A good first post, Lendl. Pat Condell always gets an upvote from me.

What Gwhiz said-Love to share a couple pints anna pub lunch with this cat someday...

God there is so much I disagree and agree with but his way of presenting the issues in such simplistic terms compels me to downvote.

It's like anti-Islamic sentiments intellectualized rather then explained and dealt with.

I do agree that all citizens of Europe should adhere to European laws, but Islamic appeasement doesn't exist, thats simply rubbish, no one compels Europeans to deal with the situation as they do.

He's referring to European laws that are changing to accomodate some wahabi sharia practices that were previously illegal there. He's not talking about liberal muslims, he's talking about the fundamentalists.

Moving this video to Lendl's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 3 days.

Hahahah! This deserves you losing your P mate, congratulations

Absolutely! Too bad this will fall on deaf ears.

Islam does not want to destroy western society. You can't define a billion people in terms of their revolutionaries, terrorists, and criminals alone.

Phrases like "Muslim violence" and even "Islamic terrorism" are propaganda terms, which have become norms because they are endlessly repeated by stupid pinheads like Pat here. These crimes are stamped with "Islamic", "Muslim", etc., despite the fact that Muslims by far suffer the most from ultraconservative or religious-extremist violence: Does it make sense that an 'Islamic' person killing an 'Islamic' person would be considered 'Islamic terrorism'? Does the dead person's conception of Islam 'lose', because that person did not practice political violence? And the victims are overwhelmingly Muslim, the sufferers overwhelmingly Muslim; but their suffering doesn't intrude on our world, doesn't get the headlines.

Do we usually define the whole in terms of the tiny minority? Do we usually define the whole in terms of the worst? Aren't we talking about "Militant Islamists" when we say "Islamic Terrorists"? Why don't we just agree to stop murderers, without lumping hundreds of millions of innocent people in with them?

I assure you, "the Muslims" mostly just want to make families and raise their children to be well and good, because that's what humans do. This fellow is part of the game of muddying the water, crystallizing a sense of otherness, and furthering the alienation of Muslims in Europe, which is quite at odds with making social peace.

"Multiculturalism", it always creeps me out when Europeans use that word, from either the left or the right, because I wonder what their alternative is.

I completely agree with Pat that governments which use words like "multiculturalism" are racist governments. Just as the Canadian Government is racist for continuing to allow priviledge to Native Canadians. Or how Toronto has allowed the first ever "Black Only" High School, creating some nice segregation in what should be a more enlightened age. And before you scream "racist! eeeeee!", save your breath.

The "alternative" is to realise that while, yes, we all come from different heritages and backgrounds (my family came from Ireland, and were once Kings and rulers hundreds of years ago, do I go back there and cry for my land back?) we are all the SAME DAMN SPECIES. We should be interested in our global society as a whole, and not these groups, and cliques which are perpetually left in existence to seperate each of us from one another. The largest of these seperation, or "us and them" devices is, and will always be Religion, in my opinion. That is, until one of these religions destroy all others and form their post-apocalyptic world of facist dictatorship and worship to the sky. Just sayin'.

And it isn't just the fundamentalist Muslims that are being appeased by some of these decision of irresponsible governments. I work with several moderate Muslims (just as there are moderates of any religion) and I talk regularly with one of them. He believes still that the Jews are a threat to him and his people, and that when Jesus returns to Earth that will be the sign which will convince the Christians to join Islam and destroy all the Jews. Similar, is it not, to the Christian Armageddon in which all those that cannot be saved, must be killed?

Again, just sayin' here.

If we could all realise we're in this for the long haul, and that in the grander stage of just the galaxy, not even the universe, we do not matter. We are insignificant, no one will miss us when we cause our own extinction. Instead we could be working as a global community, as one species, towards greater things, instead of these pointless "us and them" squabblings about land, or resources, or whose made up, fairy tale, invisible, record-keeper - as George Carlin puts it - "has the biggest dick".

*islam

Invocations (islam) cannot be called by xxovercastxx because xxovercastxx is not privileged - sorry.

Islam is inherently violent, remember that the true believers are the Wahabis and the Taleban - not the progressives, they are just like any progressive of any religion. It has primarily spread through military conquest, as have Christianity on many occasions*. Apologists always say that it is against Islam to kill innocent people, but according to Islam, all that do not adhere to the Muslim faith are infidels and therefore not innocent. Although annihilation of those infidels have not been the policy of most Muslim regimes in history, it has never been a crime to kill them**.

* In a way, Judaism is worse, since the goal of war in that religion's name has never been about spreading the faith, rather the complete annihilation of the unbelievers. Thankfully that hasn't happened in a LONG time.

** Unless they have paid the Jizya (protection money)

My two cents €...