'Muslims Against Crusades'....

The problem is these people are NOT following the Koran...

... like all fanatics they distort their religion to fit in with their own perverted thought processes. the Koran actually preaches tolerance and understanding. In many repects there is little to choose between Christian beliefs and Islamic beliefs. I agree 100% though that organised religion is man-made and has nothing to do with any God but is about Power and Control over others

 

Re: The problem is these people are NOT following the Koran...

Agreed, there was a Muslim on BBC news this morning stating that this group have abhorrant views not in line with the vast majority of Muslims.

I did find the footage rather ironic where one of them had a sign saying "f*ck democracy"!

It's the fine line of freedom of speech but I think that burning a flag or burning a poppy should come under the category of a hate crime. It's the underlying meaning behind it. Not sure how much good banning this group will be, as was already said, they'd already been known under other names that were banned.

 

Re: I wonder how western people would be treated if...

The most ridiculous analogy I've ever heard. Nowhere in the history of Football does it say 'Thou shalt batter non-believer's after match'. Read any religious scripture and you'll find evil, hypocrisy, sexism and utter crap to be honest running throughout. Religion fascinates me and infuriates me in equal measures and I have no doubt the world would be a better place without it.

'With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion'

 

Re: I wonder how western people would be treated if...

I disagree with banning them. Banning and the resulting publicity is what they seek. They should simply be ignored, no tv, no paper coverage, no outside help for their trouble causing efforts. Damnatio memoriae is the way forward.

 

It's a bizarre situation isn't it, where our sacrosanct right of freedom of speech is used by those with abhorrent (to the mainstream) views, essentially to demonstrate their open hatred of the very nations and culture that sustain them, and give them this right. They're like those gobsh*tes at school who used to mouth off unashamedly then run off and hide behind a teacher when folk had had enough and they were about to get a serious paddling.

I think if I were Home Secretary I would simply ask the police to write to this shower, and confirm that although they were reluctantly being allowed to march, there would be no police protection for them when they do so. Knowing that their actions could therefore have serious repercussions (i.e they are fairly likely to get lynched by the masses) might just make them think a bit harder about what exactly they want to say, and how they might want to say it. Nothing quite like being forced to take full responsibility for your own actions to bring about a reality check.

 

Re: I wonder how western people would be treated if...

What a load of codswallop!!!
It`s not religion that is evil, it is the HUMAN BEINGS that are evil. The vast majority of Muslims are lovely people, just like the vast majority of Christians. It is the minority that spread the violence and disorder.

 

Re: I wonder how western people would be treated if...

could not agree with you more, these fundamentalists are as much hated by the majority of the muslim community as any other community.

 

what a load of boll ocks you talk.the whole point of freedom of speech is to speak without fear of repercussions.

remember the famous british ethos. "i tottally disagree with what your saying but i will defend with my life your right to say it"

you cannot pick and choose freedom of speech you either have it or you don't.

my forebears fought and died for the principle of freedom of speech whoever said it and whatever is said without question.

i cannot see why they should be denied this principle, which by the way turns their protests on its head.

if we make exceptions,protest and freedom of speech is doomed and then they have won.

 

Ha ha, good to hear from you Marlon, it's been a few weeks since you targeted me so I was wondering when you'd start fixating on me and spouting your rhetoric again.

I agree wholelheartedly with the right the freedom of speech, if you'd either read or grasped the nuance of what I was saying you would have understood this, you utter t*t.

Can I just clarify that your argument is that you feel this group should in fact be allowed to spout their vitriol accordingly without fear of recrimination?

 

as long as their vitriol is within the law and doesn't incite violence, yes and yes i did read your post properly, did you, think you need to read it again then read my reply "without fear or contradiction". this is why i stopped replying to you.has i said how can you be for freedom of speech when you are discriminating who gets prtection or not.

 

So if it's within the law. why do they need the police to protect them?

 

I see you edited your original response to try to make some kind of retrospective point (didn't work).

Does no good for your credibility.

 

are you from foreign lands ok a lesson in british ways we always have a police presence for demos etc be it gay pride, english defence lge, or womens institute. for safety reasons. now if these rsoles muslims against crusades want to demonstrate then we have to allow it otherwise all we stand for is lost.

 

no i edited it because i accidentally ended text before i had finished writing, if you hadn't been so eager you would have got full script.your quick to judge without asking my reasons.

 

So to clarify, you feel 'Muslims against Crusades' shouldm have been allowed to demonstrate wherever and however they want?

 

......trying not to laugh

 

this is why you should read posts before you reply. once again "within the law of the land" it was you who said they should not have the same conditions as other demonstrators now your trying to twist my principles to suit you. to clarify my position. all legitimate demonstrations should within the law of the land and peacefully whether its what i condone or not be allowed to take place do i think their wrong "yes" do i think their abhorrent "yes"do i support their rights to demonstrate."yes".

i have marched past hate mobs with a swagger of great pride nothing they could say or do could've taken that away from us because we represented the greatest tolerant country in the world, and i would say even today our soldiers would feel the same when confronted with these fundamentalist mobs.but they would still go to war to protect these rights that a fact my friend.

 

Don't think I've ever mentioned "within the law of the land" but there you go.

Anyway, don't think I've ever touched on what should be the relevant conditions (please tell me where I've said this?).

You're all over the shop son, and you've now't to say, and it shows.

 

you are a waste of time red west lost argument again so post a load of sh ite. you asked me to clarify I SAID LAW OF LAND . I DIDN'T SAY YOU DID. YOUR JUST A HOLLOW MIND WHO GOES FOR POPULAR OPINION AND NOTHING TO SAY WHEN CONFRONTED.

LOOK BACK AT POSTS I THINK YOU'LL BE EMBARRASSED.

 

You utter moron.