18.
Admittedly, there are a greater proportion of muslims who do take their holy book more seriously, but that doesn’t mean all of them, or even a majority of them do...
Common sense says that
a) not all Moslems are cruel or sneaky
b) however, the religion itself is, and thus, not to be trusted and truly respected. Never mind all the historical “incidents” that back up that view.
1 doesn’t need to know anyone to have cognizance of both these points.
I’m leaning toward Taqqiyah as your goal...
You paint with a very broad brush and either don’t understand the Bible (which is very likely) and/or you are a limp-wristed appeasement monkey calling for moral equivalence.
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.