Mohammed likely to top British boys' names list by year-end

[Kiwon]

"Mohammed will likely become the most popular name for baby boys in Britain by the end of the year, The Times reported on Wednesday, citing government data.

Though official records from the Office for National Statistics list the spelling Mohammed 23rd in its yearly analysis of the top 3,000 names given to children, when all the different spellings of the name are taken into account, it ranks second, only behind Jack, according to The Times.

There are various different spellings of the name because when it is transliterated into English from Arabic, families spell it as closely to their own pronunciations as possible.

In total, 5,991 baby boys were given some version of the name Mohammed, with 6,928 baby boys named Jack.

Thomas was third with 5,921 names, with Joshua and Oliver rounding out the top five.

According to The Times, if the growth of the name Mohammed continues -- it rose by 12 percent last year -- the name will take the top spot by the end of this year."
.................................................. ...................................

You will be assimilated. Resistence is futile.

At least, there might be a fight if some of those Jacks turn out to be Jack Bauers.

[BallHawk]

Shit, that country has really gone downhill. What the hell would Churchill say about this?

Islamic Republic of Great Britain here we come.

[Kiwon]

Welcome to Eurabia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurabia

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5b/Economist_Eurabia_cover.jpg/200px-Economist_Eurabia_cover.jpg

[Merlin]

Don't be so quick to think that we aren't falling into the same trap. We go out of our way to not insult Muslims yet we bash each other everyday. Eventually, you will get taken advantage of...

[hoosier]

Shit, that country has really gone downhill. What the hell would Churchill say about this?


One can only imagine what good old Winston would have said...but I'm sure it would have been filled with bigotry.

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."
--Churchill writing as president of the Air Council

"I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race...has come in and taken its place."
--Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

[Kiwon]

Context, please. It's impossible to determine what's he was intending if one doesn't know the exact situation he was in when he spoke those words.

For example, England is an island country which was facing destruction in WWII. Churchill lived in a different time and era. He saw chemical weapons used extensively during WWI. Who were the the "uncivilised tribes?" The attacking Germans? What country would not use all their weapons in order to ensure its survival?

The science of eugenics was influential at that time. Everyone was a bigot by today's standards. Also, there are people today who would agree with his second statement from a historical perspective. Many of them are American Indians making millions off of the descendants of those who mistreated them. Nothing prevents them from farming and hunting and living like their ancestors did, but these pursuits don't bring the same satisfaction of financially scalping the white man at the casino. :wink:

[Freak Out]

Shit, that country has really gone downhill. What the hell would Churchill say about this?


One can only imagine what good old Winston would have said...but I'm sure it would have been filled with bigotry.

"I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes."
--Churchill writing as president of the Air Council

"I do not admit...that a great wrong has been done to the Red Indians of America, or the black people of Australia...by the fact that a stronger race, a higher grade race...has come in and taken its place."
--Churchill to Palestine Royal Commission, 1937

It was a different time. We nuked two cities for crying out loud. Churchill was so angry with the German V-1 and V-2 rocket attacks he tried like hell to get the British and American air forces to use chemical weapons on German cities but they refused...but they did step up the bombing of the German cities. Hell....we locked up US citizens because of their race.

[hoosier]

I don't find the moral relativism bit very convincing. Churchill was an unapologetic colonialist at a time when many people had come to see the errors of that way of thinking. But it's especially unconvincing in a thread whose premise seems to be the idea that England is going to hell because of too many Muslims.

[HarveyWallbangers]

I don't find the moral relativism bit very convincing.

Spoken like a true liberal.


But it's especially unconvincing in a thread whose premise seems to be the idea that England is going to hell because of too many Muslims.

Do you have a religious affiliation? Agnostic? Atheist?

[BallHawk]

I don't find the moral relativism bit very convincing. Churchill was an unapologetic colonialist at a time when many people had come to see the errors of that way of thinking. But it's especially unconvincing in a thread whose premise seems to be the idea that England is going to hell because of too many Muslims.

Have you been to England recently? Once you've been you realize how much of an impact Muslims are having on that country. We've already seen the impact they had in the Underground bombings. All of my family lives within 10 miles of London and even my Grandmother, who is normally optimistic, says that she's glad she won't be around in 20 years to see what the country is like. Far too many immigrants, specifically Pakistanis, were allowed into the country. Crime has seen a significant spike over the last decade. That isn't a coincidence. It's sad to see that England is such a far cry from what it used to be.

[HarveyWallbangers]

Have you been to England recently? Once you've been you realize how much of an impact Muslims are having on that country. We've already seen the impact they had in the Underground bombings. All of my family lives within 10 miles of London and even my Grandmother, who is normally optimistic, says that she's glad she won't be around in 20 years to see what the country is like. Far too many immigrants, specifically Pakistanis, were allowed into the country. Crime has seen a significant spike over the last decade. That isn't a coincidence. It's sad to see that England is such a far cry from what it used to be.

A lot of what is happening often happens when a large number of immigrants enter a country--no matter the religious affiliation, nationality, or race. On the other hand, you'd be foolish to think that what is happening is a good thing--not until the moderate Muslim believers take back their religion. In this case, there can't be a silent majority.

I'm thinking anybody that thinks otherwise probably falls under three categories: 1) a Muslim, 2) an agnostic or atheist that has a natural bent against all religions, especially Christianity (usually this is a young person who believes in the idea of a utopian society devoid of religion--often within a socialist framework), 3) an old-time liberal who has been programmed to think all people are basically good.

I don't believe most Muslims are bad people. I just can't do the Ostrich approach and pretend there's nothing to worry about at this moment in history.

[oregonpackfan]

It is interesting to note the when London had its subways bombed by Muslim terrorists, none of the terrorists were from Iraq--the "Forefront of The War on Terrorism" according to our President.

All of the terrorists for the London bombing where Muslims born and raised in England.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I don't find the moral relativism bit very convincing. Churchill was an unapologetic colonialist at a time when many people had come to see the errors of that way of thinking. But it's especially unconvincing in a thread whose premise seems to be the idea that England is going to hell because of too many Muslims.

Have you been to England recently? Once you've been you realize how much of an impact Muslims are having on that country. We've already seen the impact they had in the Underground bombings. All of my family lives within 10 miles of London and even my Grandmother, who is normally optimistic, says that she's glad she won't be around in 20 years to see what the country is like. Far too many immigrants, specifically Pakistanis, were allowed into the country. Crime has seen a significant spike over the last decade. That isn't a coincidence. It's sad to see that England is such a far cry from what it used to be.

What did it used to be? A second rate power, high unemployment, socialist-welfare programs, etc., etc.

[K-town]

What did it used to be? A second rate power, high unemployment, socialist-welfare programs, etc., etc.

Tee-hee. In 1900, "the sun never sets on the British Empire."
Now the British Empire consists of Scotland, Wales and the Falkland Islands.
Tough having sympathy for the British, who would now all be speaking German if it wasn't for the US. Let us not forget that in both World Wars they had more men and material than the Germans, and STILL lost most of the European continent. TWICE.
Kind of amusing to see how they lost India, Palestine, their African Colonies, etc. But not as amusing as how they lost the North American continent. :P

[BallHawk]

It is interesting to note the when London had its subways bombed by Muslim terrorists, none of the terrorists were from Iraq--the "Forefront of The War on Terrorism" according to our President.

All of the terrorists for the London bombing where Muslims born and raised in England.

Great point. The Islamic Terrorists of Britain are being created right on their soil. The Fundamentalism being taught in Mosques across London is not what you'd find, in say, Iran or Syria. The way that the "new-era" of suicide bombers are being created is no different then the way Evangelical Christians are brought up. They are introduced at a very young age when they are open to anything and are essentially "brainwashed" from that point on.

Pakistan is the source of Islamic Radicalism in England. Almost all of the London Suicide Bombers visited Pakistan before their "mission."

[Joemailman]

What did it used to be? A second rate power, high unemployment, socialist-welfare programs, etc., etc.

Tee-hee. In 1900, "the sun never sets on the British Empire."
Now the British Empire consists of Scotland, Wales and the Falkland Islands.
Tough having sympathy for the British, who would now all be speaking German if it wasn't for the US. Let us not forget that in both World Wars they had more men and material than the Germans, and STILL lost most of the European continent. TWICE.
Kind of amusing to see how they lost India, Palestine, their African Colonies, etc. But not as amusing as how they lost the North American continent. :P

The British deserve a lot more credit for what they did in WWII than you are giving them. They stood up to Germany in the Battle Of Britain while the U.S. was staying mostly in isolation. The invasion of Normandy would not have been possible without their victory in the Battle Of Britain. The second front would have had to come through Italy, which would have been much more difficult, resulting in a longer war and many more U.S. casualties.

Britain lost their colonies after WWII because they were in no condition to hold an empire together. They were broke, and many of their major cities were heavily damaged by the Nazi bombardment. I'm not saying colonialism was a good idea, but they lost their empire in part because of the sacrifices they made in WWII.

I would be interested to know your source of information for saying that Britain had more men and material in the World Wars than Germany. I could be wrong, but I find that hard to believe.

[Kiwon]

Great point. The Islamic Terrorists of Britain are being created right on their soil. The Fundamentalism being taught in Mosques across London is not what you'd find, in say, Iran or Syria. The way that the "new-era" of suicide bombers are being created is no different then the way Evangelical Christians are brought up. They are introduced at a very young age when they are open to anything and are essentially "brainwashed" from that point on.

Pakistan is the source of Islamic Radicalism in England. Almost all of the London Suicide Bombers visited Pakistan before their "mission."

Interesting comparison. So, in your view, Evangelical Christians are a threat as well?

I don't quite get your point, but I'm trying. You're saying that the way Christian parents rear their kids at home and the instruction they receive in church in England "is no different" than the way that eventual suicide bombers, which spread terror by blowing themselves up and killing others, are reared?

How far do you equate the two? Beyond childhood? Are radical muslims and evangelical christians equally dangerous in your mind? Please explain/clarify.

[BallHawk]

If we're talking WWII, Russia (Soviet Union) gave up more then anybody.

I'm not downing America, but the USSR was far more influential on the war. The Soviets won WWII. Soviet soldiers fought with a passion unparalleled to any country during WWII. The casualties don't lie. 2 countries, excluding the USSR, had more casualties then the United States; Yugoslavia and China. China had almost 4 million deaths. The two main "percepted" allies were.

United States: 407,000
United Kingdom: 382,000

Between those two the numbers work out as roughly 790,000 deaths.

USSR: 10,700,000

That's about 13 times the deaths of the US and UK. The Soviets had more deaths then all of the other allies combined. That's not even to mention the 10,000,000+ civilian deaths.

[BallHawk]

Great point. The Islamic Terrorists of Britain are being created right on their soil. The Fundamentalism being taught in Mosques across London is not what you'd find, in say, Iran or Syria. The way that the "new-era" of suicide bombers are being created is no different then the way Evangelical Christians are brought up. They are introduced at a very young age when they are open to anything and are essentially "brainwashed" from that point on.

Pakistan is the source of Islamic Radicalism in England. Almost all of the London Suicide Bombers visited Pakistan before their "mission."

Interesting comparison. So, in your view, Evangelical Christians are a threat as well?

I don't quite get your point, but I'm trying. You're saying that the way Christian parents rear their kids at home and the instruction they receive in church in England "is no different" than the way that eventual suicide bombers, which spread terror by blowing themselves up and killing others, are reared?

How far do you equate the two? Beyond childhood? Are radical muslims and evangelical christians equally dangerous in your mind? Please explain/clarify.

In no way am I comparing Evangelical Christians to Suicide Bombers or any other type of terrorism. However, and I'm not trying to offend anyone here, Evangelicals are very devout in getting their children into their faith at a very young age. Is there anything wrong with that? No, of course not. But there is no way that we can look at Islam and think anything different. Of course, Fundamentalist Islam is preaching a way more violent message then Evangelicalism, but the basis of teaching is the same. It was a comparison in the ways that the children are taught and brought up, not about the message being preached.

[falco]

I'm afraid of things that are different than me.

[Rastak]

Have you been to England recently? Once you've been you realize how much of an impact Muslims are having on that country. We've already seen the impact they had in the Underground bombings. All of my family lives within 10 miles of London and even my Grandmother, who is normally optimistic, says that she's glad she won't be around in 20 years to see what the country is like. Far too many immigrants, specifically Pakistanis, were allowed into the country. Crime has seen a significant spike over the last decade. That isn't a coincidence. It's sad to see that England is such a far cry from what it used to be.

A lot of what is happening often happens when a large number of immigrants enter a country--no matter the religious affiliation, nationality, or race. On the other hand, you'd be foolish to think that what is happening is a good thing--not until the moderate Muslim believers take back their religion. In this case, there can't be a silent majority.

I'm thinking anybody that thinks otherwise probably falls under three categories: 1) a Muslim, 2) an agnostic or atheist that has a natural bent against all religions, especially Christianity (usually this is a young person who believes in the idea of a utopian society devoid of religion--often within a socialist framework), 3) an old-time liberal who has been programmed to think all people are basically good.

I don't believe most Muslims are bad people. I just can't do the Ostrich approach and pretend there's nothing to worry about at this moment in history.


What he said......

[Partial]

Harv seems incredibly educated and well-spoken. I agree with his statement 100%

[Rastak]

Harv seems incredibly educated and well-spoken. I agree with his statement 100%


Well, maybe well spoken but the other might be taking it too far....



:wink:



:lol:

[HarveyWallbangers]

Damn! If nobody responded, I thought that meant everybody agreed with his post. Now, you've gone and ruined it.
:D

[Rastak]

Damn! If nobody responded, I thought that meant everybody agreed with his post. Now, you've gone and ruined it.
:D


Sorry, I'm sure everyone else was nodding their agreement with Partial....puffing on their pipe (legal tobbaco ) and mumbling...."indeed, indeed".


edit: Tank excluded.....

[Kiwon]

Here's another slice of Eurabia.....

'Honour killing' sister breaks her silence

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=462342&in_page_id=1879

[Scott Campbell]

Tough having sympathy for the British, who would now all be speaking German if it wasn't for the US.


I think we too might be speaking German if it weren't for the English and the Russians. We didn't win that war by ourselves.

[mraynrand]

Geezus you guys! All this talk about speaking German. Haven't you ever been up near Antigo. For criminy sakes, dey all are talking German up der, doncha know?

Also, it's a good thing we won in Viet Nam, otherwise we'd all be speaking ... uh, whatever the hell they speak in Viet Nam.