Bloody Asians again

I keep harping on this catch-all term that the MSM use to describe attacks by basically people from the Indian Sub-Continent. Asia after all is a bloody huge place and technically Asian can be Chinese to Uzbecki and believe me they aren’t similar at all. Though in fairness they do tend to use oriental when describing anyone from East Asia, which covers about 2 billion people.

Luton Today.

A man was attacked with an axe and a screwdriver in broad daylight in Lygetun Drive.
The 39 year old was walking at about 3pm on January 11 when a silver car pulled up close to him and a man got out and punched him in the face.
Three other men then got out of the vehicle and joined in the assault, hitting the victim in the face with a screwdriver and on the leg with an axe.
Det Con Martin Hart said: “The victim attended hospital for treatment and is now recovering at home.
“I believe there was a lady in Lygeton Drive at the time of the assault and I would appeal to her or anyone else who has information about this assault to contact the police, in confidence.”
All four offenders are described as Asian men, between 25 and 30 years of age and all got out of a silver four-door Honda car, possibly a Civic or Accord.

Why do I sense another greasy attempt to avoid using the M(uslim) word or perhaps the P(akistani) word or possibly the B(angladeshi) word? After all, we know what the code for Asian means, which I suspect the powers that be wish we didn’t.

All this comes on top of a Baroness Warsi speech accusing three quarters of us of being islamophobes anyway, this being the same Warsi  who kept quiet about her business partnership with Abid Hussain, allegedly a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. Sadiq Khan lifelong friend of Babar Ahmadinejad, a man indicted in the US on charges of conspiracy to provide material to support terrorists, namely, the Taliban and the Chechen Mujahideen, providing material to support terrorists and conspiracy to kill in a foreign country.

Thing is, we know we’re being lied too by those on high, we know what the code phrases such as ‘Asian’ mean and we no longer take much notice of such insults or pre-noms such as ‘right wing’, ‘fascist’, ‘racist’ stuck before anyone daring to question an increasingly precarious status quo.

Until their is honesty in reporting and more honesty in admitting that there is a problem with certain adherents of a certain religion and its followers from the Indian sub-continent then the tensions will continue to rise until it gets completely out of hand.

The USA civil war had its roots in small beginnings and injustices.

A ‘British’ civil war is not out of the question if the matter of lies and misinformation about government policies and favouritism are not addressed to the satisfaction of the majority, not a minority.

28 comments for “Bloody Asians again

  1. Derek
    January 25, 2013 at 11:42 am

    I have detected a lot more hard feelings against immigrants in recent months. Ther could easily br trouble brewing. Remember, all the great dictators in Europe over the lass two hundred and fifty years grabbed power during mass unrest. Perhaps the extreme left see a possibility of creating enough unrest in this country, (and in most of western Europe) to make a grab for power for themselves.

  2. JonP
    January 25, 2013 at 1:54 pm

    “The USA civil war had its roots in small beginnings and injustices.”

    For that matter so did the English civil war…

  3. January 25, 2013 at 4:34 pm

    “Why do I sense another greasy attempt to avoid using the M(uslim) word or perhaps the P(akistani) word or possibly the B(angladeshi) word? After all, we know what the code for Asian means, which I suspect the powers that be wish we didn’t.”

    It seems we aren’t the only ones:

    • Martin D
      January 25, 2013 at 5:49 pm

      Go to “law and Freedom

    • January 26, 2013 at 12:57 am

      So the Sikhs have got their own little gang of appeasers too, attacking the EDL instead of those moslems who rape their kids. No doubt there’s a special place in the Sikh hell for such cowards and traitors to their own kind.

  4. Viscount Rectum
    January 25, 2013 at 5:46 pm

    As you know the Revolutionary Guards are already patroling the streets looking for Kuffar miscreants who may be breeching Sharia by inappropriate attire or carrying alchohol, the World Caliphate is here and Sharia it applies to YOU.

  5. Greg Tingey
    January 25, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    “The USA civil war had its roots in small beginnings and injustices.”

    Oh, SLAVERY was a SMALL injustice, was it?

    WHat a shame – you actually had a valid point at the start of your piece.

    • January 25, 2013 at 7:31 pm

      Only an idiot would believe the USA civil war was initially about slavery. Look up states rights. the North is mythologized as going to war to free the slaves, the North actually went to war to hold the union together.
      Pres. Abraham Lincoln was personally against slavery, but in his first inaugural, he made it clear that placating the Southern states was more important. Quoting himself in other speeches, he said, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”
      It wasn’t until the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863, which left slavery intact in border states that hadn’t seceded, that ending Confederate slavery became an official Union aim.
      Certainly slavery was a factor for the South, but for the North preserving the Union was the major factor.

      • Mudplugger
        January 25, 2013 at 8:27 pm

        And don’t forget that the sainted Lincoln’s initial plan was to repatriate all the slaves back to Africa.
        Conveniently forgotten nowadays – wouldn’t do to align Abe with Enoch.

      • Greg Tingey
        January 26, 2013 at 9:42 am

        Utter ignorat rubbish

        The REASON – The ONLY reason “Southern” states seceded was bcause of the “right” to own people as property.
        In at lesat two cases, the actual secession declaration specifically stated that this was the case.
        Lincoln did not like slavery, but he also wanted to preserve the “union”, hence his comments.

        Quiet man, you profound ignorance is showing.
        I suggest you look at the history of the US in the period 1841-61, & the statement, especially those of the slaveowners & their bought states.

        • January 26, 2013 at 12:50 pm

          The only person demonstrating ignorance here is you. You clearly have not one single clue as to why the USA civil war happened, nor the historical events which led to it from almost the founding fathers of that nation.
          Remember most of the men who fought for the south did not own a single slave. Also the declaration of emancipation still allowed slavery in the border states loyal to the Union.
          It was not until the Thirteenth Amendment, taking effect in December 1865 (one year after the war) that permanently abolished slavery throughout the entire United States, including the Border states, such as Kentucky, which still had about 50,000 slaves, and the Indian tribes.
          The war was not just about slavery and to believe so is to try and simplify some very complex events by applying modern day sensibilities to events of the past.

          • Greg Tingey
            January 26, 2013 at 3:55 pm

            You must be a christian or some form of religious believer if you actually swallow what you have just said.

            Remember that the US started to secede from Britain a mere 5 years after slavery was ruked ultra vires in England, & the then US’ 0.1% including the slave-owner Washington could see which way the wind was blowing.

            • January 27, 2013 at 5:19 am

              I’m not a Christian or any kind of religious believer. So what do you think accounts for my agreement with QM’s assessment?

              Couldn’t be I’ve actually read a fair bit about the subject, could it?

            • January 28, 2013 at 1:04 pm

              Again you jump to conclusions based upon little or no evidence.
              I’m not a Christian.
              The USA seceded from the UK due to a variety of circumstances mostly to do with shipping taxes and the attempt by the UK to make its colonies pay for their European wars via excessive taxation, not slavery.
              Hence the slogan no taxation without representation.

      • January 26, 2013 at 8:09 pm

        Another cause of discord between north and south was that the south objected to import tariffs on British manufactures (like cotton machinery), which were raised to protect northern – Republican – manufacturers. This made British imports dear.

        • Greg Tingey
          January 27, 2013 at 12:17 pm

          Still dependant upon the slave (cotton) trade.

    • January 26, 2013 at 1:03 am

      After the civil war many liberated slaves flocked north to drive down industrial wages through competing with whites for work….in the Republican heartlands. Was corruption the real reason for freeing the slaves?

      • Greg Tingey
        January 26, 2013 at 3:56 pm

        And your argument falls, for the same reason as (another’s) before – why then was abolishing slavery in Britain & her dominions so easily done & so long before the US?

        • January 26, 2013 at 8:02 pm

          Haven’t worked out the reason for that yet, but you’re surely not suggesting it was altruism on the part of legislators? The threat of revolt, which was successful in Haiti for a while, may have been the reason. But given that wealthy Quakers were behind the emancipation campaign in Britain from the early 1700s on, I suspect economic reasons.

    • Furor Teutonicus
      January 26, 2013 at 3:25 am

      XX Oh, SLAVERY was a SMALL injustice, was it? XX

      No. It was no injustice AT ALL:

      They got fed and clothed. Had a roof over their heads.

      More than they would have had back home.

      Ask the U.N. and other “charitys” that endlessly beg for out hard earned cash. They keep telling us that it is so.

      I have also noticed the endless queus at our international airports of slave offspring just DESPERATE to return home.

      • Greg Tingey
        January 26, 2013 at 9:44 am

        And any sign of independance of thought meant death….

        SO, you think slavery being ruled “uncostitutional” in Britain in 1772 was a mistake, then?
        And abolishing slave-trading in 1807 was also a mistake?
        And slave-owning anywhere under British law in 1832-3 also a mistake?
        Make your case or shut up.

      • Martin D
        January 26, 2013 at 2:56 pm

        You will find at the arrivals area a growing influx of Nigerians heading to every town in the country, the reason they are coming is simple and same reason applies to the millions “chomping at the bit” waiting for Jan 2014 the same reason as Gay marriage, destroy customs, culture, heritage, Identity. Divide and Conquer, ancient principle still works, you are owned so go back to sleep.

        • Greg Tingey
          January 26, 2013 at 3:57 pm

          Irrelevant tosh to the subject under discussion

          • Martin D
            January 26, 2013 at 10:43 pm

            Oh really irrelevant tosh. go stand at the top of your local high st close your eyes and listen, then guess what country you are in. anyway thanks for reading it and its in your mind and you cannot dump it are the slave Watch George Carlin.

            • Greg Tingey
              January 27, 2013 at 12:19 pm

              The commonest foreign languages in my street-market are Polish & Czech!
              Next question?

    • alan b'stard M P
      January 27, 2013 at 8:53 pm

      slavery had nothing to do with the civil war beginnings. Lincoln had bigger matters to take care of

      • Greg Tingey
        January 28, 2013 at 8:10 am

        Would that that were true!
        The “CivilWar” was inevitable, after Buchanan’s do-nothing/appease the South presidency …
        Fort Sumter was fired on on 12th April, Lincoln was only sworn into office in MArch (!)
        And, quoting Wikipedia …
        “As Lincoln’s election became evident, secessionists made clear their intent to leave the Union before he took office the next March.[127] On December 20, 1860, South Carolina took the lead by adopting an ordinance of secession; by February 1, 1861, Florida, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas followed”

        Slavery had EVERYTHING to do with the Slave-owners Treasonous Rebeliion.

Comments are closed.