So they want to march through the town where traditionally our dead soldiers are honored when repatriated. The snake in charge of ISLAM4UK is Anjem Choudry. The man is very well known to me personally, i recall seeing him on the BBC ranting about making the UK a muslim country back in 2003 and i have followed his career personally as i feel strongly about this matter due to my military connections.
Anyway, like any centrist (well, slightly right of centre these days it must be said) i find it difficult to think of a sensible solution to things like this, i mean, of course he has the "right" to march through any town he likes, and they say it will be peaceful, yet at the same time, is it not just a recipe for disaster?
For example, this type of thing will no doubt encourage our more right wing citizens, the chavvy type of people who let their fists or mouths ride off far before their brains are in the saddle, to engage in a bit of muslim baiting, so you could argue that the march could be banned for the marchers own safety. Also, it seems very crass to have the march here, of all places.
What is a sensible solution? Choudry is no doubt under very strict surveillence after they shut his pro muslim orginisation down, i dont doubt he is not doing anything illegal as we would be aware of it and the man would be currently going through the judicial system. If we start shutting people up, well, we know where that can lead. I have long been an advocate of free speech, i especially believe in it due to my religious beliefs, i believe that if you are not bascially inciting a riot, you should always be allowed to say what you like. And i should always be free to give my rebuttal if what you have said is demonstrably ignorant or false.
Despite me loathing this man with a passion i find difficult to contain, i will never allow myself to be a hypocrite. All of this means i personally think that the march should be allowed, as long as the next time a bunch of Atheists want to picket a mosque or the English Defence league want to march somewhere, then they get given the same freedom.
What are your thoughts? Should aggresive marches be banned? What sensible action can we or the government take? When can we draw a line under what is good/bad taste and what should be allowed?
The location and reasoning behind the march seem pretty well chosen. They want to incite anger within the right wing segment of your population so as to cause reactionary action against them, thus strengthening their position as a persecuted minority to their sympathizers. Just let them march, give it extra security to avoid violence, and then forget about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:There will be blood.
If not now, then soon - mark my words. Tolerance only stretches so far.
In many ways this reminds me of the debates that take place when groups like the Klan want to march here in America.
While I despise their agenda,I deffend their right to assemble and march/protest,it's easy to deffend free speach when it's "popular speach",but the true test is deffending "unpopular views" and the rights of those who hold them.
Shuma, i dont think it was "unclassy" what albatross said, he was clearly refering to the fact that this type of thing puts muslims and more aggresive non muslims at loggerheads. He may well be right if we keep this up, i am entirely expecting some of our more aggresive citizens to turn up for this and cause some bother.
Maybe the BNP will turn up, then we will all be wondering just who we dislike more?
Hey that might be a great idea! They can beat each other senseless and i wont care who wins or loses! Maybe we can enourage the police not to turn up for this one. They can sort it out amongst themselves.
Hey that might be a great idea! They can beat each other senseless and i wont care who wins or loses! Maybe we can enourage the police not to turn up for this one. They can sort it out amongst themselves.
Hey that might be a great idea! They can beat each other senseless and i wont care who wins or loses! Maybe we can enourage the police not to turn up for this one. They can sort it out amongst themselves.
That would only exasperate the situation.
Like that has ever stopped idiots from being idiots.
Hey that might be a great idea! They can beat each other senseless and i wont care who wins or loses! Maybe we can enourage the police not to turn up for this one. They can sort it out amongst themselves.
That would only exasperate the situation.
Like that has ever stopped idiots from being idiots.
No, but one would think that it would lesson the amount of "hurr hurr, i hope they beat eachother up" sentiment.
Yeah i was kidding of course, if they "left them too it" then the ancient market down would probably end up as rubble within the hour, ive seen first hand what a thousand pissed off protesters can do if left to their own devices. You should have seen Baghdad after we "won" the war!
@Matty+Shuma - yeah, I meant that the more right-wing sections of society will be in danger of boiling over into violence if this sort of thing continues. In fact, at times it almost seems that this is entirely the point behind the type of 'tolerance' exhibited in the UK these days.
Maybe that's just me being cynical .
I don't understand people like this because:
1. This is just gonna piss people off, to increase the publics perception of muslims that have died in the war, we know they have died in the war its on the news every day, maybe this guy should protest in the different areas of Iraq, seeing as the majority of muslim deaths are caused be different muslim sects, not by British soldiers.
2. If he wants to live in a muslim county he should move to one, he has many to choose from, spanning Africa, the Middle East and the asian pacific area, if you want to be part of a country's majority instead of being a minority, just move, I don't see why someone who has so much contempt for the country he lives in doesn't move (its like moving to France and then complaining everyone speaks french).
As long as its peaceful, let 'em march. To play devil's advocate I'd imagine it could be a pretty bad experience to be a Muslim in a predominately Christan nation whose military is involved in other nation's affairs. Especially since us Westerners pay so much tribute to volunteers who sacrifice their lives even though they're part of a very controversial larger-picture loaded with unfortunate consequences such as having a huge number of Muslim families displaced, broken apart, killed, etc. And on top of that there's about zilch in terms of remembering innocent civilian casualties of the wars our armed forces are involved with....and, flat-out, its just not a good time to be a Muslim in the Christian West due to the status quo.
Freedom of speech/assembly is a great concept - I may loathe an organization's mission (extreme examples: KKK, Neo-Nazis) but as long as they're performing peacefully then its fair game. I'd rather citizens have the option to peacefully protest in order to voice their opinions rather than leaving them with only illegal and often violent alternatives.
"If this man has any decency about him he will not hold a march through Wootton Bassett."
If he had any decency, if he felt so strongly about living in a muslim nation, he'd have moved to live in one... oh, wait, they are all sandy gak-holes where he's already well past the average lifespan ruled over by foam mouthed zealots with more concern about ensuring a teenage girl is buried up to her neck and stoned alive for 'witchcraft' rather than sorting out clean water or educating the children.
Seriously if followers of this 'warm and accepting' religion feel so strongly about the infidel, what the hell are they doing walking the infidel's streets? By all means, vacate them, now.
I been passionately against fascism and nationalism my whole life, and yet now we face, within the UK, a religion every inch as contemptible and dedicated to the erosion of personal liberty and freedom, a misogynist faith that wants to 'assimilate' us or kill us if we will not comply.
I'm so fed up watching them scream abuse at us and us offer them further incentives and deride anyone who speaks out against them as 'racist'. If unchecked, they will tear this country down into the same dark ages behaviour they extol.
I think this guy says it just about how I am feeling with the Islamification of the UK.
in a town known for, and reciveing the honored dead killed in battle, an extreamist or sympathetic to extreamest, islamic group wants to march as a point for those killed for.... what was it??? muslims murdered in the name of democracy and freedom?.
Well i hope it shall not be allowed.
in the event it does. i hope the SOBs bring there own body bags. its a slap at the servicemen that protect not only england but canada, and the US. let em bleed in the streets. its what they deserve. nuffs a nuff.
mattyrm wrote:So they want to march through the town where traditionally our dead soldiers are honored when repatriated. The snake in charge of ISLAM4UK is Anjem Choudry.
Wait wait wait. "Islam4UK"? Is this a Facebook group that's spiraled out of control?
The man is very well known to me personally, i recall seeing him on the BBC ranting about making the UK a muslim country back in 2003 and i have followed his career personally as i feel strongly about this matter due to my military connections.
Anyway, like any centrist (well, slightly right of centre these days it must be said) i find it difficult to think of a sensible solution to things like this, i mean, of course he has the "right" to march through any town he likes, and they say it will be peaceful, yet at the same time, is it not just a recipe for disaster?
For example, this type of thing will no doubt encourage our more right wing citizens, the chavvy type of people who let their fists or mouths ride off far before their brains are in the saddle, to engage in a bit of muslim baiting, so you could argue that the march could be banned for the marchers own safety.
Interestingly, they said the same thing during the civil rights movement in the United States. "Oh, of course those nice black fellas want to protest the Jim Crow laws, but they don't know what they're getting themselves into! People are going to get mad at them, and might hurt them... better shut down their speech/protest/march for their own good."
It's paternalistic and it rewards violence, although I'm sure some people there will argue for it just the same (probably people who hate them but feel a need to be politically correct).
Also, it seems very crass to have the march here, of all places.
What is a sensible solution? Choudry is no doubt under very strict surveillence after they shut his pro muslim orginisation down, i dont doubt he is not doing anything illegal as we would be aware of it and the man would be currently going through the judicial system. If we start shutting people up, well, we know where that can lead. I have long been an advocate of free speech, i especially believe in it due to my religious beliefs, i believe that if you are not bascially inciting a riot, you should always be allowed to say what you like. And i should always be free to give my rebuttal if what you have said is demonstrably ignorant or false.
Despite me loathing this man with a passion i find difficult to contain, i will never allow myself to be a hypocrite. All of this means i personally think that the march should be allowed, as long as the next time a bunch of Atheists want to picket a mosque or the English Defence league want to march somewhere, then they get given the same freedom.
This sounds best to me. After all, the whole purpose of freedom of speech is to allow the unpopular opinions to be expressed.
in the event it does. i hope the SOBs bring there own body bags. its a slap at the servicemen that protect not only england but canada, and the US. let em bleed in the streets. its what they deserve. nuffs a nuff.
ShumaGorath wrote:The location and reasoning behind the march seem pretty well chosen. They want to incite anger within the right wing segment of your population so as to cause reactionary action against them, thus strengthening their position as a persecuted minority to their sympathizers.
You do realize that your essentially playing into their hands Hawkins? By garnering international attention via a disallowed or victimized march they would strengthen their positions abroad, and likely manage to further polarize the english religious community, forcing more moderate muslims into defensive attitudes towards the local politick? Reactionary and emotional sentiment is exactly what they want.
Excellent.
You, Shuma, win the award for living in a colossal and safely removed nation with massive natural reserves, who's only neighbours are the poor folks in the basement that do your gardening and the happy liberal in the attic.
Do make sure 'Juan' doesn't forget to trim the magnolias now...
Shuma, i suppose your right, it burns me arse, people like that shouldnt be allowed to do things like this.
MSG: who you calling a gardener? theirs an old joke that says, when a canadian rents out an outhouse, he lets the top floor to the mexicans, i guess you can have the basement for that statement
Excellent. You, Shuma, win the award for living in a colossal and safely removed nation with massive natural reserves, who's only neighbours are the poor folks in the basement that do your gardening and the happy liberal in the attic.
Do make sure 'Juan' doesn't forget to trim the magnolias now...
Wait aren't you an island? Your only neighbor is atlantis and the angry dudes that live in your house and drink a lot.
Shuma, i suppose your right, it burns me arse, people like that shouldnt be allowed to do things like this.
It's quite understandable to be pissed. They're massive D-bags. But its a foundation our civilization that freedom of speech be free regardless of who is speaking, and every time we cave in on our principles for better ease of living we aid those that say we are decadent and immoral. In this case it just so happens that thats exactly what they want.
ShumaGorath wrote: Reactionary and emotional sentiment is exactly what they want.
Only to an extent, when the West stops acting like a senile parent being abused by it's morally vacuous teenage offspring, when we actually start smacking back, then they may well regret stirring the slumbering West to wake with real anger.
ShumaGorath wrote: Reactionary and emotional sentiment is exactly what they want.
Only to an extent, when the West stops acting like a senile parent being abused by it's morally vacuous teenage offspring, when we actually start smacking back, then they may well regret stirring the slumbering West to wake with real anger.
... How many wars do we have to be in before we "wake up?" China is a sleeping military disinterested in world affairs. The U.S. and europe are so awake I fear we're addicted to cocaine.
Wait aren't you an island? Your only neighbor is atlantis and the angry dudes that live in your house and drink a lot.
The British Channel, 21 miles across, was slightly useful for keeping out armies.
The European Union, unfortunately open bordered and so facilitating travel across nations.
Having the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans as natural buffers... Priceless.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ShumaGorath wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
ShumaGorath wrote: Reactionary and emotional sentiment is exactly what they want.
Only to an extent, when the West stops acting like a senile parent being abused by it's morally vacuous teenage offspring, when we actually start smacking back, then they may well regret stirring the slumbering West to wake with real anger.
... How many wars do we have to be in before we "wake up?" China is a sleeping military disinterested in world affairs. The U.S. and europe are so awake I fear we're addicted to cocaine.
We have not 'taken the gloves off' for a long time. If the West was not 'liberating' or 'intervening' but actually all out craved a war, was so wounded and entrenched that it fully lashed out, that is what I'm referring to.
ISLAM4UK will either get the go ahead to march or will hold a token or symbolic rally off the main high street after being advised by the police and other interested parties.
To be fair I had forgotten they existed which is probably the point for this action.
This is a situation to which there are no easy answers. Or at least no easy ones I can think of.
One of the few bad things about freedom of speech is that you will inevitably have to put up with unsavory characters using it to spread lies, hatred and misinformation. You also need to grow a thick skin. No one has the right to never be offended and I have no time for anyone who thinks that they should be immune to criticism, offence or even ridicule, for any reason, not just religious ones.
Do Muslims have the right to protest against a war which can potentially be viewed not so much as a war against extremists but as a war against Islam itself? Now on the face of it this seems like a perfectly reasonable request. After all anti war protests where commonplace back in 2003 and few complained. In fact many applauded.
But that is precisely why I am suspicious of the motivations of this protest. There is, in the UK, a huge amount an anti war sentiment and I don't see how a protest against the war normally would get anything other than praise. However most protests against the war firstly are protesting against the government and not the army and thus are held around places of Government not outside of military bases. Particularly bases which are famous for being the place where dead troops are brought home. If this genuinely was about simply protesting the war there are plenty of ways this could he been done in order to capitalise on anti war feeling amongst the non Muslim population, thus gaining their sympathy. This however just seem to be about making it an us and them conflict. Islam vs the world. It's an utter sham. I also believe that the majority of people protesting are probably not inherently anti west but have themselves been manipulated by some people higher up who are. When this gets violent it simply make the charade complete.
Should the law stop them? Well I'm not sure. I don't think the population of the town or even the families of the soldiers have an inherent right not to be offended. I don't think anyone does. The best way to deal with this would be to either:
A) Ignore it.
B) Defeat their arguments peacefully through reason and logic.
Let 'em march and look the other way. When your five year old throws a tantrum you ignore them and they don't get their desired reaction. Same deal here. They deserve freedom of speech just like everyone else, even if the're offending grieving families and being trolls in general. It's not pretty, and it's not nice, but it is fair. I think a better solution instead of getting the government involved, is for the citizens in that town to all stay home and ignore the protest. Don't feed the troll! If they do that Choudry and his cronies will be left frustrated and disappointed.
e have not 'taken the gloves off' for a long time. If the West was not 'liberating' or 'intervening' but actually all out craved a war, was so wounded and entrenched that it fully lashed out, that is what I'm referring to.
Considering we have more personnel stationed overseas than you have active personnel period I think you blokes across the sea could serve to pick up the pace a bit. Or at least stop reducing your contributions .
e have not 'taken the gloves off' for a long time. If the West was not 'liberating' or 'intervening' but actually all out craved a war, was so wounded and entrenched that it fully lashed out, that is what I'm referring to.
Considering we have more personnel stationed overseas than you have active personnel period I think you blokes across the sea could serve to pick up the pace a bit. Or at least stop reducing your contributions .
And how do our contributions shape up against our GNP and population sizes...
@ MGS , Pat Condell eh? A youtube favourite of mine.. some of his stuff makes me laugh my ass off.. He is a little odd though it must be said.
@ Shuma, we contribute more than any other ally the US has, and were the only nation to take part in the initial surges into both Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, i know your just kidding around, but i find the whole royal "we" a bit childish. Sure the American military is contributing, but what have you personally done other than pay a little tax? I did 4 tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, and recieved an official commendation and an American flag that was flown in the face of the enemy above Camp Phoenix in Kabul as a thankyou for "services rendered" from the Oklahama National Guard.
e have not 'taken the gloves off' for a long time. If the West was not 'liberating' or 'intervening' but actually all out craved a war, was so wounded and entrenched that it fully lashed out, that is what I'm referring to.
Considering we have more personnel stationed overseas than you have active personnel period I think you blokes across the sea could serve to pick up the pace a bit. Or at least stop reducing your contributions .
And how do our contributions shape up against our GNP and population sizes...
Still not favorably. We Have ~35 times your number in iraq and three times (moving up to seven times) your number in afghanistan. We have roughly seven times your active duty personnel, so the contributions in afghanistan even out (post coming surge). However we're still heavily engaged in Iraq as well which is proving to be quite the strain considering the nature of the conflict.
@ Shuma, we contribute more than any other ally the US has, and were the only nation to take part in the initial surges into both Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, i know your just kidding around, but i find the whole royal "we" a bit childish. Sure the American military is contributing, but what have you personally done other than pay a little tax? I did 4 tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, and recieved an official commendation and an American flag that was flown in the face of the enemy above Camp Phoenix in Kabul as a thankyou for "services rendered" from the Oklahama National Guard.
Oh come now, I don't feel like writing down U.S. armed forces engaged in Iraq and Afghanistan every time I reference them. Thats a lot of letters. It's certainly true though, you were the biggest ally we had, which given the "multinational" title is a bit sad. Europe's contribution was pretty miniscule given it's actual capability (though hoping for a unified european military effort is pretty silly), though it's done a good bit better in Afghanistan.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - Pick up the pace?
ShumaGorath, meet....
FRANCE!
You know they spend the third highest amount on their military per year on the planet? I have no idea where it goes.
@Shuma - I heard that it was us, with them 4th - but meh.
@Matty - Don't take it personally, mate. Shuma just enjoys the occasional spot of 'brit-bashing' - I think a british guy must have stolen his girlfriend or something....
Your right Shuma, were kinda tied for third though!
Also, lets be honest, the French are a bunch of sweet smelling nancy boys, so they would need to be spending 10 times what we do to hold a candle to us.
I didnt know we spent more than Russia these days, i recall talking about this with you guys a while back though, and lets be honest, you could shave a few billion off the top to pay for some healthcare reforms and still have the worlds biggest military budget eh?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah i know mate, im starting to rather like Shuma's craic.
Oh..and you have to have lost your virginity to have a girlfriend to steal..
Don't take it personally, mate. Shuma just enjoys the occasional spot of 'brit-bashing' - I think a british guy must have stolen his girlfriend or something....
Pointing out numbers of deployed personnel when we have 7 times the military size and something like 14 times the number deployed when compared to the next biggest contributer seems like a perfectly reasonable response when someone starts talking about the "sleeping western giant resisting muslim oppression" in a thread about a rally in the UK. We're stretching ourselves thin, maybe the rest of the west should throw in too .
Also, lets be honest, the French are a bunch of sweet smelling nancy boys, so they would need to be spending 10 times what we do to hold a candle to us.
It's true. Brit soldiers are crazy, you could give them a knife and some paint and they'd bring you back some stolen AKs and a victory.
I didnt know we spent more than Russia these days, i recall talking about this with you guys a while back though, and lets be honest, you could shave a few billion off the top to pay for some healthcare reforms and still have the worlds biggest military budget eh?
I don't really get the whole fear of the russian military these days. It's outdated and under-equipped. Chalk it up to the cold war I guess.
Yeah i know mate, im starting to rather like Shuma's craic.
Whats craic?
Oh..and you have to have lost your virginity to have a girlfriend to steal..
@Shuma - 'Craic' (prounounced 'crack') in this context means 'banter' or 'jokes'. It's a north-eastern appropriation of an irish gaelic word.
I think the whole 'sleeping giant' thing referred to 'the west' as a whole, rather than just the UK. Although it is true that we have committed a fraction of our troops/resources to military action in the middle-east. The UK gov't is not really on a war footing.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I guess the best way to explain it is that your crack is taking the piss out of people a bit, and i find it amusing, you can say that someone is a "good crack" or that their quirky behavioral attributes are just "their crack"
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - 'Craic' (prounounced 'crack') in this context means 'banter' or 'jokes'. It's a north-eastern appropriation of an irish gaelic word.
I think the whole 'sleeping giant' thing referred to 'the west' as a whole, rather than just the UK. Although it is true that we have committed a fraction of our troops/resources to military action in the middle-east. The UK gov't is not really on a war footing.
We should really just try and convince china to help. They have twice Europe's population and well over that number in active military numbers. Becoming active in international police actions would be good for them. They're military is far too cloistered, and lends to the semi isolationist views many have of china. It would also help them create a more cohesive military force, they have serious administration issues. Chinas intervention would be like a divine intervention in most modern conflicts. As the single most powerful non western military in history they could rebuff the concept of a christian war on islam and western imperialism quite well.
@Shuma - That's interesting - but do we really want the chinese to become more militarily confident, and in turn, more interventionist? I'm not sure that would be good for the world.
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - That's interesting - but do we really want the chinese to become more militarily confident, and in turn, more interventionist? I'm not sure that would be good for the world.
Depends on what you think the value is of the current and future conflicts. A militarily confidant china as an ally to a militarily confidant U.S. could do a lot of good on the world stage. The biggest problem being Chinas own human rights record (and ongoing human rights abuses) and attitude towards the extreme respect for all forms of national sovereignty they have (so long as it's not a country that they want).
It's a bit of a pipe dream considering the latter fact. They simply don't intervene unless it directly benefits them, and at the moment muslim religious extremism isn't a huge issue for them (they have plenty of other things to worry about).
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - 'Craic' (prounounced 'crack') in this context means 'banter' or 'jokes'. It's a north-eastern appropriation of an irish gaelic word.
I think the whole 'sleeping giant' thing referred to 'the west' as a whole, rather than just the UK. Although it is true that we have committed a fraction of our troops/resources to military action in the middle-east. The UK gov't is not really on a war footing.
We should really just try and convince china to help. They have twice Europe's population and well over that number in active military numbers. Becoming active in international police actions would be good for them. They're military is far too cloistered, and lends to the semi isolationist views many have of china. It would also help them create a more cohesive military force, they have serious administration issues. Chinas intervention would be like a divine intervention in most modern conflicts. As the single most powerful non western military in history they could rebuff the concept of a christian war on islam and western imperialism quite well.
Not sure where I heard this, but someone told me China has like a 6th of the entire world population. Now if that's true, I can see how their military could be very helpful. I gotta agree with you Shuma, having a non-western, non-quote unquote "zionist" country on our side would really take the whole west vs east deal out of the picture. The U.S. is pretty deep in China's debt already though, a few trillion or so.
Albatross wrote:@Shuma - 'Craic' (prounounced 'crack') in this context means 'banter' or 'jokes'. It's a north-eastern appropriation of an irish gaelic word.
I think the whole 'sleeping giant' thing referred to 'the west' as a whole, rather than just the UK. Although it is true that we have committed a fraction of our troops/resources to military action in the middle-east. The UK gov't is not really on a war footing.
We should really just try and convince china to help. They have twice Europe's population and well over that number in active military numbers. Becoming active in international police actions would be good for them. They're military is far too cloistered, and lends to the semi isolationist views many have of china. It would also help them create a more cohesive military force, they have serious administration issues. Chinas intervention would be like a divine intervention in most modern conflicts. As the single most powerful non western military in history they could rebuff the concept of a christian war on islam and western imperialism quite well.
Not sure where I heard this, but someone told me China has like a 6th of the entire world population. Now if that's true, I can see how their military could be very helpful. I gotta agree with you Shuma, having a non-western, non-quote unquote "zionist" country on our side would really take the whole west vs east deal out of the picture. The U.S. is pretty deep in China's debt already though, a few trillion or so.
China has a population of 1,325,639,982 as of 2008, the world has a population of 6,692,030,277 as of 2008. Almost one in five.
ShumaGorath wrote:You know they spend the third highest amount on their military per year on the planet? I have no idea where it goes.
Frances military buget mostly goes on keeping the suburbs of Paris under control .
the problem with Islam4uk, is that they don't want to intergrate, if i moved to a foreign country, i would learn the language, follow the law, pay my taxes, and support the national team. their actions are above all else rude and egotistical. As the statistics prove the majority of muslims that die in the war zones are killed by other afgan and iraqi nationals (the reason why city centre bombing didn't happen under saddam hussain is because he liked to kill cultural groups he didn't like.) this group would be better protesting outside the pakistani embassy for allowing terrorist and militai groups from hiding within their borders.
As the statistics prove the majority of muslims that die in the war zones are killed by other afgan and iraqi nationals (the reason why city centre bombing didn't happen under saddam hussain is because he liked to kill cultural groups he didn't like.)
Just felt I should pop in. The reason you didn't see much of it was because the Baath party was largely secular, the country was largely peaceful, and there was no power vacuum for sectarian power struggles and religious extremism to erupt in. They were one of the most modern countries in the mideast, now that we've destroyed their infrastructure and left them with an utterly ineffectual and corrupt government (vs an effective but corrupt one) it's no wonder people with guns and tribal loyalties have moved in to try and take the seat.
BluntmanDC wrote: this group would be better protesting outside the pakistani embassy for allowing terrorist and militai groups from hiding within their borders.
You misunderstand their motivation. The Pakistani government is a Western pawn to be overthrown, not negotiated with. Islam has a long tradition of internal struggle. Indeed, the absence of a formal authority essentially renders any institutional hierarchy into an alien concept.
An interesting Topic. (A bit sad it went OT though. Bloody French..)
I'm not sure where this qoute comes from, but I've heard it used often.
"I don't like what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it."
Or something like that.
I draw the line of Free Speech when someone openly advocates the use civil violence/bloodshed and promotes anarchy. I think I would also want to shut up those who promote rascism, but then it gets touchy.
Emperors Faithful wrote:An interesting Topic. (A bit sad it went OT though. Bloody French..)
I'm not sure where this qoute comes from, but I've heard it used often.
"I don't like what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it."
Or something like that.
I draw the line of Free Speech when someone openly advocates the use civil violence/bloodshed and promotes anarchy. I think I would also want to shut up those who promote rascism, but then it gets touchy.
That was Voltaire I believe, coulda been Sam Adams though I cant remember. To be fair though I think If I have the right to speak out against racism, genocide, abortion etc. insert your topic/issue. Then everybody else has the right to promote racism, etc. It's gotta go both ways or its hypocritical. I don't like what this muslim group is doing or saying but I think they have a right to say it.
Would it not be possible to allow them the freedom of speech but restrict when they do it, surely if they say "sorry, towns fully booked that day, would you care to reschedule" it allows them to hve their freedom and not piss people off
Emperors Faithful wrote:An interesting Topic. (A bit sad it went OT though. Bloody French..)
I'm not sure where this qoute comes from, but I've heard it used often.
"I don't like what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it."
Or something like that.
I draw the line of Free Speech when someone openly advocates the use civil violence/bloodshed and promotes anarchy. I think I would also want to shut up those who promote rascism, but then it gets touchy.
" I may disagree with what you say,but I will deffend to the death your right to say it." IIRC..
While I certainly see your point concerning wishing to "shut up" racist,this is were deffending "unpopular speech" comes in to play,deffending "free speech" includes deffending speech you yourself find distasteful.
As the statistics prove the majority of muslims that die in the war zones are killed by other afgan and iraqi nationals (the reason why city centre bombing didn't happen under saddam hussain is because he liked to kill cultural groups he didn't like.)
Just felt I should pop in. The reason you didn't see much of it was because the Baath party was largely secular, the country was largely peaceful, and there was no power vacuum for sectarian power struggles and religious extremism to erupt in. They were one of the most modern countries in the mideast, now that we've destroyed their infrastructure and left them with an utterly ineffectual and corrupt government (vs an effective but corrupt one) it's no wonder people with guns and tribal loyalties have moved in to try and take the seat.
i was talking about this 'Specific charges included the murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others' yer you are write the Baath party were nice (just so we are clear, that was sarcasm)
Kyley wrote:Would it not be possible to allow them the freedom of speech but restrict when they do it, surely if they say "sorry, towns fully booked that day, would you care to reschedule" it allows them to hve their freedom and not piss people off
It's what they do in denmark, and it does piss people off.
Kyley wrote:Would it not be possible to allow them the freedom of speech but restrict when they do it, surely if they say "sorry, towns fully booked that day, would you care to reschedule" it allows them to hve their freedom and not piss people off
I've heard about people doing that here when the neo-nazis wanna have a rally or whatever. It doesn't seem to work though. Neo nazis hire an ACLU lawyer and end up getting their way. I think it's just easier to ignore them and not play their little game.
As the statistics prove the majority of muslims that die in the war zones are killed by other afgan and iraqi nationals (the reason why city centre bombing didn't happen under saddam hussain is because he liked to kill cultural groups he didn't like.)
Just felt I should pop in. The reason you didn't see much of it was because the Baath party was largely secular, the country was largely peaceful, and there was no power vacuum for sectarian power struggles and religious extremism to erupt in. They were one of the most modern countries in the mideast, now that we've destroyed their infrastructure and left them with an utterly ineffectual and corrupt government (vs an effective but corrupt one) it's no wonder people with guns and tribal loyalties have moved in to try and take the seat.
i was talking about this 'Specific charges included the murder of 148 people, torture of women and children and the illegal arrest of 399 others' yer you are write the Baath party were nice (just so we are clear, that was sarcasm)
As opposed to the several hundred thousand that have died in Iraq since? Anarchy is always worse than draconian order.
Emperors Faithful wrote:An interesting Topic. (A bit sad it went OT though. Bloody French..)
I'm not sure where this qoute comes from, but I've heard it used often.
"I don't like what you have to say, but I will die for your right to say it."
Or something like that.
I draw the line of Free Speech when someone openly advocates the use civil violence/bloodshed and promotes anarchy. I think I would also want to shut up those who promote rascism, but then it gets touchy.
" I may disagree with what you say,but I will deffend to the death your right to say it." IIRC..
While I certainly see your point concerning wishing to "shut up" racist,this is were deffending "unpopular speech" comes in to play,deffending "free speech" includes deffending speech you yourself find distasteful.
I know. Which is why I said this is where it gets touchy. Simply promoting racism itself and bagging others is fair enough, but I believe that when one demands violent racist acts then it stops there.
That's were alot of the racist boneheads know the law,at least to a degree,they claim not to "advocate violence",and in general stay on the fringe of legality,right on the line but not crossing it openly.
I've lived my whole life in the South,and belive me I despise the Klan (been in a few punch ups with their supporters over my girlfriend),but as much as I hate their views,I hate the idea of living in a country that silences people more.
Another thing that annoys me about organisations like this is that they love to play the race card when they are themselves racist and religionist (is that the term?), they hate other people and their believes thats why they exist as an organisation, calling others racist devalues the term for when it is actually needed.
people seem to think that the definition of racism = white person hates non white person, while the actual definition is hating someone of a different race due to being of that race.
I think this should go ahead, we let the BNP march, why not this.
I would like to see the Muslim council of Britain (and other moderate Muslims) take a more public and vocal position against this, ideally on TV, it should be part of the dialogue in Eastenders. (popular UK Soap Opera)
Jumble sales in mosques is the answer. Moderate Muslims need to stand up and oppose this and the media need to pick up on it. What's the point of having a government controlled media organisation (BBC) if not to show opposition to this.
George Spiggott wrote:I think this should go ahead, we let the BNP march, why not this.
I would like to see the Muslim council of Britain (and other moderate Muslims) take a more public and vocal position against this, ideally on TV, it should be part of the dialogue in Eastenders. (popular UK Soap Opera)
Jumble sales in mosques is the answer. Moderate Muslims need to stand up and oppose this and the media need to pick up on it. What's the point of having a government controlled media organisation (BBC) if not to show opposition to this.
Thats a good idea. All the muslims I know, (like 2) really can't stand all these extremists. It would also help remind people that not every muslim is violent, (IDK about Britain, but in the states I think we need a reminder now and again). Maybe have a counter protest?
Emperors Faithful wrote:I know. Which is why I said this is where it gets touchy. Simply promoting racism itself and bagging others is fair enough, but I believe that when one demands violent racist acts then it stops there.
Of course, this is no different from the restrictions on promoting, say, vegetarianism.
Let'm march, have enough security to keep things civil. Don't give the extremists any more fuel. If these idiots want to make themselves better known to the british intelligence apparatus then let them.
There's like 1.6 million muslims in the UK, I don't think you've got to be too worried for a while. I don't support any religious nut jobs, but iraq and afghanistan did sweet feth all for western security. Iraq and Afghanistan were about as useful as my rock that keeps terrorists away.
mattyrm wrote:@ MGS , Pat Condell eh? A youtube favourite of mine.. some of his stuff makes me laugh my ass off.. He is a little odd though it must be said.
@ Shuma, we contribute more than any other ally the US has, and were the only nation to take part in the initial surges into both Afghanistan and Iraq. Also, i know your just kidding around, but i find the whole royal "we" a bit childish. Sure the American military is contributing, but what have you personally done other than pay a little tax? I did 4 tours of Iraq and Afghanistan, and recieved an official commendation and an American flag that was flown in the face of the enemy above Camp Phoenix in Kabul as a thankyou for "services rendered" from the Oklahama National Guard.
How many times did you go hotshot?
Matt,
There are those that talk a good game, then run and hide when the gak hits the fan, do what I did and ignore the guy. Life is a lot simpler not reading what someone who seems to enjoy talking crap has to say.
I have a sister currently in Iraq and her daughter is a field medic currently serving in Afganastan. Lots of fun they're having, yup.
My thanks to you, Matt for the crap you've gone through over there for us. I've got a Helluva respect for you and anyone over there doing what you did.
There are those that talk a good game, then run and hide when the gak hits the fan, do what I did and ignore the guy. Life is a lot simpler not reading what someone who seems to enjoy talking crap has to say.
You blocked me because I didn't agree when you said "kill all Pedos without trial". There's a pretty substantial difference in these situations, but then you probably can't read this.
Something I wanted to put out there, that I don't think a lot of people have considered judging from some of the more emotional responses...these people aren't representative of the Muslim community as a whole. I was actually told that the non-radical Muslims, the down-to-earth ones who don't preach hate and violence, have branded all of the donkey-caves out there that are doing just that and tainting their religion as heretics, or "tafikirs".
I'm friends with a Malaysian girl and we have a couple of Malaysian members over on Tau Online, and like I said, they're really not all that bad. It's like claiming that all Christians are like the KKK or the Westboro Church, it's just a minority that give the rest of them a bad name.
Sidstyler wrote:Something I wanted to put out there, that I don't think a lot of people have considered judging from some of the more emotional responses...these people aren't representative of the Muslim community as a whole. I was actually told that the non-radical Muslims, the down-to-earth ones who don't preach hate and violence, have branded all of the donkey-caves out there that are doing just that and tainting their religion as heretics, or "tafikirs".
I'm friends with a Malaysian girl and we have a couple of Malaysian members over on Tau Online, and like I said, they're really not all that bad. It's like claiming that all Christians are like the KKK or the Westboro Church, it's just a minority that give the rest of them a bad name.
ShumaGorath wrote:
You blocked me because I didn't agree when you said "kill all Pedos without trial". There's a pretty substantial difference in these situations, but then you probably can't read this.
Sidstyler wrote:Something I wanted to put out there, that I don't think a lot of people have considered judging from some of the more emotional responses...these people aren't representative of the Muslim community as a whole. I was actually told that the non-radical Muslims, the down-to-earth ones who don't preach hate and violence, have branded all of the donkey-caves out there that are doing just that and tainting their religion as heretics, or "tafikirs".
I'm friends with a Malaysian girl and we have a couple of Malaysian members over on Tau Online, and like I said, they're really not all that bad. It's like claiming that all Christians are like the KKK or the Westboro Church, it's just a minority that give the rest of them a bad name.
what we need is these groups of normal muslims taking a stand and coming out as against the extremists stealing their religion
its pretty civil in here i thought. :-) oh an cheers for that relapse, im more than happy to have a crack with shu though, i think his tongue is firmly in his cheek most the time. :-)
Yep, just reminding everyone. Also lets remind everyone that the veiws of posters are the views of posters and not the nations they live in. So lets keep the nation bashing to er, nonexistent please.
Frazzled wrote:Yep, just reminding everyone. Also lets remind everyone that the veiws of posters are the views of posters and not the nations they live in. So lets keep the nation bashing to er, nonexistent please.
Texas is full of crazy old coots who'd shoot you off their yard!
I mean, Texas is a nation right?
But yeah, to get back to seriousness:
This whole situation is ridiculous. It's as bad as the wankjob protesters of Operation: Iraqi Freedom who kept picketing the funerals of servicemen and then trying to file charges against the family members who got mad enough to hit them.
It's creating a dangerous situation, and it's a PR move all in one. Who cares if a few of your followers get the crap beat out of them when you get to make the Other Side look like a bunch of violent neanderthals?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:modquisition? free speech?
Free Speech doesn't apply to private forums, broski.
Texas is full of crazy old coots who'd shoot you off their yard!
I mean, Texas is a nation right?
Thats not a joke, thats a true statement!
Agreed. I've traveled internationally and when people asked where I was from by default I said I was from Texas. "Texas - it's like a whole other country" was our tourism slogan at one point.
I draw the line at when people say things I don't agree with. If they say something I don't like, they get 10 days in jail. 20 for rolling better in the assault phase.
Kanluwen wrote:It's creating a dangerous situation, and it's a PR move all in one. Who cares if a few of your followers get the crap beat out of them when you get to make the Other Side look like a bunch of violent neanderthals?
It's even worse than that. Westboro does it purely for the settlement money.
If you read the article, Fateweaver, it did say that those troublemakers had split off from where the main group of anti-war protesters had organized thier rally with police.
A group of Muslim protesters shouted 'murderers', 'rapists', 'baby killers' and chanted 'burn in hell' at soldiers on a homecoming parade from Iraq, a court heard today. (...)
Today seven Muslim men appeared at Luton Magistrates Court charged with using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour which was likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others.
Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to speak.
As for those six scumbags who refused to get up for the judge... how can you "compromise" with this vermin? If that judge had any balls at all (well figuratively anyway) she would have had them all imprisoned for contempt. The truth of the matter is they see her as less than equals because she is a woman.
Funny really, since the benefits given to them by this country also paid for the clothes they wear.
To be 100% honest about the march: Let them, with a ticket back to the middle east waiting for them afterwards.
They seem to hate this country, yet still take all the free hand-outs and ask for more.
Failing that, shoot the fethers.
If i walked around with a sign with something aimed at a muslim on it, i would lose my job, and be branded a racist.
Yet for them its fine?
feth off to another country, they arent needed or wanted here.
So whats next? Letting the rapist go to the funeral of a young girl he has raped and killed?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for those six scumbags who refused to get up for the judge... how can you "compromise" with this vermin? If that judge had any balls at all (well figuratively anyway) she would have had them all imprisoned for contempt. The truth of the matter is they see her as less than equals because she is a woman.
What they believe over-rules our legal system.
If she said something she too would be branded a "racist"
The Green Git wrote:Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to speak.
Yes it is, at least insofar as the administrator of those consequences is the state. Obviously anyone who chose to create a set of consequences for those speaking would also be bound by any laws intended to govern their activity.
That being said, 'freedom of speech' is not true freedom of speech. Its a guideline more than an absolute, logical statement.
The Green Git wrote:Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to speak.
It is (significant) freedom from government created consequences of speaking. Otherwise it would mean nothing.
As for those six scumbags who refused to get up for the judge... how can you "compromise" with this vermin? If that judge had any balls at all (well figuratively anyway) she would have had them all imprisoned for contempt.
They weren't disrupting the legal process by refusing to stand; do you think the government should force people into submissive actions just to display their power?
The truth of the matter is they see her as less than equals because she is a woman.
Possibly, but it's hardly a scathing insult coming from the people who call returning soldiers "baby killers". I'd consider the view that I'm inferior by them to be a compliment, if anything.
Even so, these men stepped over the line when they promised that the soldiers would pay and threatened use of violence. While they may not have said that they themselves were planning to do so, it seems obvious that they were advocating any attacks on these soldiers.
The Green Git wrote:Freedom of Speech is not freedom from the consequences of what you choose to speak.
As for those six scumbags who refused to get up for the judge... how can you "compromise" with this vermin? If that judge had any balls at all (well figuratively anyway) she would have had them all imprisoned for contempt. The truth of the matter is they see her as less than equals because she is a woman.
The article did mention that one of them has had their house attacked and car firebombed... I'd say that guy wasn't free from consequence of his words.
Isn't there a law in Britain and Commonwealth countries where people can't be targeted with hate speech?
I mention this because I read of some Canadian law that possibly leaves preachers and such open to prosecution for talking against homosexuality from the pulpit.
My understanding is that hate speech is prohibited under old British law, but I admit I could use a serious education on this.
If this is in fact the case though, could not the British soldiers coming home be protected under the British version of this law?
Emperors Faithful wrote:Even so, these men stepped over the line when they promised that the soldiers would pay and threatened use of violence. While they may not have said that they themselves were planning to do so, it seems obvious that they were advocating any attacks on these soldiers.
A legal line, or a moral one? Most people don't appreciate the difference, but its obviously an important one.
As far as I know nothing they did was illegal in the United States (the KKK can legally march), though obviously the same is not true of England.
Emperors Faithful wrote:Even so, these men stepped over the line when they promised that the soldiers would pay and threatened use of violence. While they may not have said that they themselves were planning to do so, it seems obvious that they were advocating any attacks on these soldiers.
A legal line, or a moral one? Most people don't appreciate the difference, but its obviously an important one.
As far as I know nothing they did was illegal in the United States (the KKK can legally march), though obviously the same is not true of England.
The KKK can legally march, but they cannot do it in a way so as to provoke a reaction from the community(insofar as I remember. I'd have to dig through the law texts to find it, but I remember there was a case where the KKK or the American Nazi Party tried to protest the fact that they were forced to alter the planned route of their march to keep them from a low income black neighborhood).
A group of Muslim protesters shouted 'murderers', 'rapists', 'baby killers' and chanted 'burn in hell' at soldiers on a homecoming parade from Iraq, a court heard today. (...)
Today seven Muslim men appeared at Luton Magistrates Court charged with using threatening, abusive, insulting words and behaviour which was likely to cause harassment, alarm and distress to others.
Funny really, since the benefits given to them by this country also paid for the clothes they wear.
To be 100% honest about the march: Let them, with a ticket back to the middle east waiting for them afterwards.
They seem to hate this country, yet still take all the free hand-outs and ask for more.
Failing that, shoot the fethers.
If i walked around with a sign with something aimed at a muslim on it, i would lose my job, and be branded a racist.
Yet for them its fine?
feth off to another country, they arent needed or wanted here.
I remember years ago reading about a protest against the Lybian embassy in Britain during the course of which the Lybians shot and killed a police woman and injured several other people. I think there are some people in Britain with as long a memory as I have and just might get more than a bit violent against these protesters.
Funny really, since the benefits given to them by this country also paid for the clothes they wear.
To be 100% honest about the march: Let them, with a ticket back to the middle east waiting for them afterwards. They seem to hate this country, yet still take all the free hand-outs and ask for more.
Failing that, shoot the fethers. If i walked around with a sign with something aimed at a muslim on it, i would lose my job, and be branded a racist. Yet for them its fine? feth off to another country, they arent needed or wanted here.
I remember years ago reading about a protest against the Lybian embassy in Britain during the course of which the Lybians shot and killed a police woman and injured several other people. I think there are some people in Britain with as long a memory as I have and just might get more than a bit violent against these protesters.
26 years is a long time to still care about some woman getting shot. Presumably there have been thousands of offenses in all sorts of categories since which are still relevant. But you can't read this.
I have no problem with this. However, like with any public speaker or parade, I reserve the right to heckle and throw rotten veg if I dislike what I hear.
When their abusive protest started there was a furious reaction from members of the public. Although the chants were aimed at the regiment, it is the members of the public supporting them that the prosecution say were caused alarm and distress.
Mr Chaudhuri said police twice had to form a barrier around the protesters to protect them. At one point it is alleged pieces of bacon were thrown at the Muslims while there were shouts of 'go and have a shave' and 'Bin Laden's wife is a whore'.
Its great that they can have protests like this in our country and be relatively safe, now what happens when you protest in a muslim country, oh wait this was just on the news ..... oh yer, the police shoot you.
BluntmanDC wrote:Its great that they can have protests like this in our country and be relatively safe, now what happens when you protest in a muslim country, oh wait this was just on the news ..... oh yer, the police shoot you.
From what I read and posted about the protest at the Lybian Embassy several years back, you don't even have to buy a plane ticket, they'll just shoot you in St James Square.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:"If this man has any decency about him he will not hold a march through Wootton Bassett."
If he had any decency, if he felt so strongly about living in a muslim nation, he'd have moved to live in one... oh, wait, they are all sandy gak-holes where he's already well past the average lifespan ruled over by foam mouthed zealots with more concern about ensuring a teenage girl is buried up to her neck and stoned alive for 'witchcraft' rather than sorting out clean water or educating the children.
You might want to stop and think about that comment, because it's pretty damn ignorant. You're mistaking Saudi Arabia for the entirety of Islam.
sebster wrote:You might want to stop and think about that comment, because it's pretty damn ignorant. You're mistaking Saudi Arabia for the entirety of Islam.
sebster wrote:You might want to stop and think about that comment, because it's pretty damn ignorant. You're mistaking Saudi Arabia for the entirety of Islam.
Whoa Whoa Whoa! What?!?!
Yeah, one a country and ones a religion! They aren't even both places!
I can't help but be a tad put off when an ethnic group imposes itself on another society, refuses to make any attempt at fitting into the culture they've just walked into, badmouth the country's original inhabitants and demand handouts and protection.
It's Britain; there has been a sense of a British national identity for centuries now. If that's not an established culture, I don't know what is. If you go there of your own volition and don't like that culture, you are welcome to leave. It's just idiotic not to expect actual Brits to defend their way of life.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:"If this man has any decency about him he will not hold a march through Wootton Bassett."
If he had any decency, if he felt so strongly about living in a muslim nation, he'd have moved to live in one... oh, wait, they are all sandy gak-holes where he's already well past the average lifespan ruled over by foam mouthed zealots with more concern about ensuring a teenage girl is buried up to her neck and stoned alive for 'witchcraft' rather than sorting out clean water or educating the children.
You might want to stop and think about that comment, because it's pretty damn ignorant. You're mistaking Saudi Arabia for the entirety of Islam.
Noooo, you mean our current vacation spot of choice, Afghanistan, yes?
Or Iraq, although it's off-season there, or perhaps Kuwait?
No, you mean the highly enlightened and stable nation of Jordon... Hey, what's a few honour killings of your own daughters eh? That's just local FETHING culture right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordon#Human_rights
In fact, which part of the Muslim World are you so keen to go and spend time in? Because I'm really keen to hear about how ignorant my comment is, because I'd love to be more liberal on the subject, because the majority of my politics IS liberal but when it comes to Islamic nations and culture, it seems so absolutely fething aggressive and destructive and hell-bent on doing harm to anything that doesn't conform to it's absolutes that I really can't sum up anything other than a sense of disgust and anger.
The only nations you could show as examples of a 'better' outlook are those who are more 'Westernised' and therefore suffer the ire of their brother states for backsliding and suffer insurgents trying to bully them into a more hardline and fanatical government.
Have a think about that for a second. I pointed out that not all Muslim countries are like the worst examples. To counter this you cited two other examples of oppressive societies. As if one example is one only one country, but three countries means every Muslim country is an oppressive theocracy.
What about Jordan? Or the UAE? Or Pakistan. These are countries with human rights issues but to characterise life in any of them as being "ruled over by foul-mouthed zealots with more concern about ensuring a teenage girl is buried up to her neck and stoned alive for witchcraft" is well... only possible when you know absolutely nothing about any of those countries.
Edit- posted before I caught your edit. I enjoyed my time in Indonesia. I loved my time in the Islamic NW and NE of India. Wonderful, friendly people with an interest in the world. I hated Dubai, but that was because it was all glass and steel... utterly boring.
And when you talk about Islam being so utterly destructive... I have Muslim friends. None of them want to overtake my country and install Sharia law. Most of them just want to hang out. I can't dissuade you from such a strong opinion over the internet, all I can do is ask you to get outside the crap media coverage and start meeting these people. Seriously, they're just like us. They've got a few more crazies, but freaking out about the whole billion muslims out there isn't going to reduce the strength of those crazies.
You should also mention Indonesia, which is about the best example of a reasonably progressive, yet socially conservative state that exists in the world.
Another point: calling these places "hell holes" is a personal statement about one's opinion of them. These protesters that are being accosted do like them. In fact, they probably want England to be more like their home nations. Most immigrants to the UK probably come seeking economic opportunity, not cultural assimilation.
they probably want England to be more like their home nations. Most immigrants to the UK probably come seeking economic opportunity, not cultural assimilation.
England is full, feth off somewhere else.
Now, to what you said: I couldnt give a flying feth what they want, they cant come into another country and expect it to change for them.
Ive been shot at plenty out in the sandbox, simply for being there.
If i walked down the street and took shots at some afghan walking down the road, i'd get a dishonourable discharge and 20 years.
Not only that, but 9/10 immigrants are out of work claiming benefits.
6/10 of those have a family which are also out of work and have kids.
They are just like fething rats draining down the country resources.
.
