Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
- No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
- Times and dates in your local timezone.
- Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
- Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
- Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 19:36:23
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Azenine wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote: dæl wrote:I don't for a second think we created Islamic fundamentalism, what we have done is upset the balance by giving serious power to the fundamentalists. If we were serious about eradicating terrorism from the world we could, it would be difficult but not impossible. But the analogy I made earlier was apt, we didn't eradicate piracy while we still used privateers and we won't eradicate terrorism while we still use them when it suits us.
I think the radicals were moving into power anyway. I really wish I could remember the name of that guy.
Just adding on to this, you may think that they were moving to power, but it doesn't change the fact that, as dael has said, the Western powers messed up the balance and (indirectly) put people who should not have been in power in power.
It also remains a red herring, with or without the king of saudi arabia ruling saudi arabia, the islamic laws which dominate saudi arabia and are brutal, rely on ignorance, inflict monumental cruelty and are the antethisis of learning or culture.
We didn't arm the extremists in SA, we could have, dethroned the king, implemented a new religious leader and still had all of the above.
Iran took out it's ruler all of its own volition and replaced his dictatorship with theological dictatorship, 'freedom loving' kuwait had, at the time of the iraq war, a worse human rights record than iraq. It is the medieval religion's behavior in the modern world that marks it as incompatible, regardless of which faction within it is currently in charge, it's just a sliding scale of intolerable misogynistic thugs, swap them out all you want, it's still crammed full of bad juju.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 19:42:13
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Ghulam Doctor
|
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
It also remains a red herring, with or without the king of saudi arabia ruling saudi arabia, the islamic laws which dominate saudi arabia and are brutal, rely on ignorance, inflict monumental cruelty and are the antethisis of learning or culture.
We didn't arm the extremists in SA, we could have, dethroned the king, implemented a new religious leader and still had all of the above.
Iran took out it's ruler all of its own volition and replaced his dictatorship with theological dictatorship, 'freedom loving' kuwait had, at the time of the iraq war, a worse human rights record than iraq. It is the medieval religion's behavior in the modern world that marks it as incompatible, regardless of which faction within it is currently in charge, it's just a sliding scale of intolerable misogynistic thugs, swap them out all you want, it's still crammed full of bad juju.
And yet despite being crammed full of bad juju, there are some very decent people who are devout Muslims and all (not saying that you claimed the opposite, just pointing it out) which makes things even more murky, because being able to blame the Muslim faith of being the one that creates all of this mess would be so much easier...
*sigh*
EDIT: No sarcasm in there at all. As in really.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/27 19:43:22
Your mind is software. Program it.
Your body is a shell. Change it.
Death is a disease. Cure it.
Extinction is approaching. Fight it. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 19:50:28
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
No point to be made either, it would appear.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 19:51:12
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
I disagree, had we not sponsored them the world would look very different. Britain would have far less issues with radicalisation with no radical clerics being around to radicalise them, and Afghanistan would not have become what it did. When asked to hand over Osama bin Laden, the head of Afghanistan Mullar Omar refused, Omar's bodyguard at the time is quoted as saying "Afghanistan is not a state sponsoring terrorism but a terrorist-sponsored state. It is Osama bin Laden that can hand over Mullar Omar not vice versa."
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 19:51:32
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Ghulam Doctor
|
Agreed, but to me, there was room for ambiguity, so I played it safe by making my intentions clear.
|
Your mind is software. Program it.
Your body is a shell. Change it.
Death is a disease. Cure it.
Extinction is approaching. Fight it. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 19:59:03
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
dæl wrote:
I disagree, had we not sponsored them the world would look very different. Britain would have far less issues with radicalisation with no radical clerics being around to radicalise them, and Afghanistan would not have become what it did. When asked to hand over Osama bin Laden, the head of Afghanistan Mullar Omar refused, Omar's bodyguard at the time is quoted as saying "Afghanistan is not a state sponsoring terrorism but a terrorist-sponsored state. It is Osama bin Laden that can hand over Mullar Omar not vice versa."
Radical, hard line islam has also flourished where we have not trampled the garden, I think it would have risen in many places anyway, I don't think we helped matters in certain nations, but I tend to think the movement was going to occur in several nations spontaneously, remember we've also been tinkering by keeping dictators and autocrats in place or implementing them, against these radicals. I think a great many of the nations that experienced increase in radicalization did so as a counter to the tyrants that existed or still exist.
Some groups turned to communism, but many turned to radical faith.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 20:06:57
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Azenine wrote: dæl wrote:
Protestants use the Ten Commandments, which were Old Testament. My theology isn't exactly comprehensive but I would say Protestants use both books of the Bible as much as Catholics do.
According to Wikipedia (prime source of the Internet!), the Protestants use the Bible and see it as "the primary and supreme source of binding authority" for all Christians.
Sola scriptura maintains that the Bible (rather than church tradition or ecclesiastical interpretations of the Bible) is the primary and supreme source of binding authority for all Christians. This does not exclude other sources of binding authority, rather it places other forms of authority in subordination to the authority of Scripture.
However, the Bible includes both the Old and New Testaments, which proves you right. But then again, I'm guessing that which teachings and writings are followed and which aren't is up to people's personal views and opinions.
Jesus did away with the harsh punishments of the Old Testament as in the example I gave of the adultress brought before him. Adultry is still wrong and subject to consequences if not repented of, but in true Christian doctrine not subject to death by stoning. There were other parts of Old Testament laws that were laid aside by Jesus and later his Apostles through divine revelation because there was no need for them anymore. Mean gave some good examples of these, shellfish, pigs being forbidden as part of dietary law, etc.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 20:19:28
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Ghulam Doctor
|
I was reading through your posts, MGS, and saw this:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Ahhhhhh yes, I saw Bukhari on the BBC... I've little time for him myself.
During the Gaza War, Bukhari wrote in a Facebook thread: "Muslims who fight against the occupation of their lands are 'Mujahadeen' and are blessed by Allah. And any Muslim who fights and dies against Israel and dies is a martyr and will be granted paradise ... There is no greater oppressor on this earth than the Zionists, who murder little children for sport."
In 2006, Bukhari had sent David Irving a £60 cheque and a letter headed with a quote from John Locke, "All that is needed for evil to triumph is for good people to stand idle".[2] This was reported in The Observer as David Irving had made statements in the past supporting Holocaust Denial.
And I noted his repeated insistence during the interview in getting a 'the west brought this on it's self' snipe in about wars in the Middle East, which is also what the fether with the hatchet was saying with his hands covered in that young man's blood.
Well, the Israelis aren't exactly angels towards the Muslims/Arabs in the area, so I can completely understand the man's feelings about the situation with the Israelis. For many people, the Israelis (a majority of whom are Zionists) are real oppressors and have no right to be on the land they're on. I've studied the situation somewhat (mostly the water-sharing situation, but also the land division and relationships between the two communities) and am appalled by Israel's behaviour towards the Arabs. The Arabs have their violent beliefs, but I believe that they have only ever acted in retaliation to Israeli oppression and violence.
Also, the US and UK are big allies of the Israelis, which messes things up even more and could also be a reason why Islamic extremists target these countries more than others.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Relapse wrote:Jesus did away with the harsh punishments of the Old Testament as in the example I gave of the adultress brought before him. Adultry is still wrong and subject to consequences if not repented of, but in true Christian doctrine not subject to death by stoning. There were other parts of Old Testament laws that were laid aside by Jesus and later his Apostles through divine revelation because there was no need for them anymore. Mean gave some good examples of these, shellfish, pigs being forbidden as part of dietary law, etc.
OK, thanks for clearing that up somewhat
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/27 20:21:54
Your mind is software. Program it.
Your body is a shell. Change it.
Death is a disease. Cure it.
Extinction is approaching. Fight it. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 20:59:55
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Radical, hard line islam has also flourished where we have not trampled the garden, I think it would have risen in many places anyway, I don't think we helped matters in certain nations, but I tend to think the movement was going to occur in several nations spontaneously, remember we've also been tinkering by keeping dictators and autocrats in place or implementing them, against these radicals. I think a great many of the nations that experienced increase in radicalization did so as a counter to the tyrants that existed or still exist.
Some groups turned to communism, but many turned to radical faith.
Radical Islam would have existed and would have had power in places, but the two largest attacks by Islamists were 9/11 and 7/7, one was caused by the failed state of Afghanistan and the other was caused by the radicalisation of young British Muslims. Without our tinkering extremism would be around, but international terrorism may well not.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 21:34:18
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
dæl wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Radical, hard line islam has also flourished where we have not trampled the garden, I think it would have risen in many places anyway, I don't think we helped matters in certain nations, but I tend to think the movement was going to occur in several nations spontaneously, remember we've also been tinkering by keeping dictators and autocrats in place or implementing them, against these radicals. I think a great many of the nations that experienced increase in radicalization did so as a counter to the tyrants that existed or still exist.
Some groups turned to communism, but many turned to radical faith.
Radical Islam would have existed and would have had power in places, but the two largest attacks by Islamists were 9/11 and 7/7, one was caused by the failed state of Afghanistan and the other was caused by the radicalisation of young British Muslims. Without our tinkering extremism would be around, but international terrorism may well not.
Would state and religious persecution towards women in the islamic world still exist?
Would violent objection to other religions, cultures, art and thinking still exist in the islamic religion controlled areas of the planet?
Would there still be muslims living in the western world holding to the 'virtues' of their faith and cultural practices, including the above?
Their ire may be directed at us at this time, partially due to Western tinkering, but their ideology would be as abhorrent to a western liberal lover of equality if they had not been turned on us.
They would still be suppressing their womenfolk, killing their gay populace and issuing stonings and fatwas.
And the dabblings in Afghanistan don't change Bin Laden being the son of a billionaire and his aggression towards the US being driven by the placement of Americans in Saudi, his own prejudices about 'infidels' defending the holy Islamic lands are what caused this hugely wealthy fanatic to declare war on the west, even as the west protected the saudi borders.
So, the demonstrators marching through the streets of london and other western cities supporting Al Q and touting Bin Laden's name do so because he was a bigot with an intolerance of foreigners in his country, a loathing of immigrants with different beliefs and values walking on his streets... the irony is palpable isn't it.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 21:55:32
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Yes
Would violent objection to other religions, cultures, art and thinking still exist in the islamic religion controlled areas of the planet?
Yes
Would there still be muslims living in the western world holding to the 'virtues' of their faith and cultural practices, including the above?
Fewer, but still some, yes.
Their ire may be directed at us at this time, partially due to Western tinkering, but their ideology would be as abhorrent to a western liberal lover of equality if they had not been turned on us.
They would still be suppressing their womenfolk, killing their gay populace and issuing stonings and fatwas.
That ideology wasn't that abhorrent to the West when they supported the mujahideen in opposing the PDPA's policies such as compulsory education of women.
And the dabblings in Afghanistan don't change Bin Laden being the son of a billionaire and his aggression towards the US being driven by the placement of Americans in Saudi, his own prejudices about 'infidels' defending the holy Islamic lands are what caused this hugely wealthy fanatic to declare war on the west, even as the west protected the saudi borders.
I think he would have been less likely to turn on the West if we kept on chucking him and his associates $200,000 a year, or even better if we hadn't have given it in the first place it would have been a lot easier to stamp out any group attacking us.
So, the demonstrators marching through the streets of london and other western cities supporting Al Q and touting Bin Laden's name do so because he was a bigot with an intolerance of foreigners in his country, a loathing of immigrants with different beliefs and values walking on his streets... the irony is palpable isn't it.
Indeed it is.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 22:12:57
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Oberstleutnant
Back in the English morass
|
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Radical Islam would have existed and would have had power in places, but the two largest attacks by Islamists were 9/11 and 7/7, one was caused by the failed state of Afghanistan and the other was caused by the radicalisation of young British Muslims. Without our tinkering extremism would be around, but international terrorism may well not
Would state and religious persecution towards women in the islamic world still exist?
Would violent objection to other religions, cultures, art and thinking still exist in the islamic religion controlled areas of the planet?
Would there still be muslims living in the western world holding to the 'virtues' of their faith and cultural practices, including the above?
Their ire may be directed at us at this time, partially due to Western tinkering, but their ideology would be as abhorrent to a western liberal lover of equality if they had not been turned on us.
They would still be suppressing their womenfolk, killing their gay populace and issuing stonings and fatwas.
And what would you suggest that we do about this?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/27 22:13:12
The prefect example of someone missing the point.
Do not underestimate the Squats. They survived for millenia cut off from the Imperium and assailed on all sides. Their determination and resilience is an example to us all.
-Leman Russ, Meditations on Imperial Command book XVI (AKA the RT era White Dwarf Commpendium).
Its just a shame that they couldn't fight off Andy Chambers.
Warzone Plog |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 22:17:15
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Slashing Veteran Sword Bretheren
|
Not sitting around making excuses for them by comparing it to Christianity.
|
Fury from faith
Faith in fury
Numquam solus ambulabis |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 22:22:24
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
dæl wrote:
Their ire may be directed at us at this time, partially due to Western tinkering, but their ideology would be as abhorrent to a western liberal lover of equality if they had not been turned on us.
They would still be suppressing their womenfolk, killing their gay populace and issuing stonings and fatwas.
That ideology wasn't that abhorrent to the West when they supported the mujahideen in opposing the PDPA's policies such as compulsory education of women.
The PDPA allied it's self to the Soviets, so the west was left with the last player to pick for their team, the psycho kid. Instead of just playing a man down as we should have, we took the psycho kid and suffered the consequences.
There was a blind rush to just counter anything the Soviets did, If the ruskies said cats the CIA bought a dog, so we ended up funding dictators and lunatic religious types all out of fear of communism.
I'd take communism over religious extremism any damned day of the week, the communist doesn't get any reward in the hereafter, he's concerned with what occurs in life, the religious extremist wants to die, wants to be martyred.
So, yes, there was some shifty games of chess, across the planet, in those days, but it's not the fault of the capitalist west any more than the communist east that islam turned toxic, it occurred internally and had been heading there for centuries. Automatically Appended Next Post: Palindrome wrote: MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Radical Islam would have existed and would have had power in places, but the two largest attacks by Islamists were 9/11 and 7/7, one was caused by the failed state of Afghanistan and the other was caused by the radicalisation of young British Muslims. Without our tinkering extremism would be around, but international terrorism may well not
Would state and religious persecution towards women in the islamic world still exist?
Would violent objection to other religions, cultures, art and thinking still exist in the islamic religion controlled areas of the planet?
Would there still be muslims living in the western world holding to the 'virtues' of their faith and cultural practices, including the above?
Their ire may be directed at us at this time, partially due to Western tinkering, but their ideology would be as abhorrent to a western liberal lover of equality if they had not been turned on us.
They would still be suppressing their womenfolk, killing their gay populace and issuing stonings and fatwas.
And what would you suggest that we do about this?
We stop 'down with the UK, death to UK police' marches.
We arrest and inflict serious prison sentences to those threatening democracy and liberal freedom.
We make burning a poppy arrestable offense.
We stamp out, utterly, positive discrimination for any religion.
We make hate crime from newly immigrant persons punishable with immediate expulsion.
We identify the peddlers of hatred in the islamic community and remove them, either to prison or another country, one they will find more in keeping with their primitive ideal.
We work to break down ghettoization within all communities bringing the muslims in the UK out from behind closed doors and to the table, we break the barriers created on both sides by the invisible walls that have been erected in their portions of the cities of the UK.
We immediately ban fully religious private schools. We instead part share with state funded and regulated potions of the school teaching integration.
We seriously challenge the muslim community to remove these elements and turn them over to the authorities of the land in which they live.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/27 22:37:40
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 22:44:48
Subject: Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I'd take communism over religious extremism any damned day of the week, the communist doesn't get any reward in the hereafter, he's concerned with what occurs in life, the religious extremist wants to die, wants to be martyred.
Agreed, however I am dually biased, being both an atheist and a socialist.
So, yes, there was some shifty games of chess, across the planet, in those days, but it's not the fault of the capitalist west any more than the communist east that islam turned toxic, it occurred internally and had been heading there for centuries.
I don't think we are responsible for the existence of Islamic extremism, I do however, think we are responsible for giving them enough power to be able to launch attacks against us. To reiterate an earlier point, in supporting extremism we have given it roots that are far wider and far deeper than they would have been without our support.The worst thing is we haven't learned a thing, Libya is a good example of this, and I can see us supporting equally repugnant types to deal with the threat of Islamism somewhere down the line only for that to come back and bite us a decade later. Automatically Appended Next Post: Disagree, too easily misused a power to be allowed
We arrest and inflict serious prison sentences to those threatening democracy and liberal freedom.
Yes, as long as it is universal.
We make burning a poppy arrestable offense.
No strong feelings either way, but it is inflammatory so a ban is justified.
We stamp out, utterly, positive discrimination for any religion.
Agreed, its very unhelpful to integration.
We make hate crime from newly immigrant persons punishable with immediate expulsion.
Agreed, providing they will not be sent to their deaths, in which case they should be imprisoned
We identify the peddlers of hatred in the islamic community and remove them, either to prison or another country, one they will find more in keeping with their primitive ideal.
As long as this is also applied to preachers of hate toward Muslims, the law must be fair.
We work to break down ghettoization within all communities bringing the muslims in the UK out from behind closed doors and to the table, we break the barriers created on both sides by the invisible walls that have been erected in their portions of the cities of the UK.
We are years behind where we should be on this, needs serious work.
We immediately ban fully religious private schools. We instead part share with state funded and regulated potions of the school teaching integration.
I'd ban all private schools, but this is more realistic a proposal.
We seriously challenge the muslim community to remove these elements and turn them over to the authorities of the land in which they live.
As long as there is a robust justice system in place to accept the elements and to give a fair trial based on proper evidence.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/27 23:00:57
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:25:31
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Disagree, too easily misused a power to be allowed
Why is marching and shouting for the death of innocent police allowed and not marching and shouting for the death of islam?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:29:27
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
What are you guys thinking about the discussion on banning Islamist Extremists from being broadcast?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:31:40
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Mr Hyena wrote:Disagree, too easily misused a power to be allowed
Why is marching and shouting for the death of innocent police allowed and not marching and shouting for the death of islam?
I don't like any infringement on the right to protest peacefully, you will note that there was a march today which was calling for the downfall of Islam, and another calling for the downfall of fascism.
Also, I've never in my life seen any police officer who could be described as innocent.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:33:59
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
As someone who's outside viewing in. This incident with the killing of the soldier. Is it starting to turn into a fulcrum point? IE Like what happen to us after Sandy Hook incident.
|
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog
Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:34:03
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
dæl wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Disagree, too easily misused a power to be allowed
Why is marching and shouting for the death of innocent police allowed and not marching and shouting for the death of islam?
I don't like any infringement on the right to protest peacefully, you will note that there was a march today which was calling for the downfall of Islam, and another calling for the downfall of fascism.
Also, I've never in my life seen any police officer who could be described as innocent.
What about a peaceful protest about 'death to muslims?' Should be equal to the protests about death to British police officers.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/27 23:35:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:34:07
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Medium of Death wrote:What are you guys thinking about the discussion on banning Islamist Extremists from being broadcast?
How did that work out with the Irish? I wonder what actor they will get to voice Chowdary? I'm hoping Joe Pasquale. Automatically Appended Next Post: Jihadin wrote:As someone who's outside viewing in. This incident with the killing of the soldier. Is it starting to turn into a fulcrum point? IE Like what happen to us after Sandy Hook incident.
I personally have never seen such social unrest in my area, but its all one way traffic, that of anti-Islam. I think a lot of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs will be afraid to go outside at the moment, and I ashamed by my fellow Brits that this is the case.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/27 23:38:03
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:38:36
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Exactly. I think it's a bit of a nebulous thing to try and stop broadcasting, and as vile as Chowdary is not allowing to speak kind of reinforces his point about nobody listening to their complaints about our foreign policy. To be fair I think he and other Islamists like him would just find another excuse, but why give him fuel for the fire if we can avoid it?
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:42:35
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Mr Hyena wrote: dæl wrote: Mr Hyena wrote:Disagree, too easily misused a power to be allowed Why is marching and shouting for the death of innocent police allowed and not marching and shouting for the death of islam? I don't like any infringement on the right to protest peacefully, you will note that there was a march today which was calling for the downfall of Islam, and another calling for the downfall of fascism. Also, I've never in my life seen any police officer who could be described as innocent. What about a peaceful protest about 'death to muslims?' Should be equal to the protests about death to British police officers. Neither would be a peaceful protest if it called for murder. Incitement to murder is illegal, the law doesn't care what race you are. It is completely separate from the right to protest, which should remain untouched.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/27 23:44:27
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:42:49
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Medium of Death wrote:Exactly. I think it's a bit of a nebulous thing to try and stop broadcasting, and as vile as Chowdary is not allowing to speak kind of reinforces his point about nobody listening to their complaints about our foreign policy. To be fair I think he and other Islamists like him would just find another excuse, but why give him fuel for the fire if we can avoid it?
Anything is fuel for the fire for an Islamist. Only one cure for an extremist...death.
Incitement to murder is illegal, the law doesn't care what race you are. It is completely separate from the right to protest, which should remain untouched.
So protests chanting 'death to the UK, death to the police' should be stopped then. Good that you saw sense.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/05/27 23:44:56
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:47:38
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Mr Hyena wrote: Medium of Death wrote:Exactly. I think it's a bit of a nebulous thing to try and stop broadcasting, and as vile as Chowdary is not allowing to speak kind of reinforces his point about nobody listening to their complaints about our foreign policy. To be fair I think he and other Islamists like him would just find another excuse, but why give him fuel for the fire if we can avoid it? Anything is fuel for the fire for an Islamist. Only one cure for an extremist...death.
And the irony of that being an extremist viewpoint is not lost on you I hope. Extremist : A person who holds extreme or fanatical political or religious views, esp. one who resorts to or advocates extreme action. Incitement to murder is illegal, the law doesn't care what race you are. It is completely separate from the right to protest, which should remain untouched. So protests chanting 'death to the UK, death to the police' should be stopped then. Good that you saw sense.
Death to the UK is fine, challenging the legitimacy of a state is what protest is. Death to the police is not fine, as that is incitement to murder.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/27 23:50:08
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:49:16
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
And the irony of that being an extremist viewpoint is not lost on you I hope.
Its not irony, its the truth. Do you think Abu Hamza will become a peaceful, good-working citizen? There is no way to rehabilitate someone so thoroughly brainwashed by the evils of Islamic extremism.
Death to the UK is fine
Its still incitement to murder.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/27 23:50:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:54:44
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
For somebody that doesn't believe in an afterlife, I very much think death is an overrated punishment. Solitary confinement for the rest of their lives, that truly is "hell".
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/27 23:58:08
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Mr Hyena wrote:And the irony of that being an extremist viewpoint is not lost on you I hope.
Its not irony, its the truth. Do you think Abu Hamza will become a peaceful, good-working citizen? There is no way to rehabilitate someone so thoroughly brainwashed by the evils of Islamic extremism.
You are calling for murdering people for having views you don't like, not for any illegal action, just holding an opinion. If you honestly think that is the right thing to do then you would be an extremist yourself.
Death to the UK is fine
Its still incitement to murder.
Incitement to murder who? The Magna Carta? Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human. You cannot murder an abstract concept like a nation state.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/28 00:05:15
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Sadistic Inquisitorial Excruciator
|
Incitement to murder who? The Magna Carta? Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human. You cannot murder an abstract concept like a nation state.
Can't destroy a nation without murdering some of its people.
You are calling for murdering people for having views you don't like, not for any illegal action, just holding an opinion
Dangerous views which always lead to extremism...or tolerance of extremism, like in the mosques in the UK.
For somebody that doesn't believe in an afterlife, I very much think death is an overrated punishment. Solitary confinement for the rest of their lives, that truly is "hell".
Only if it isn't a cushy jail cell. Lets bring back something really medieval-feeling.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/28 00:06:11
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2013/05/28 00:09:19
Subject: Re:Soldier killed in Woolwich in a possible terrorist attack
|
 |
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran
|
Mr Hyena wrote:Incitement to murder who? The Magna Carta? Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human. You cannot murder an abstract concept like a nation state.
Can't destroy a nation without murdering some of its people.
You can't destroy a nation at all in the 21stC, certainly not a permanent member of the UN Security Council. You are calling for murdering people for having views you don't like, not for any illegal action, just holding an opinion
Dangerous views which always lead to extremism...or tolerance of extremism, like in the mosques in the UK.
They are opinions and you want to kill people for what is essentially thoughtcrime. Answer me one question, are you an extremist? Do you see yourself as one?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/05/28 00:14:30
|
|
 |
 |
|