There may be trouble ahead....

[Toaods]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8437658.stm

I say let the march go ahead and have the intelligence forces all over them like a rash....:wink:

[Killiehibbie]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8437658.stm

I say let the march go ahead and have the intelligence forces all over them like a rash....:wink:

Do you really think any of those up to no good would appear on this march? A few minor s hite stirrers, maybe.

[hibsdaft]

this is a classic tactic of theirs - announce a really inflammatory march/ event and watch the **** storm erupt. most of these events never take place because they've already achieved what they set out to do - hatred against ordinary UK based muslims (who they think will then turn towards them), anger, bitterness and societal strife.

to those who get wound up by this you've got to realise that thats exactly what they want.

best ignored (except by MI5 etc).

that said of course there is nothing wrong in principle with wanting to mark the loss of life amongst Afghan civilians over the last nine years - just that when its these ***** you know there's more to it than that.

[Future17]

this is a classic tactic of theirs - announce a really inflammatory march/ event and watch the **** storm erupt. most of these events never take place because they've already achieved what they set out to do - hatred against ordinary UK based muslims (who they think will then turn towards them), anger, bitterness and societal strife.

Add to that the fact that they get to make a big deal out of cancelling it when they don't get police permission, blaming racism and prejudice from the people who make the decisions.

Highlighting the deaths of Afghan civillians as a result of the armed forces presence there is a valid cause whether you agree with it or not. However, doing it in this way is just cheap and crass.

[Woody1985]

If they want to march, march elsewhere.

And people wonder why support is rising for the BNP. Antagonistic tactics by a bunch of *****. I hope their 70 virgins or how ever many it may be turn out to be a bunch of guys who shaft them for eternity.

[hibsdaft]

I hope their 70 virgins or how ever many it may be turn out to be a bunch of guys who shaft them for eternity.

:greengrin

[lucky]

Everyone has the right to protest but I am not in favour of the choice of location. This will only flame extremists within the far right in the UK and give the radicals more publicity for their cause.

[Hibs Class]

I'd like to see it go ahead, but with an SPG reunion in the same town on the same day

[Woody1985]

Suprised (not) that there's been no mention of the attempted murder on here by a muslim fanatic against the Danish cartoonist.

[hibsdaft]

attempted murder by a muslim fanatic

not exactly unprecedented event that though was it.

[PeeJay]

If they want to march, march elsewhere.

And people wonder why support is rising for the BNP. Antagonistic tactics by a bunch of *****. I hope their 70 virgins or how ever many it may be turn out to be a bunch of guys who shaft them for eternity.

Surely you're not suggesting this justifies people voting for the BNP?:confused:

[Betty Boop]

Surprised nobody has mentioned the introduction of full body scanners at UK airports.

http://www.fly.co.uk/news/gordon-brown-pledges-to-install-full-body-scanners-at-airports-1982067.html

[Toaods]

Surprised nobody has mentioned the introduction of full body scanners at UK airports.

http://www.fly.co.uk/news/gordon-brown-pledges-to-install-full-body-scanners-at-airports-1982067.html



'bout time IMHO...:agree:

[Woody1985]

Surely you're not suggesting this justifies people voting for the BNP?:confused:

Where have I said that?

People are pissed off that the BNP are on the rise and events like this contribute towards that.

[PeeJay]

And people wonder why support is rising for the BNP.

Hope this answers your question Woody1985 - Maybe I misunderstood this though - maybe you meant something altogether different???

[IndieHibby]

You seriously have to question the motives of any person so supports al-mujarhoun (coudnae gie a **** about the spelling).

One would also seriously doubt his integrity about holding a march to highlight the death of 'innocent afghans' in Wooton Bassett. As if British soldiers are somehow 'guilty' - of what exactly?

Why there? Why not London where all the other protests are? That's where the Goverment (who made the decision about the war, which, by the way, happens to have the support of all major western democratic institutions) hold their seat of power after all.

The guy is a tube. Just like the majority of his kind (and I don't mean just 'Muslim', before some of you start moaning).

Unfortunatly, the MSM are all over this like a rash. Giving him exactly what he wanted in the first place.

[Betty Boop]

Unfortunately hardly anybody in this country; gives a flying one about the innocent civilians slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. See we are about to poke our nose into the Yemen now! :grr:

[gringojoe]

Lets face the music and dance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tSzTcBjNaw

[Woody1985]

Hope this answers your question Woody1985 - Maybe I misunderstood this though - maybe you meant something altogether different???

No, it doesn't, unless you don't understand the saying 'people wonder'. Lefties wonder why people would consider voting for them. i.e. people wonder.

Personally I wouldn't vote for any of the pathetic gimps from any party. They're all as full of **** as each other.

I must admit, I quite like reading what George Galloway has to say on some matters even though I wouldn't consider myself anywhere near as left as him. I did one of these tests that guages where you sit and I was almost bang in centre. Perhaps that's because I look at each situation independently and make a judgement on it that way rather than pandering to whatever way 'I'm supposed to' and possibly why I think they are all ******s. :tee hee:

[marinello59]

Unfortunately hardly anybody in this country; gives a flying one about the innocent civilians slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. See we are about to poke our nose into the Yemen now! :grr:

Do you think this group really cares or are they just using them as an excuse to stir up hatred?

What has been announced about the Yemen?

[Woody1985]

Unfortunately hardly anybody in this country; gives a flying one about the innocent civilians slaughtered in Iraq and Afghanistan. See we are about to poke our nose into the Yemen now! :grr:

A lot of that is human nature, out of sight, out of mind. Same with dying kids in Africa being the most used example. I'm sure that not many people would walk on by if they seen a starving African kid in the street. They would try and help.

One thing that might sound cruel is that people have got their own lives and it's up to them if they want to help others, give a **** by marching and protesting etc. The fact is a lot of people don't. That needs to be accepted whether others like it or not. Luckily there are people (like you) who are willing to do a lot to try and help people in those situations but those people who don't want to help, providing they are not part of the problem, shouldn't feel compelled to help.

[LiverpoolHibs]

What has been announced about the Yemen?

The U.S. have been facilitating Saudi airstrikes Northern Yemen for quite a while now (against the supposedly Iranian backed Houthi insurgency - the sort of group that tends to be referred to as 'al-Qaeda'). After the failed airline attack, Obama has pledged to step-these up, either directly or continuing it by proxy.

[PeeJay]

No, it doesn't, unless you don't understand the saying 'people wonder'. - Oh, I understand it, but perhaps you just don't express yourself well enough; it certainly seemed to me in the context in which you used it, i.e. - "their marching" ends up with "people voting BNP", something which you seem to be condoning by inference, or what did you really mean - why do some people marching cause other people to vote BNP? - :confused:

Personally I wouldn't vote for any of the pathetic gimps from any party. They're all as full of **** as each other. But are they really? Surely there are among them all "lesser evils" to be considered and indeed some good men and women doing good work in political parties? Don't we get the government/party/society that we deserve - this is democracy after all?

George Galloway is one seriously misguided gentlemen IMO - he's taken the "pathetic gimp" aspect of politics to new heights!:agree:

[Woody1985]

No, it doesn't, unless you don't understand the saying 'people wonder'. - Oh, I understand it, but perhaps you just don't express yourself well enough; it certainly seemed to me in the context in which you used it, i.e. - "their marching" ends up with "people voting BNP", something which you seem to be condoning by inference, or what did you really mean - why do some people marching cause other people to vote BNP? - :confused:

Or perhaps you didn't understand the saying 'people wonder'. I'm not condoning it, just expressing that people question why others turn to parties like the BNP when it's immediately obvious that feelings are flared due to a bunch of inconsiderate *****.

If you really need to ask the question in your first paragraph then perhaps we should stop this conversation. I would have thought that it was immediately obvious...

British National Party. Wants to remove non brits or brits that they don't think are 'brits'

British soldiers die. They are returned to this location for people to pay respects.

Muslims, either non brits or not seen as 'brits' regardless of where they were born want to march at the above location.

What is it that meerkat says?



Personally I wouldn't vote for any of the pathetic gimps from any party. They're all as full of **** as each other. But are they really? Surely there are among them all "lesser evils" to be considered and indeed some good men and women doing good work in political parties? Don't we get the government/party/society that we deserve - this is democracy after all?

George Galloway is one seriously misguided gentlemen IMO - he's taken the "pathetic gimp" aspect of politics to new heights!:agree:

Yes, good men and women do work in politics. However, because they will vote for what their party wants or it's history dictates then they will be swayed and/or probably forced into voting the way they are told. Otherwise what's the point of a party? I'd rather look closely at an independant, understanding that some will be ex-party, if I were to look at any.

Lesser evils there may be, but if I were offered 5 varieties of ***** I wouldn't pick the one that I thought was better than the others.

As I say, I'm not particularly interested in him, just some of the things he says that tend to put the boot in to others. Seems like a straight talking guy, I don't know if that is a facade or not but that's how he seems to me.

[PeeJay]

"If you really need to ask the question in your first paragraph then perhaps we should stop this conversation. I would have thought that it was immediately obvious..." rhetorical on my part.

Yes, good men and women do work in politics. However, because they will vote for what their party wants or it's history dictates then they will be swayed and/or probably forced into voting the way they are told. Otherwise what's the point of a party? I'd rather look closely at an independant, understanding that some will be ex-party, if I were to look at any. I don't mind what people vote (it's up to them) as long as they vote.- If you don't like the parties available one could always set up a new one, or join one of the given ones and try to make changes from within?

Lesser evils there may be, but if I were offered 5 varieties of ***** I wouldn't pick the one that I thought was better than the others. Opting out is not an option I value highly.

Seems like a straight talking guy... cheap populism IMO:cool2:

[hibsdaft]

i thought this was quite good, Salma Yaqub (you may have seen her on Question Time a few weeks ago) on this and the war in Afghanistan:


Ignore Islam4UK’s self-serving provocation. Instead, let’s have the open public discussion we need on the war in Afghanistan

When I was invited to appear on Question Time at Wootton Bassett, I did feel a hesitation because of the programme’s location. I was very mindful of the fact that this is where every soldier who has been killed is honoured and where respects are paid. Regardless of where you stand politically, their loss is a very real and human tragedy for their families.

But these are more than personal tragedies. Our soldiers and military families put their trust in the politicians who send them into battle. They trust them to tell the truth. The political tragedy is that, once again, we are fighting a war that is based on lies and that will not make us safe.

So it is necessary to hold our politicians to account for their decisions. And that debate should not be silenced. There is a subtext that if you support our troops, then you have to support the war itself; because if you question the purpose of the occupation, then you are accused not only of being unpatriotic, but also even of endangering the troops by undermining morale. That silencing of debate leaves a huge vacuum in our politics, because all three parties back the line that we have to get behind the troops and “finish the job”.

There is also a double standard also about deaths in Afghanistan. On the one hand, with the parades in Wootton Bassett we congratulate ourselves that we’re so civilised that no loss goes unmourned; yet, if you’re Afghan, no one even counts your death. From British politicians there’s absolutely no acknowledgment of Afghan people’s suffering, or the fact that their lives are not better-off because of the west’s intervention – although that is the lie that continues to be told. Thousands have been killed and seven million made refugees, but that’s not on anybody’s radar.

This dignified and serious debate is the last thing on the mind of Anjem Choudary and Islam4UK. He is a bigot whose goal in life is to provoke division. He engages in these provocations because he is deeply hostile to any coming together of Muslims and non-Muslims. For him, the fact that a majority of the British people – Muslim and non-Muslim – oppose the war in Afghanistan is not something to be celebrated, but is something to be feared.

If we are genuinely concerned about the troops, as we are about the Afghan people, we must have an open debate about why we are in Afghanistan and whether we should pull out. Instead, the airwaves are dominated by the rantings of a marginal provocateur.

My experience on Question Time confirms to me the need for a genuinely open political debate, conducted with seriousness and sensitivity. I wasn’t surprised to be received at first in silence, given the programme’s pro-war bias, but by the end, people were saying that the majority was behind me. I do trust the conscience of ordinary British people, even if I am cynical about our political leadership.

[Ed De Gramo]

They can p!ss off :agree:

Bad enough what was shouted at the last organised protest...

Bullet with Anjem Choudrey's name on it please...:agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

i thought this was quite good, Salma Yaqub (you may have seen her on Question Time a few weeks ago) on this and the war in Afghanistan:

Excellent, as usual from Salma Yaqoob. Cheers for posting, HD.

[Woody1985]

"If you really need to ask the question in your first paragraph then perhaps we should stop this conversation. I would have thought that it was immediately obvious..." rhetorical on my part.

Seems a strange place to use a rhetorical question unless you were fishing for an answer you didn't want or like.



Yes, good men and women do work in politics. However, because they will vote for what their party wants or it's history dictates then they will be swayed and/or probably forced into voting the way they are told. Otherwise what's the point of a party? I'd rather look closely at an independant, understanding that some will be ex-party, if I were to look at any. I don't mind what people vote (it's up to them) as long as they vote.- If you don't like the parties available one could always set up a new one, or join one of the given ones and try to make changes from within?

Perhaps I and many millions of others do not have the desire to get into the political arena. Politicians are there to serve the people and act as a leader so everyone doesn't need to be a politician.



Lesser evils there may be, but if I were offered 5 varieties of ***** I wouldn't pick the one that I thought was better than the others. Opting out is not an option I value highly.

Seems like a straight talking guy... cheap populism IMO:cool2:

Well tough ****. Part of a democracy is that you do not have to vote. You either like it or you don't.

I might not value other people votes i.e. you voting for labour, tories, BNP etc etc etc but that's your choice.

[khib70]

Excellent, as usual from Salma Yaqoob. Cheers for posting, HD.
Not sure about "excellent" but predictable, certainly. "If you're Afghan no one counts your death". Possibly. If you're a non-Muslim Sudanese, or Somali, no one, including Salma counts your death. Classic double standards.

According to today's Scotsman any dissidents in Iran risk being executed as "enemies of God". That's the kind of society Choudray and his fellow Islamofascists want us to live in. If we are making the point that the one we have is better, then we have to allow them to make their point, repugnant though it may be to most sensible people on all sides of the political debate.

"Bullet with his name on it" is how an Islamist society would deal with this. If we reduced ourselves to that level by banning demonstrations that offend us, we'd be no better than the murderers of Theo van Gogh, the attempted murderers of the elderly Danish cartoonists, the mullahs of Iran or the Baathist Iraqi Nazis.

However, I would hope that these "liberal" voices calling for Nick Griffin to be banned from "Question Time" aren't now defending the "democratic rights" of Islam4UK .:cool2:

[LiverpoolHibs]

Not sure about "excellent" but predictable, certainly. "If you're Afghan no one counts your death". Possibly. If you're a non-Muslim Sudanese, or Somali, no one, including Salma counts your death. Classic double standards.

What on earth are you talking about?


According to today's Scotsman any dissidents in Iran risk being executed as "enemies of God". That's the kind of society Choudray and his fellow Islamofascists want us to live in. If we are making the point that the one we have is better, then we have to allow them to make their point, repugnant though it may be to most sensible people on all sides of the political debate.

Hmm, it's usually best not to bandy meaningless/intellectually dishonest platitudes such as this around.


However, I would hope that these "liberal" voices calling for Nick Griffin to be banned from "Question Time" aren't now defending the "democratic rights" of Islam4UK .:cool2:

Yawn. You surely, surely, recognise the difference between the two cases. No?

And I object to being called 'liberal'...

[khib70]

What on earth are you talking about?
You know precisely what I'm talking about. Hypocrisy, mainly. The idea that people are somehow more dead when Westerners, as opposed to their own countrymen and women, kill them.



Hmm, it's usually best not to bandy meaningless/intellectually dishonest platitudes such as this around.

"Islamofascist" is a perfectly accurate and succinct description of these people. At least for those of us not preoccupied with appeasing them.



Yawn. You surely, surely, recognise the difference between the two cases. No?

Yes. One involves a loathsome white Anglo Saxon bigot, and the other a loathsome Muslim bigot. I recoginise that you might detect a difference. I don't.



And I object to being called 'liberal'...

Sorry. Wasn't specifically directed at you. The subtext was that those who actually think of themselves as "liberal" often aren't very. I call them as I see them. I object to being called "vermin" and "an apology for a human being", but I guess McIntosh isn't your problem


In the end, the people who will be most hurt by this ludicrous demonstration will be the non-Islamist Muslim majority. And I suspect that's just what Islam4UK want.

[LiverpoolHibs]

You know precisely what I'm talking about. Hypocrisy, mainly. The idea that people are somehow more dead when Westerners, as opposed to their own countrymen and women, kill them.

1. No, I really don't

2. I've referred to your constant attempts to draw parallels with the Sudan/Dafur conflict before. It's flawed for a number of reasons:

a) It is immeasurably more complicated than your apparent understanding of it being those 'orrible Muslims going round killing all and sundry.

b) And this is the really important one! The government of myself and Salma Yaqoob is not directly implicated in what is going on in Sudan - well not anymore, unsurprisingly we're behind a lot of it through the regime we installed when we left in '56 - they, erm, are in Afghanistan. I'm fairly sure this has been pointed out to you before, with little impact clearly.

3. Salma Yaqoob is neither Somali nor Sudanese. So I'm not sure what this comment about countrymen/women. Is supposed to mean.


"Islamofascist" is a perfectly accurate and succinct description of these people. At least for those of us not preoccupied with appeasing them.

No, no it really isn't. Fascism is a fixed ideology with a number of, not just important, but absolutely necessary founding tenets. Unless you can point out otherwise, I cannot see how any of these apply in any way whatsoever to Choudary's nutty little gang.

It's just a trite little banality that certain journalists have managed to introduce into the vernacular, with a damaging effect. (I didn't name any particular ones so you can't get angry!).


Yes. One involves a loathsome white Anglo Saxon bigot, and the other a loathsome Muslim bigot. I recoginise that you might detect a difference. I don't.

I genuinely thought you might discern the difference...

Freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and all things of that ilk are 'negative rights' (the right not to have something done to you; the right not to be stopped from assembling, the right not to be gagged) as opposed to 'positive rights' (the right to do something).

Question Time was a distortion of this and had nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. The BNP are more than welcome to assemble, distribute their information etc. etc. (within certain limits), as are Islam4UK. Neither, however, can claim it is an issue of free speech or democratic freedom that a public service broadcaster hosts them, thereby giving them a platform to disseminate their views.

It's an absolutely enormous, and incredibly important, distinction.


Sorry. Wasn't specifically directed at you. The subtext was that those who actually think of themselves as "liberal" often aren't very. I call them as I see them. I object to being called "vermin" and "an apology for a human being", but I guess McIntosh isn't your problem

I'm not going to get involved in that...

[khib70]

1. No, I really don't

2. I've referred to your constant attempts to draw parallels with the Sudan/Dafur conflict before. It's flawed for a number of reasons:

a) It is immeasurably more complicated than your apparent understanding of it being those 'orrible Muslims going round killing all and sundry.

b) And this is the really important one! The government of myself and Salma Yaqoob is not directly implicated in what is going on in Sudan - well not anymore, unsurprisingly we're behind a lot of it through the regime we installed when we left in '56 - they, erm, are in Afghanistan. I'm fairly sure this has been pointed out to you before, with little impact clearly.

3. Salma Yaqoob is neither Somali nor Sudanese. So I'm not sure what this comment about countrymen/women. Is supposed to mean.



No, no it really isn't. Fascism is a fixed ideology with a number of, not just important, but absolutely necessary founding tenets. Unless you can point out otherwise, I cannot see how any of these apply in any way whatsoever to Choudary's nutty little gang.

It's just a trite little banality that certain journalists have managed to introduce into the vernacular, with a damaging effect. (I didn't name any particular ones so you can't get angry!).



I genuinely thought you might discern the difference...

Freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly and all things of that ilk are 'negative rights' (the right not to have something done to you; the right not to be stopped from assembling, the right not to be gagged) as opposed to 'positive rights' (the right to do something).

Question Time was a distortion of this and had nothing whatsoever to do with free speech. The BNP are more than welcome to assemble, distribute their information etc. etc. (within certain limits), as are Islam4UK. Neither, however, can claim it is an issue of free speech or democratic freedom that a public service broadcaster hosts them, thereby giving them a platform to disseminate their views.

It's an absolutely enormous, and incredibly important, distinction.



I'm not going to get involved in that...
Hmm. Lot to work with here. Firstly my understanding of the Darfur situation is slightly more sophisticated than you paint it. The Islamist government, the Arab guerrillas, the Chinese oil interests, are all well documented. Your little diversion about 1956 is almost as sad as Tony Benn's attempts to excuse Mugabe as "a product of colonialism". Our government is not involved in Palestine, either, yet you and others (like the UNHRC) seem to regard it as the sole site of human rights abuse in the world (barring Afghanistan of course).

As to Islamofascism. "The religious fascists must ultimately be defeated by Muslim democrats". The words of Dr Taj Hargey, Imam, and chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, writing in a good piece in today's "Times" opposing a ban on the march. You may have a correct academic definition of fascism, but to most people, both Islamic fundamentalism and Baa'thist secularism have more than sufficient qualifications to be defined in that way. Democracies like Israel and the US are almost routinely dubbed "fascist" by the left (though, fair dos, not by you). Much as I know you disapprove of these regimes, you would be hard put to define them as "fascist" by any rigorous academic standards.

The argument about freedom of speech is a much closer one to call, and your points are well made. I'm not entirely sure that it is a "negative freedom". Is there not a right to access the same platforms as everyone else, particularly in an election situation? Personally I would rather not hear from the BNP or Islam4UK ever again, but taking steps to make that happen is probably just what both of them really want.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Hmm. Lot to work with here. Firstly my understanding of the Darfur situation is slightly more sophisticated than you paint it. The Islamist government, the Arab guerrillas, the Chinese oil interests, are all well documented. Your little diversion about 1956 is almost as sad as Tony Benn's attempts to excuse Mugabe as "a product of colonialism". Our government is not involved in Palestine, either, yet you and others (like the UNHRC) seem to regard it as the sole site of human rights abuse in the world (barring Afghanistan of course).

It's not about excusing anyone, it's about gaining a proper, rounded understanding of why things happen in the world.

Our government is involved in Palestine. To a huge extent.


As to Islamofascism. "The religious fascists must ultimately be defeated by Muslim democrats". The words of Dr Taj Hargey, Imam, and chairman of the Muslim Educational Centre of Oxford, writing in a good piece in today's "Times" opposing a ban on the march. You may have a correct academic definition of fascism, but to most people, both Islamic fundamentalism and Baa'thist secularism have more than sufficient qualifications to be defined in that way. Democracies like Israel and the US are almost routinely dubbed "fascist" by the left (though, fair dos, not by you). Much as I know you disapprove of these regimes, you would be hard put to define them as "fascist" by any rigorous academic standards.

Just quoting someone else using the same non-sensical term without any interest in accuracy doesn't really go a long way to back up your claim.

As much as your going to dislike it, you could make a much better argument for Israel having some of the defining characteristics of fascism than Islam4UK (and keep in mind that doesn't mean Choudary's lot are any 'better' just that the particular pejorative term doesn't fit); nationalism (Islamist groups are by their very nature non/anti-nationalist) as a driving ideological force, strength of the national military, existence and co-option of an 'Othered' scapegoat as a means of strengthening national consciousness, a 'nationalised' religion. Although I agree with you that you also couldn't properly call Israel 'fascist'; but Zionism is an off-shoot of European colonialist ideology just as fascism is/was so there are, unsurprisingly, undeniable similarities.


The argument about freedom of speech is a much closer one to call, and your points are well made. I'm not entirely sure that it is a "negative freedom". Is there not a right to access the same platforms as everyone else, particularly in an election situation? Personally I would rather not hear from the BNP or Islam4UK ever again, but taking steps to make that happen is probably just what both of them really want.

Well, I'd say not - I can't really be bothered repeating myself from this (http://hibs.net/message/showthread.php?t=164098&highlight=bnp+question+time) rather lengthy thread.

[hibsdaft]

According to today's Scotsman any dissidents in Iran risk being executed as "enemies of God". That's the kind of society Choudray and his fellow Islamofascists want us to live in.

a bit pedantic, but Choudray, Al Muhajiroun, Bakri, Al Qaeda and all of that crowd are Sunni's and ideologically at odds with Iran (and Hamas for that matter). if Choudray went to Iran they'd probably shoot him (and they'd get my best wishes for that too).

its important not to lump AQ and Iran in together because they are stark enemies and therein may lie the downfall of AQ (as it did in Iraq where Shia influences wiped them out once they got all clear for the political dominance they wanted from the US).

in Palestine too AQ elements were wiped out (without mercy) by Hamas in Summer of last year. don't get me wrong btw, Hamas are nutters too who want Seville to join the Caliphate, but quite different sorts of nutters nonetheless.

as for the term Islamofascists, (and i've used it before myself) - its cartoon politics tbh, which can be useful if you're trying to paint a picture, but not really that helpful for the true understanding which is going to be essential in dealing with them.

[khib70]

a bit pedantic, but Choudray, Al Muhajiroun, Bakri, Al Qaeda and all of that crowd are Sunni's and ideologically at odds with Iran (and Hamas for that matter). if Choudray went to Iran they'd probably shoot him (and they'd get my best wishes for that too).

its important not to lump AQ and Iran in together because they are stark enemies and therein may lie the downfall of AQ (as it did in Iraq where Shia influences wiped them out once they got all clear for the political dominance they wanted from the US).

in Palestine too AQ elements were wiped out (without mercy) by Hamas in Summer of last year. don't get me wrong btw, Hamas are nutters too who want Seville to join the Caliphate, but quite different sorts of nutters nonetheless.

as for the term Islamofascists, (and i've used it before myself) - its cartoon politics tbh, which can be useful if you're trying to paint a picture, but not really that helpful for the true understanding which is going to be essential in dealing with them.
:agree:Correct on all counts IMO. Although it's pushing it a bit to suggest that the Iraqi Shias got, or needed the all clear from the USA. They were and are a huge majority of the population, and suffered horribly under Saddam.

Cartoon politics, perhaps, but so is any kind of comparison between Zionism and Islamism. As you rightly say, Islamists, including Hamas and their fellow Iranian proxies, Hizbollah, are set on nothing less than a worldwide Islamic theocracy. Anyone who sees an "international Zionist conspiracy" misunderstands the fundamental nature of Zionism. But then, doesn't everyone?

[LiverpoolHibs]

Cartoon politics, perhaps, but so is any kind of comparison between Zionism and Islamism.

Who made a comparison between Zionism and Islamism? How odd.


As you rightly say, Islamists, including Hamas and their fellow Iranian proxies, Hizbollah, are set on nothing less than a worldwide Islamic theocracy.

You're being lazy again.

Hezbollah don't even advocate an Islamic state in Lebanon, never mind an international Caliphate.

Nasrallah: We believe the requirement for an Islamic state is to have an overwhelming popular desire, and we're not talking about fifty percent plus one, but a large majority. And this is not available in Lebanon and probably never will be.

Hamas want an Islamic state covering the entirety of historic Palestine, no more no less.

You're just regurgitating nonsense Western catch-alls about political Islam.


Anyone who sees an "international Zionist conspiracy" misunderstands the fundamental nature of Zionism. But then, doesn't everyone?

Why have you put that in inverted commas? I'm fairly sure no-one has mentioned an 'international Zionist conspiracy' (and nice choice of an incredibly loaded phrase, by the way). I'm not really sure why you've brought that up. Odd again.

[hibsbollah]

Hamas and their fellow Iranian proxies, Hizbollah, are set on nothing less than a worldwide Islamic theocracy

I'd be interested to see if you have a source for this strange claim.

[Dinkydoo]

Absolute ******s!

All they are trying to do is stir up hatred towards Muslims in general so that they hope disgruntled (genuine non-Islamic) Muslims will flock to groups like themselves for comfort so they can begin the brain washing process.

We've seen this time and time again.

They should be allowed to march, but in London, where all the other marches are held.

Preferential treatment (such as chosing the location of the event) shouldn't be given.....ever, to get rid of any "equality" cries :rolleyes:

That is IMO of course :wink:

[Betty Boop]

Absolute ******s!

All they are trying to do is stir up hatred towards Muslims in general so that they hope disgruntled (genuine non-Islamic) Muslims will flock to groups like themselves for comfort so they can begin the brain washing process.

We've seen this time and time again.

They should be allowed to march, but in London, where all the other marches are held.

Preferential treatment (such as chosing the location of the event) shouldn't be given.....ever, to get rid of any "equality" cries :rolleyes:

That is IMO of course :wink:

Why just in London?

[Tinyclothes]

Absolute ******s!

All they are trying to do is stir up hatred towards Muslims in general so that they hope disgruntled (genuine non-Islamic) Muslims will flock to groups like themselves for comfort so they can begin the brain washing process.

We've seen this time and time again.

They should be allowed to march, but in London, where all the other marches are held.

Preferential treatment (such as chosing the location of the event) shouldn't be given.....ever, to get rid of any "equality" cries :rolleyes:

That is IMO of course :wink:

Two questions. The second in two parts.

What's a genuine non-islamic muslim?

How is choosing the location of your own protest being given preferential treatment.

Would you say that those protesting at Faslaine (Don't know the spelling) are being given preferential treatment because they're not in London?

[Betty Boop]

The march has been cancelled.

[LiverpoolHibs]

The march has been cancelled.

As was always going to happen.

[Woody1985]

As was always going to happen.

And I bet you're sitting there having a chug with a smirk on your face at how stupid everyone was for getting worked up over nothing eh.

[LiverpoolHibs]

And I bet you're sitting there having a chug with a smirk on your face at how stupid everyone was for getting worked up over nothing eh.

Pretty much - minus the onanism.

[Ed De Gramo]

Should still put a bullet in Choudray's head :agree:

[Tinyclothes]

Should still put a bullet in Choudray's head :agree:

I'd be intrigued to find out your IQ.

[Green Mikey]

I'd be intrigued to find out your IQ.

There is a clue in his username:greengrin

[Woody1985]

I'd be intrigued to find out your IQ.

Why was there no objection when LiverpoolHibs said he thought it was a good idea that Nick Griffin should be shot in the face?

Is it because he atriculates his points in a way that could bore the arse off a badger?

Can't have it both ways.

The hypocricy on here makes me laugh.

[LiverpoolHibs]

Why was there no objection when LiverpoolHibs said he thought it was a good idea that Nick Griffin should be shot in the face?

Eh? There were a number of objections.

[Kaiser_Sauzee]

If they want to march, march elsewhere.

And people wonder why support is rising for the BNP. Antagonistic tactics by a bunch of *****. I hope their 70 virgins or how ever many it may be turn out to be a bunch of guys who shaft them for eternity.

I've never seen the attraction in virgins anyway... gimme a Niddrie durty any time. :greengrin

[Tinyclothes]

Why was there no objection when LiverpoolHibs said he thought it was a good idea that Nick Griffin should be shot in the face?

Is it because he atriculates his points in a way that could bore the arse off a badger?

Can't have it both ways.

The hypocricy on here makes me laugh.

Can't have what both ways?

Just because you can't quite understand what Liverpool's saying doesn't automatically make it boring by the way.

[Woody1985]

Can't have what both ways?

Just because you can't quite understand what Liverpool's saying doesn't automatically make it boring by the way.

Not objecting to one extremist being shot and not the other.

How do you figure out I can't understand what he says? I think you're talking pish, wouldn't be like you.

[Tinyclothes]

Not objecting to one extremist being shot and not the other.

How do you figure out I can't understand what he says? I think you're talking pish, wouldn't be like you.

Because you're daft as a brush.

IMO of course.

[khib70]

So basically, an ideal world would be one in which everybody shot everybody else?

I disagree with LH about most things, but you're out of line here. Several people objected to his statement about Nick Griffin, which I suspect was made a lot less seriously than yours about Choudray.

What I suspect LH and I would both agree on is that their being shot would be the biggest recruiting event for the vile movements represented by these two monstrosities.

[Hibs Giant]

Not objecting to one extremist being shot and not the other.

How do you figure out I can't understand what he says? I think you're talking pish, wouldn't be like you.

Is that you in your avatar? Have you got a boyfriend?

[Tinyclothes]

Is that you in your avatar? Have you got a boyfriend?

:faf::faf::faf::top marks

[Woody1985]

Because you're daft as a brush.

IMO of course.

Errrm, okay.


So basically, an ideal world would be one in which everybody shot everybody else?

I disagree with LH about most things, but you're out of line here. Several people objected to his statement about Nick Griffin, which I suspect was made a lot less seriously than yours about Choudray.

What I suspect LH and I would both agree on is that their being shot would be the biggest recruiting event for the vile movements represented by these two monstrosities.

Yes, serveral people did, but not necessarily the same who would defend someone like Choudry.

It wasn't me that made the point about Choudry being shot... Admittedly, not that I'd care.


Is that you in your avatar? Have you got a boyfriend?

Homophobic are you? Nice arguement, slag homosexuals to make you're point.

I see tiny agrees with you're arguement. Nuff said.

No, it's not me and no I don't.

[Woody1985]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453560.stm

[Tinyclothes]

Errrm, okay.



Yes, serveral people did, but not necessarily the same who would defend someone like Choudry.

It wasn't me that made the point about Choudry being shot... Admittedly, not that I'd care.



Homophobic are you? Nice arguement, slag homosexuals to make you're point.

I see tiny agrees with you're arguement. Nuff said.

No, it's not me and no I don't.

This illustrates my point beautifully actually.

He was insinuating that you were the woman in your avatar, which is why he asked if you had a boyfriend. If you were a woman and you had a boyfriend that would make you............................................... .that's right, heterosexual. :faf::faf::faf:

[Woody1985]

This illustrates my point beautifully actually.

He was insinuating that you were the woman in your avatar, which is why he asked if you had a boyfriend. If you were a woman and you had a boyfriend that would make you............................................... .that's right, heterosexual. :faf::faf::faf:

Fair enough smart arse, you win on that. I have my avatar hidden at work and didn't realise I still had that burd on it.

You still talk pish regardless.

[Marabou Stork]

Surprised nobody has mentioned the introduction of full body scanners at UK airports.

http://www.fly.co.uk/news/gordon-brown-pledges-to-install-full-body-scanners-at-airports-1982067.html

I've been meaning to ask somebody if even kids get scanned with this system. Anyone know?

[hibsdaft]

personally Griffin and Choudary being shot would put a big smile on my face


their being shot would be the biggest recruiting event for the vile movements represented by these two monstrosities.

for about three seconds until i remembered this ^^^

the fact that we spend so much time discussing these two lunatics who ten years ago had an audience of one man and a dog is sad. its also worth noting that ten years ago they'd of both been droning on to that one man and a dog about the Jews and the global Jewish conspiracy :yawn:

historians will look at this era and wonder how in the name of **** we let these idiots set the agenda - particularly at a time when we have just been fleeced to the tune of £25K per person by the City of London.


btw Woody i think you're sometimes looking for hypocrisy that isn't there tbh, there was uproar when LH said that iirc.

[Betty Boop]

I've been meaning to ask somebody if even kids get scanned with this system. Anyone know?



Good question! Surely this must be dodgy due to child protection issues.

[marinello59]

Good question! Surely this must be dodgy due to child protection issues.

Perhaps some think that stopping your child getting blown up is a child protection issue?

[Woody1985]

personally Griffin and Choudary being shot would put a big smile on my face



for about three seconds until i remembered this ^^^

the fact that we spend so much time discussing these two lunatics who ten years ago had an audience of one man and a dog is sad. its also worth noting that ten years ago they'd of both been droning on to that one man and a dog about the Jews and the global Jewish conspiracy :yawn:

historians will look at this era and wonder how in the name of **** we let these idiots set the agenda - particularly at a time when we have just been fleeced to the tune of £25K per person by the City of London.


btw Woody i think you're sometimes looking for hypocrisy that isn't there tbh, there was uproar when LH said that iirc.

I appreciate there was by a number of posters. However, omittance to post condemning the statement can be as equally as conspicuous, IMO of course.

[Betty Boop]

Perhaps some think that stopping your child getting blown up is a child protection issue?

Apparently scanning children is illegal.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

[hibsdaft]

I appreciate there was by a number of posters. However, omittance to post condemning the statement can be as equally as conspicuous, IMO of course.

some of us don't have access to H.net at work Woody ! can't be expected to post every time. anyway i disagree with the principle of what your saying, lots of posters post their opinion and can't be arsed arguing / debating so much so even if they disagree with something (vehemently) won't bother arguing the point. doesn't make them complicit.

and ultimately the poster (TinyClothes) who called up G19's post was someone who to my knowledge has only just started posting in The Hold Ground, and never on a Nick Griffin thread!!

[marinello59]

Apparently scanning children is illegal.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/04/new-scanners-child-porn-laws

So the law should be changed shouldn't it?

[Betty Boop]

So the law should be changed shouldn't it?

No I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable about my daughter having to have a full body scan. There is also the question of what happens to the images? If nursery workers are capable of distributing images of children, then anybody can. I don't think it is ethical.

[marinello59]

No I don't think so. I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable about my daughter having to have a full body scan. There is also the question of what happens to the images? If nursery workers are capable of distributing images of children, then anybody can. I don't think it is ethical.

Suicide bombers ain't that ethical either. Leave a loop hole that exempts under 18's from full body scans and how do you think the terrorists would get round it?

Are you seriously suggesting that paedophiles will apply en masse to operate body scanners at airports? By the same logic do you also feel uncomfortable at the thought of your child attending nursery?

However, given your concerns though, do you have a better alternative security measure to suggest?

[Betty Boop]

Suicide bombers ain't that ethical either. Leave a loop hole that exempts under 18's from full body scans and how do you think the terrorists would get round it?

Are you seriously suggesting that paedophiles will apply en masse to operate body scanners at airports? By the same logic do you also feel uncomfortable at the thought of your child attending nursery?

However, given your concerns though, do you have a better alternative security measure to suggest?

Maybe a better use of intelligence, would be a start. Obama admitted that the Americans had intelligence about the "underwear bomber", however different agencies failed to share the information between them. If the guy was on a watch list surely he should never been allowed to fly? He also bought a one way ticket with no luggage, alarm bells should have been ringing, don't you think? His Father had also informed the authorities, that his Son was expressing extreme views and he might be a danger to others.

[marinello59]

Maybe a better use of intelligence, would be a start. Obama admitted that the Americans had intelligence about the "underwear bomber", however different agencies failed to share the information between them. If the guy was on a watch list surely he should never been allowed to fly? He also bought a one way ticket with no luggage, alarm bells should have been ringing, don't you think? His Father had also informed the authorities, that his Son was expressing extreme views and he might be a danger to others.

Would you include profiling in that then?

[Betty Boop]

Would you include profiling in that then?

No I don't think so, I don't think that would work anyway. I don't see how concentrating on a specific race of people, would make flying some how safer. Any way the underwear bomber was Nigerian, and as we are led to believe the Sep 11th hijackers were of Middle Eastern appearance. Do you not think those involved in terrorism would just use other races?

[marinello59]

No I don't think so, I don't think that would work anyway. I don't see how concentrating on a specific race of people, would make flying some how safer. Any way the underwear bomber was Nigerian, and as we are led to believe the Sep 11th hijackers were of Middle Eastern appearance. Do you not think those involved in terrorism would just use other races?

I'd agree with you about profiling. It would not be that efficient and could end up further alienating people.

[Ed De Gramo]

I'd be intrigued to find out your IQ.

:blah:

I'd be more intrigued to see if you actually wind your neck in :asshole:


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8453560.stm

Thats great news like...:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Well done to the Home Secretary :thumbsup::thumbsup:

While were on a roll, can we stop the 25K in benefits that Anjem 'my BOMA's Hooky Hamza' Choudary is raking in please :thumbsup:

[New Corrie]

:blah:

I'd be more intrigued to see if you actually wind your neck in :asshole:



Thats great news like...:thumbsup::thumbsup::thumbsup:

Well done to the Home Secretary :thumbsup::thumbsup:

While were on a roll, can we stop the 25K in benefits that Anjem 'my BOMA's Hooky Hamza' Choudary is raking in please :thumbsup:

Couldn't agree more. well done indeed. No doubt it will be deemed "Nazi Daily Mail rhetoric" according to the Loony layabouts. It's funny how it's only on messageboards that the likes of G19 get grief, if you walked into any "real life" scenario, people would 100% agree with him!

[Removed]

Couldn't agree more. well done indeed. No doubt it will be deemed "Nazi Daily Mail rhetoric" according to the Loony layabouts. It's funny how it's only on messageboards that the likes of G19 get grief, if you walked into any "real life" scenario, people would 100% agree with him!

:agree:

Just saw that Choudray guy and his entourage on the news. Nutters. How the hell are they able to claim so much in benefits :confused:

[Sergey]

Couldn't agree more. well done indeed. No doubt it will be deemed "Nazi Daily Mail rhetoric" according to the Loony layabouts. It's funny how it's only on messageboards that the likes of G19 get grief, if you walked into any "real life" scenario, people would 100% agree with him!


:agree:

Just saw that Choudray guy and his entourage on the news. Nutters. How the hell are they able to claim so much in benefits :confused:

I don't agree. Anjem Choudary isn't a mug and he hasn't broken any law....and as a lawyer, he knows the law.

What the UK government has done has simply added fuel to the fire.

Maybe a nutter....but clever to boot!

[hibsdaft]

Maybe a nutter....but clever to boot!

he's not stupid is he. he's run rings around Alan Johnson tbh. if you think this ban will stop them operating G19 you'll be disappointed - the previous two bans didn't (that doesn't mean i'm opposed to it, just ambivalent).

this is playing out to script for Choudary, i really don't understand why folk can't see that.

[Dinkydoo]

Why just in London?

I thought that this was where all of the marches of this type took place. Also picked this up from a previous post on this thread - my bad I guess.


Two questions. The second in two parts.

What's a genuine non-islamic muslim?

How is choosing the location of your own protest being given preferential treatment.

Would you say that those protesting at Faslaine (Don't know the spelling) are being given preferential treatment because they're not in London?

1. A Muslim that doesn't so happen to follow Islam - I know, pretty bad description.

2. It's preferential treatment simply because not everyone is allowed to choose where exactly they'll be marching. Also the fact that the impact that this march would have had was mainly down to the location of choice.

3. No - I must have misunderstood a previous post and how marches are organised.

[Tinyclothes]

I thought that this was where all of the marches of this type took place. Also picked this up from a previous post on this thread - my bad I guess.



1. A Muslim that doesn't so happen to follow Islam - I know, pretty bad description.

2. It's preferential treatment simply because not everyone is allowed to choose where exactly they'll be marching. Also the fact that the impact that this march would have had was mainly down to the location of choice.

3. No - I must have misunderstood a previous post and how marches are organised.

1. Still don't really know what you mean there. Wasn't there a march in Edinburgh against the Iraq war? Should that march have been in Iraq?

2. Don't really know what you mean there either. Do you mean the legislation introduced to stop people protesting near the House of Parliament? Where are you getting your information? Wouldn't you say that the whole point of a protest is maximum impact? For example, why would you march to protest about Nuclear weapons in a place that has no links to Nuclear weapons such as say..............Mansfield. People would look at you like you were mentally ill and your protest would make it into the sun, but only the Bizarre section.

[Dinkydoo]

1. Still don't really know what you mean there. Wasn't there a march in Edinburgh against the Iraq war? Should that march have been in Iraq?

2. Don't really know what you mean there either. Do you mean the legislation introduced to stop people protesting near the House of Parliament? Where are you getting your information? Wouldn't you say that the whole point of a protest is maximum impact? For example, why would you march to protest about Nuclear weapons in a place that has no links to Nuclear weapons such as say..............Mansfield. People would look at you like you were mentally ill and your protest would make it into the sun, but only the Bizarre section.


Again sorry, the confusion is probably down to my total and utter lack of knowledge on how these marches are organised and I realise that I've made a bit of a tit of myself - it was a long time coming, I've been posting on here for a while now! :faf:

What I should have said from the get go is that I don't think that this march should be allowed to take place at the desired location simply because it appears as if it's purpose is to intice racial hatred. If not everyone is allowed to march at thier desired location it could be seen as a privaledge(sp) to be granted such a right. This is what I described as being preferential previously which is probably down to the fact that I'm posting on my lunch break whilst attempting to eat a sandwich.

I know, it's not an excuse - but it's a reason.

[Ed De Gramo]

he's not stupid is he. he's run rings around Alan Johnson tbh. if you think this ban will stop them operating G19 you'll be disappointed - the previous two bans didn't (that doesn't mean i'm opposed to it, just ambivalent).

this is playing out to script for Choudary, i really don't understand why folk can't see that.

i'm hoping they continue....just so that Choudary gets jailed and brutally murdered in his cell when 'no one's looking' :faf::agree:

[lyonhibs]

i'm hoping they continue....just so that Choudary gets jailed and brutally murdered in his cell when 'no one's looking' :faf::agree:

Do you ever, EVER engage your brain before posting??

So, the best way for opponents of your standpoint to be dealt with is jailed and then brutally murdered??!!

Vive la democratie!!!!

For what it's worth, I don't agree - at ALL - with what this Islam4UK mob stand for, and certainly not with the way they choose to express their beliefs, but the day we suppress all those that don't toe the populist line, well, we - as a society- would become just like those awful, oppressive Muslims everyone seems to cite massively.

[Ed De Gramo]

Do you ever, EVER engage your brain before posting??

So, the best way for opponents of your standpoint to be dealt with is jailed and then brutally murdered??!!

Vive la democratie!!!!

For what it's worth, I don't agree - at ALL - with what this Islam4UK mob stand for, and certainly not with the way they choose to express their beliefs, but the day we suppress all those that don't toe the populist line, well, we - as a society- would become just like those awful, oppressive Muslims everyone seems to cite massively.

:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf:

That is all :bye:

[hibsdaft]

i'm hoping they continue....just so that Choudary gets jailed and brutally murdered in his cell when 'no one's looking' :faf::agree:

why brutally?

anyway he's carried on after his group has been banned twice already i doubt he will get jailed for doing the same a third time.

[Ed De Gramo]

why brutally?

IIRC, he praised the 9/11 terrorist attack and also praised the attacks in London...

Brutally wouldn't even come close to what he deserves

[Tinyclothes]

IIRC, he praised the 9/11 terrorist attack and also praised the attacks in London...

Brutally wouldn't even come close to what he deserves

He praised something you think was horrific so he deserves to be brutally murdered? That's ridiculous chat wee man.

How's your football firm, racist facebook group getting on by the way?

[Betty Boop]

I wonder if the Home Secretary will ban the English/Scottish Defence League?

[lyonhibs]

:faf::faf::faf::faf::faf:

That is all :bye:

An incisive and revealing response as always.

Point being, this guy and the group he leads are clearly an unsavoury bunch, but "brutally murdered whilst no-one is watching"?? :confused:

Not exactly a viable option is it?

[Dinkydoo]

IIRC, he praised the 9/11 terrorist attack and also praised the attacks in London...

Brutally wouldn't even come close to what he deserves


It's a disgusting thing to do/say (if he did really say it) but to have him brutally murdered as a consequence is just a tad OTT :bitchy:

Now if he had carried out attacks (and lived) himself; torture may have been one of my suggested consequences :wink:, but he didn't.

Can you remember what happend the last time groups of people were persecuted for having different beliefs from the government of the country they lived in.......?

Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder. Did something then not emerge from all that about creating a superior race or am I just remembering my old History classes incorrectly:rolleyes:

IMO we as a country have to be very carefull about aproaching situations like this. We shouldn't under any circustances be supporting groups like this but on the other hand we can't be seen to unfairly persecute minorities over let's face it, religious beliefs.

How hypocritical would that be? :faf:

[Woody1985]

It's a disgusting thing to do/say (if he did really say it) but to have him brutally murdered as a consequence is just a tad OTT :bitchy:

Now if he had carried out attacks (and lived) himself; torture may have been one of my suggested consequences :wink:, but he didn't.

Can you remember what happend the last time groups of people were persecuted for having different beliefs from the government of the country they lived in.......?

Hmmmmmmmm, I wonder. Did something then not emerge from all that about creating a superior race or am I just remembering my old History classes incorrectly:rolleyes:

IMO we as a country have to be very carefull about aproaching situations like this. We shouldn't under any circustances be supporting groups like this but on the other hand we can't be seen to unfairly persecute minorities over let's face it, religious beliefs.

How hypocritical would that be? :faf:

I don't think that was his point. He's not saying all people that have the same religion as Choudray should be shot.

The man has disgusting views and should be persecuted (although it's a sensitive issue because it can raise more support).

If people started shouting and preaching in an islamic country how great it was that muslims have been killed due to American and British wars it wouldn't go down well at all now, would it?

So are you saying that because a religion (any religion in general) dictates or supports that others be killed that it shouldn't be suppressed? What's the difference between that and your comparison to put to G19s?

[Tinyclothes]

I don't think that was his point. He's not saying all people that have the same religion as Choudray should be shot.

The man has disgusting views and should be persecuted (although it's a sensitive issue because it can raise more support).

If people started shouting and preaching in an islamic country how great it was that muslims have been killed due to American and British wars it wouldn't go down well at all now, would it?

So are you saying that because a religion (any religion in general) dictates or supports that others be killed that it shouldn't be suppressed? What's the difference between that and your comparison to put to G19s?

But if we start acting like they MIGHT act to us then we become as bad as the people everyone is so angry at. We are lucky enough to live in a country where we don't persecute people for for their beliefs.

[Woody1985]

But if we start acting like they MIGHT act to us then we become as bad as the people everyone is so angry at. We are lucky enough to live in a country where we don't persecute people for for their beliefs.

Yes, but at the same time you can't sit back and take their glorifying of civilian murders in the name of tolerance.

I don't see how it can be tolerated that their belief that it's good for 'infidels' to die and it's unacceptable for people to state that they hate all muslims and think they should die.

What's the difference?

These guys should be jailed as someone preaching the latter would be.

[Dinkydoo]

I don't think that was his point. He's not saying all people that have the same religion as Choudray should be shot.

No but he is saying that because Choudray has the beliefs he has he should be "brutally murdered".

The man has disgusting views and should be persecuted (although it's a sensitive issue because it can raise more support).

If people started shouting and preaching in an islamic country how great it was that muslims have been killed due to American and British wars it wouldn't go down well at all now, would it?

So by that logic, are you saying that we should deal with people like Choudray in a similar way to what the government of an Islamic country would deal with a person as described within your hypothetical?

That shirley would make things even worse between the 'west' and countries where islamic extremism is rife.

Not a very clever idea IMO.

So are you saying that because a religion (any religion in general) dictates or supports that others be killed that it shouldn't be suppressed? What's the difference between that and your comparison to put to G19s?

Not in the slightest, what I'm saying is that I think a bit of tact and sensitivity is required when dealing with people that have beliefs that support murder on any scale. I fear that going in too heavy handed could actually provoke another 9/11.

It's common sense really.

[Ed De Gramo]

Not in the slightest, what I'm saying is that I think a bit of tact and sensitivity is required when dealing with people that have beliefs that support murder on any scale. I fear that going in too heavy handed could actually provoke another 9/11.

It's common sense really.

Nah, if he thinks those people deserved to die...then he should be prepared for whatever comes his way...

Just read that were paying for police protection for that ****....this world has gone mad :agree:

[Pete]

I don't agree. Anjem Choudary isn't a mug and he hasn't broken any law....and as a lawyer, he knows the law.

What the UK government has done has simply added fuel to the fire.

Maybe a nutter....but clever to boot!


I'd put Nick Griffin in the same category...he also studied law at Cambridge no less.

One of the most frightening aspects of this whole thing is the intelligence of some of the extremists on both sides. I read one of those right wing websites and the depth and thought in some of the posts was truly chilling when you thought about it in relation to the content.

You'd think people with that level of intelligence would have the "brains" to channel their thoughts and energy in a more positive and less introverted way.

[Woody1985]

Not in the slightest, what I'm saying is that I think a bit of tact and sensitivity is required when dealing with people that have beliefs that support murder on any scale. I fear that going in too heavy handed could actually provoke another 9/11.

It's common sense really.

Not common sense at all.

Yes, the situation needs to be handled correctly but it means that things will only get worse. More and more people can start coming forward with these 'beliefs' with no comeback.

It needs to be stamped out.

What's the difference between people like him that think if you are not a follower of his 'version of Islam', which I doubt even exists other than in their warped minds, and someone who thinks that all <insert race or religion here> should be wiped out?

Pandering to this **** for fear of what may come back is weak and pathetic and what makes it worse, they know it and are deliberately playing on it.

[Toaods]

i'm hoping they continue....just so that Choudary gets jailed and brutally murdered in his cell when 'no one's looking' :faf::agree:


the guards will all be looking.

IIRC the last such incident (not UK) was on SKY NEWS and You Tube very promptly with some of them having captured it on video after engaging in a bit of the old verbal sparring as the rope took the strain.

[Dinkydoo]

Not common sense at all.

Yes, the situation needs to be handled correctly but it means that things will only get worse. More and more people can start coming forward with these 'beliefs' with no comeback.

It needs to be stamped out.

What's the difference between people like him that think if you are not a follower of his 'version of Islam', which I doubt even exists other than in their warped minds, and someone who thinks that all <insert race or religion here> should be wiped out?

Pandering to this **** for fear of what may come back is weak and pathetic and what makes it worse, they know it and are deliberately playing on it.


I'm not saying that we should appease or put up with this prick in fear of what might happy I simply feel that until anyone is in any potential danger we can't be seen to persecute people for thier beliefs.

It's like fighting fire with fire - it won't put out the flame.

It would turn this whole 'war' on terrorism into one great big contradiction. Next you'll be saying that terrorists suicide bomb us we should be doing the same back......:rolleyes:

I don't honestly know what the best way to handle this situation would be but going in too heavey handed seems stupid to me but thats just my opinion eh.

[Woody1985]

I'm not saying that we should appease or put up with this prick in fear of what might happy I simply feel that until anyone is in any potential danger we can't be seen to persecute people for thier beliefs.

It's like fighting fire with fire - it won't put out the flame.

It would turn this whole 'war' on terrorism into one great big contradiction. Next you'll be saying that terrorists suicide bomb us we should be doing the same back......:rolleyes:

I don't honestly know what the best way to handle this situation would be but going in too heavey handed seems stupid to me but thats just my opinion eh.

Personally, I don't think that we should execute him for his views but I wouldn't care if something did happen to him or his cronies.

I do think that he should be charged with something, inciting hatred would probably be applicable in this case.

I agree with your principle that we can't be too heavy handed but we need to do something. Banning his organisation is a pointless exercise and is merely a gesture to show that we are doing something but has no real substance. He's even said it himself that they'll basically just change the name and continue.

[Dinkydoo]

Personally, I don't think that we should execute him for his views but I wouldn't care if something did happen to him or his cronies.

I do think that he should be charged with something, inciting hatred would probably be applicable in this case.

I agree with your principle that we can't be too heavy handed but we need to do something. Banning his organisation is a pointless exercise and is merely a gesture to show that we are doing something but has no real substance. He's even said it himself that they'll basically just change the name and continue.


TBH mate, I probably wouldn't care either. I was only saying that IMO it would cause a helluva' more problems then it would solve. Charging him with inciting racial hatred would be the correct thing to do (in all fairness if Nick Griffin continues in his borderline facist manner I think he should be charged with the same thing)

Your right, banning the organisation ultimately won't achieve anything - but at least it would show that we're not going to lie back and accept groups such as this operating within the UK.