Muslims in London, UK resorting to more violence

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Who gives a sh*t what you call them?

Well, in the interests of being accurate I assumed, and yes I know I shouldn't assume anything, I thought it best to clarify a blatant misrepresentation.

But I guess some people don't really care about accuracy.

They are a hate filled group intent on spreading their filth through lies and violence.

Hate filled?
Possibly.
But certainly no less than those they protest against.

Lies?
Certainly a one-sided viewpoint and very selective in what they present.
But I'd say their capacity for lying is just the same as any other political party or organisation.

Violence?
Any evidence of that?

Sure, there's some violent people in their midst.....pretty much the same as UAF but I don't see people complaining about their violence and lying.

They are uneducated thugs.

Some undoubtedly are....but stereotyping all of them as 'uneducated thugs' is a gross generalisation.

No better than rabid dogs in my opinion.

And the minority of Muslims who DO try to enforce Sharia in one or two areas aren't?

Lies lies lies... this is what this op us full of.

Yeah, pretty much so.....but that's not the point I was making.

Why are you arguing over whether they are extreme right wing or not?

Because someone said they are....and they aren't.

If someone had simply said they were a Nationalist organisation pretty exclusively concerned with what they perceive is the Islamification of the UK then I wouldn't have bothered responding....because that's what they are.

They have no grand Fascist / extreme right wing agenda and to suggest such grants them with far more vision or capacity than they probably deserve.

I'm probably playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here - I'm no great fan of Britain First but at least be accurate in the accusations and criticisms directed at them.

They are a one-trick pony who tend to bend and spin things to project a certain anti-Islam viewpoint at all times.
Same as groups like UAF and the like do but from the opposite perspective.

It should be very easy to discredit both sides using facts and their own literature etc without resorting to inaccurate alarmist fear mongering.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Who gives a sh*t what you call them?

Well, in the interests of being accurate I assumed, and yes I know I shouldn't assume anything, I thought it best to clarify a blatant misrepresentation.

But I guess some people don't really care about accuracy.

They are a hate filled group intent on spreading their filth through lies and violence.

Hate filled?
Possibly.
But certainly no less than those they protest against.

Lies?
Certainly a one-sided viewpoint and very selective in what they present.
But I'd say their capacity for lying is just the same as any other political party or organisation.

Violence?
Any evidence of that?

Sure, there's some violent people in their midst.....pretty much the same as UAF but I don't see people complaining about their violence and lying.

They are uneducated thugs.

Some undoubtedly are....but stereotyping all of them as 'uneducated thugs' is a gross generalisation.

No better than rabid dogs in my opinion.

And the minority of Muslims who DO try to enforce Sharia in one or two areas aren't?

Lies lies lies... this is what this op us full of.

Yeah, pretty much so.....but that's not the point I was making.

Why are you arguing over whether they are extreme right wing or not?

Because someone said they are....and they aren't.

If someone had simply said they were a Nationalist organisation pretty exclusively concerned with what they perceive is the Islamification of the UK then I wouldn't have bothered responding....because that's what they are.

They have no grand Fascist / extreme right wing agenda and to suggest such grants them with far more vision or capacity than they probably deserve.

I'm probably playing a bit of Devil's Advocate here - I'm no great fan of Britain First but at least be accurate in the accusations and criticisms directed at them.

They are a one-trick pony who tend to bend and spin things to project a certain anti-Islam viewpoint at all times.
Same as groups like UAF and the like do but from the opposite perspective.

It should be very easy to discredit both sides using facts and their own literature etc without resorting to inaccurate alarmist fear mongering.

They are violent racist xenophobic thugs. You can spin it anyway you want. Won't make them any less loathsome.

And you and weren't discussing the muslims supposedly trying to force sharia law (which is bull anyway)....

originally posted by: Saylesie17
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Show me who in the world commits bombings and killings of large amounts of people is it jewish or cheistians or muslims all muslims are not terrorsts but all terrorist are muslim.

Some years ago there was a country called Iraq, but some world leaders who happened to be Christians -Bush, Blair and Aznar- decided to erase the country after telling blatant and criminal lies about some WMD.

Do you remember?

They were Christians. They went to the church on Sunday while bombing and killing people by thousands. They destroyed the country, which became just the remnants of a country and a perfect breeding ground for ISIS.

Not a long time ago some Zionists, who happened to be Jewish and the political and military elite of a whole country, bombed the Gaza Strip unmercifully and indiscriminately killing children and women by hundreds. Those women and children didn't launch any rocket to Israel. Those Zionists, who happened to be Jewish, bombed schools, homes, UN offices... And their victims were blamed again. Thousands were wounded or permanently disabled. All the infraestructures in the Strip were badly damaged. Thousands of Gazans are sleeping in the rubble to this very day. They happen to be mostly Muslims.

So, erasing a country after illegally invading it, killing its people by thousands and displacing millions, or bombing one the most densely-populated areas in the world without giving a fig about women and children that had no place to escape.

Please, tell me: Do you think these actions can be described as terrorism? Or do we need an Arab-speaking bearded agent for the word 'terrorism' to be applied?

originally posted by: valleean

originally posted by: Saylesie17
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Show me who in the world commits bombings and killings of large amounts of people is it jewish or cheistians or muslims all muslims are not terrorsts but all terrorist are muslim.

Some years ago there was a country called Iraq, but some world leaders who happened to be Christians -Bush, Blair and Aznar- decided to erase the country after telling blatant and criminal lies about some WMD.

Do you remember?

They were Christians. They went to the church on Sunday while bombing and killing people by thousands. They destroyed the country, which became just the remnants of a country and a perfect breeding ground for ISIS.

Not a long time ago some Zionists, who happened to be Jewish and the political and military elite of a whole country, bombed the Gaza Strip unmercifully and indiscriminately killing children and women by hundreds. Those women and children didn't launch any rocket to Israel. Those Zionists, who happened to be Jewish, bombed schools, homes, UN offices... And their victims were blamed again. Thousands were wounded or permanently disabled. All the infraestructures in the Strip were badly damaged. Thousands of Gazans are sleeping in the rubble to this very day. They happen to be mostly Muslims.

So, erasing a country after illegally invading it, killing its people by thousands and displacing millions, or bombing one the most densely-populated areas in the world without giving a fig about women and children that had no place to escape.

Please, tell me: Do you think these actions can be described as terrorism? Or do we need an Arab-speaking bearded agent for the word 'terrorism' to be applied?

Iraq was like 10 years ago...get over it man.

/s

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: valleean

originally posted by: Saylesie17
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Show me who in the world commits bombings and killings of large amounts of people is it jewish or cheistians or muslims all muslims are not terrorsts but all terrorist are muslim.

Some years ago there was a country called Iraq, but some world leaders who happened to be Christians -Bush, Blair and Aznar- decided to erase the country after telling blatant and criminal lies about some WMD.

Do you remember?

They were Christians. They went to the church on Sunday while bombing and killing people by thousands. They destroyed the country, which became just the remnants of a country and a perfect breeding ground for ISIS.

Not a long time ago some Zionists, who happened to be Jewish and the political and military elite of a whole country, bombed the Gaza Strip unmercifully and indiscriminately killing children and women by hundreds. Those women and children didn't launch any rocket to Israel. Those Zionists, who happened to be Jewish, bombed schools, homes, UN offices... And their victims were blamed again. Thousands were wounded or permanently disabled. All the infraestructures in the Strip were badly damaged. Thousands of Gazans are sleeping in the rubble to this very day. They happen to be mostly Muslims.

So, erasing a country after illegally invading it, killing its people by thousands and displacing millions, or bombing one the most densely-populated areas in the world without giving a fig about women and children that had no place to escape.

Please, tell me: Do you think these actions can be described as terrorism? Or do we need an Arab-speaking bearded agent for the word 'terrorism' to be applied?

Iraq was like 10 years ago...get over it man.

/s

Well, I wasn't bombed. The Christian armies of the enlightened Western nations did not transform my country in an inmense bloody pool while shamelessly taking its oil. So I really don't need to get over it. It wasn't me and my family. Nor yours, I guess.

The destruction of Iraq is the most atrocious crime of this century. And the consequences of that crime are far from being over. You do not need to be the finest annalist to acknowledge that ISIS raised from the rubble of Iraq.

I just wanted to point out that this heinous crime was perpetrated by Christians. Perpetrated and later rationalized. And then forgotten.

So should we call it a "Christian crime"?

Not at all. The political agenda of the West is to be blamed here. The same way that the political agenda of the West, Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Russia is to be blamed for the destruction of Syria.

The same with the political agenda of Zionism, which is to be blamed for the colonization of Palestine. Not Judaism.

But when talking to people who are dividing the world according to religious identities, it is relevant to remind them that many of the worst atrocities of our times have been signed by non-Muslims executioners.

Just before reminding them that it's the agenda to be blamed. It's always the agenda. The political agenda of the elites.

originally posted by: valleean

originally posted by: 3danimator2014

originally posted by: valleean

originally posted by: Saylesie17
a reply to: 3danimator2014

Show me who in the world commits bombings and killings of large amounts of people is it jewish or cheistians or muslims all muslims are not terrorsts but all terrorist are muslim.

Some years ago there was a country called Iraq, but some world leaders who happened to be Christians -Bush, Blair and Aznar- decided to erase the country after telling blatant and criminal lies about some WMD.

Do you remember?

They were Christians. They went to the church on Sunday while bombing and killing people by thousands. They destroyed the country, which became just the remnants of a country and a perfect breeding ground for ISIS.

Not a long time ago some Zionists, who happened to be Jewish and the political and military elite of a whole country, bombed the Gaza Strip unmercifully and indiscriminately killing children and women by hundreds. Those women and children didn't launch any rocket to Israel. Those Zionists, who happened to be Jewish, bombed schools, homes, UN offices... And their victims were blamed again. Thousands were wounded or permanently disabled. All the infraestructures in the Strip were badly damaged. Thousands of Gazans are sleeping in the rubble to this very day. They happen to be mostly Muslims.

So, erasing a country after illegally invading it, killing its people by thousands and displacing millions, or bombing one the most densely-populated areas in the world without giving a fig about women and children that had no place to escape.

Please, tell me: Do you think these actions can be described as terrorism? Or do we need an Arab-speaking bearded agent for the word 'terrorism' to be applied?

Iraq was like 10 years ago...get over it man.

/s

Well, I wasn't bombed. The Christian armies of the enlightened Western nations did not transform my country in an inmense bloody pool while shamelessly taking its oil. So I really don't need to get over it. It wasn't me and my family. Nor yours, I guess.

The destruction of Iraq is the most atrocious crime of this century. And the consequences of that crime are far from being over. You do not need to be the finest annalist to acknowledge that ISIS raised from the rubble of Iraq.

I just wanted to point out that this heinous crime was perpetrated by Christians. Perpetrated and later rationalized. And then forgotten.

So should we call it a "Christian crime"?

Not at all. The political agenda of the West is to be blamed here. The same way that the political agenda of the West, Turkey, Saudia Arabia and Russia is to be blamed for the destruction of Syria.

The same with the political agenda of Zionism, which is to be blamed for the colonization of Palestine. Not Judaism.

But when talking to people who are dividing the world according to religious identities, it is relevant to remind them that many of the worst atrocities of our times have been signed by non-Muslims executioners.

Just before reminding them that it's the agenda to be blamed. It's always the agenda. The political agenda of the elites.

I guess you missed the sarcasm tag at the end of my post. I agree with you entirely.

a reply to: Freeborn

Off the cuff remark I admit but from what I have read they are more than just a right wing nationalist group.

a reply to: EngineerGuY

That video isn't of a peaceful protests. It's of a racist group blocking the Muslims entry into their mosque. I'm pretty sure if anyone blocked Christians from entering their church they wouldn't be too happy.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Nothing vague about it,I can't use names.
If you can't believe it I don't care.

a reply to: Freeborn

If you define far right as being the actual NAZI party then no I suppose they are not far right. Using a slightly more sane definition I think they would meet every criteria.

www.politics.co.uk...

When even they Sun describes them as far right I think it safe to assume the description is not just political correctness gone mad.

www.thesun.co.uk...

I am of Jewish descent (on my fathers side) although not a practitioner of the faith and my mother is a devout christian so I have no prejudice in my next statement and make the remark based on an impartial observation. You say you are with them 100%... are you therefore saying that you agree with the Jews effectively trying to exterminate the Palestinians from the West Bank. I find that all religions in some way promote violence against non believers or in retaliation of a wrongful act committed against a person. What I don't understand is the opinions of some that this should be acceptable at any time now or in the past or in the future against any human of any faith.

Oh and I am new to being a member here but I have been reading the threads on this site with interest for around a year.


a reply to: Saylesie17

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Freeborn



If you define far right as being the actual NAZI party then no I suppose they are not far right. Using a slightly more sane definition I think they would meet every criteria.



www.politics.co.uk...



When even they Sun describes them as far right I think it safe to assume the description is not just political correctness gone mad.



www.thesun.co.uk...

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. The organization may say that they are non extermists, however in my experience when speaking with individuals from this group, they do promte a very extreme view of how Muslims should be looked upon, this group spread fear and hatred of all Muslims and do not see that as in all religions, it is not the Religion but the individual extremist groups of given religions that cause the problems. Oh and in reply to an earlier post by another member, Britain First/BNP etc do have members who are White Supremists and promote hatred of all colours, races and religions unless you are white and are Christian.

This is quite interesting.

The American author Laurence Britt defined 14 characteristics of fascist regimes. I'll list the 14 characteristics and compare with Britain First policies and strategies.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Britain First make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights - One of Britain First's most common complaints is against the European Human Rights Act.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - Britain First rally people into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism - Britain First constantly intersperse their posts with posts designed to glorify the military (often in order to sell their own merchandise or convince people to sign up to their organisation).

5. Rampant sexism - Britain First's founder Jim Dowson is strongly opposed to women's reproductive rights. This subject is never mentioned on the Britain First page because it would interfere with their populist appeal.

6. Controlled Mass Media - Thankfully Britain First haven't got to the stage where they can exert any control over the media, however their policy of ruthlessly censoring dissenting opinion on their Facebook page indicates their contempt for freedom of speech and their desire to control the spread of information.

7. Obsession with national security - Britain First are always harping on about threats to national security in order to whip up fear amongst their followers.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together - Fortunately Britain First are not part of the ruling elite, but it is absolutely clear that they see religion as an integral part of their political mission. Here's a quote from their statement of principles: "Britain First is committed to maintaining and strengthening Christianity as the foundation of our society and culture".

9. Corporate Power is Protected - Britain First like to present themselves as an alternative to globalisation, however their dalliance with the neoliberal Tea Party fringe in the US show that they have more in common with hardline neoliberals than they like to let on. Another indicator that they are no opponents of globalisation is the way they use their Facebook page and website to propagandise for Cadbury's, which was once a British company, but is now owned by the American multinational giant Kraft.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated - Britain First make a big deal out of opposing socialism and trade unions as enemy ideologies and they also use their Facebook page to attack the minimum wage.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts - The Britain First Facebook page is rife with anti-intellectual comments and infographics.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Britain First are obsessed with crime and punishment, making frequent calls for the death penalty to be re-introduced. Nooses and gallows are recurring motifs on the Britain First page, and they also use public outrage at judicial decisions, in order to con people into donating to their political party.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption - Thankfully Britain First have no political power, so they are not in the position to use their power to enrich themselves and their cronies, but judging by the fact that there is no open process over how appointments are made within the party, and their deceitful fundraising tactics, it's not hard to imagine what Britain would be like if these guys were in charge.

14. Fraudulent elections - Once again, these guys are not in charge of the country, so they haven't got the power to rig elections in their own favour.

Of the fourteen characteristics of fascism identified by Laurence Britt, Britain First meet most of them, and the only ones they don't meet are the ones that it is impossible for them to meet due to their absolute lack of political power.

Link

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: Freeborn



When even they Sun describes them as far right I think it safe to assume the description is not just political correctness gone mad.

www.thesun.co.uk...

Good catch. Haha. You know you are f*cked when even the Sun isn't on your side.

Im not sure why Freeborn is arguing with us about this.

a reply to: 3danimator2014

Im not sure why Freeborn is arguing with us about this.

Because I don't like stereotyping and gross generalisations.
Because I get seriously pissed off when anyone who voices any concerns about Islamic extremism and its growing influence in the UK and elsewhere is immediately demonised and stigmatised as a rabid, racist Nazi.

Now granted, I may have picked a bad horse to back when trying to defend Britain First, but the point remains the same.

Many, many people in the UK have what they consider are real concerns about the growing influence of extremists within some Muslim communities and they feel frightened to express those concerns at times for fear of the above mentioned demonization etc.

And if I'm being honest I've also had an incredibly crappy week and like most people I like to vent sometimes!

a reply to: crazyewok


"Zones of Anarchy"?

Did you read that or did you see it in a video somewhere?

We don't have jobs and miss meals some times, but we are hardly "zones of anarchy".


It does do a wonderful job of getting attention away from your own slums for a but though, huh?

a reply to: valleean

To be fair, the invasions of Iraq weren't done in the name of Jesus, but rather Oil. Never saw a cross besides the medics.

They looked like they were out for a fight, but is a small group of political brits all it takes for these otherwise peaceful muslims to start physically threatening, attacking cars, and tossing rocks at the females?

The protesters just exposed the thinly veiled contempt for Western culture with their own thinly veiled contempt for Muslim culture.

Both are equally abhorrent

a reply to: Morrad

This is quite interesting.

It is indeed.

The American author Laurence Britt......

Just who is Laurence Britt and how credible is he as a source?

Well, it appears not very credible at all.

During the 2004 election cycle, an email chain letter began circulating, attributed to one "Dr. Lawrence Britt, a political scientist," who had apparently written a 14-point article listing the defining characteristics of fascist regimes.

Laurence Britt, is a former corporate executive who wrote and published a dystopian novel about right-wing extremism, titled June 2004, during the height of the Lewinsky scandal. That is, to the best of my knowledge, his only published volume.

That's the only mention I can find of Laurence Britt after wasting half an hour trying to find any sort of reference to him regarding academic / professional publications.

In the real June 2004, he achieved some level of fame with an op-ed published in the humanist magazine Free Inquiry. This op-ed was forwarded around from inbox to inbox, and readers eventually began putting a "Dr." in front of his name and referring to him as a political scientist....

civilliberty.about.com...

Not very impressive is it.

Your first hand source is

Thomas G. Clark and I'm an independent blogger from Yorkshire.

and you've copied and pasted his opinion verbatim.

anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk...
www.facebook.com...

He could be anyone.

But I'll go with parts of it and see what has been said.

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Britain First make constant use of patriotic mottoes, slogans, symbols and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

And so does nearly every political party, organisation or interest group.

Its strange that the only flags that tend to get labelled overtly nationalistic and even racist are the English and British flags.
Proud to be Scottish - that's ok.
Proud to be Polish - that's fine also.
Proud to be French - hell, they take it a whole different level.

But if your proud to be English or even British then you must also be a racist bigot.

Double standards and absolute bollocks!

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights - One of Britain First's most common complaints is against the European Human Rights Act.

Come on, go the length and breadth of the UK and you'll find lots and lots of people expressing their dislike for The Human Rights Act.
It has led to some extremely bad legal decisions.

That doesn't mean that people are opposed to Human Rights per se, just that ridiculous act.
Certainly nothing racist about it all.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - Britain First rally people into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

Again, tell me one political party or group etc who doesn't do this sort of thing?

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism - Britain First constantly intersperse their posts with posts designed to glorify the military (often in order to sell their own merchandise or convince people to sign up to their organisation).

I don't see how anyone could decry them for supporting our military.
Are people as vocal in their condemnation of those scumbags who spit at our soldiers, deface war memorials and insult veterans etc?

However, I feel Britain First have tried to exploit the murder of Lee Rigby to further their agenda.
And their profiteering from Poppy related sales is beyond contempt.

Yet again, is there anything here specifically racist?

5. Rampant sexism - Britain First's founder Jim Dowson is strongly opposed to women's reproductive rights. This subject is never mentioned on the Britain First page because it would interfere with their populist appeal.

Jim Dowson has nothing to do with Britain First now.
And I dare say there's sexists in every political party in the UK - please correct me if I'm wrong.

Anything here racist?

a reply to: Morrad

continued

6. Controlled Mass Media - Thankfully Britain First haven't got to the stage where they can exert any control over the media, however their policy of ruthlessly censoring dissenting opinion on their Facebook page indicates their contempt for freedom of speech and their desire to control the spread of information.

If we are complaining about freedom of the press and control of the media we can't really single Britain First out for that can we?
Granted, other groups may be slightly more subtle....and probably and damn sight more effective.

Still no signs of anything sprecifically racist or extreme right-wing.

7. Obsession with national security - Britain First are always harping on about threats to national security in order to whip up fear amongst their followers.

Again, as are many groups....nothing unique here.
And to be fair, some of them threats are real.....look at the recent arrests made foiling a planned terrorist attack, or are you one of those that believe everything is a false flag or government inspired conspiracy?

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together - Fortunately Britain First are not part of the ruling elite,culture".....

So why mention it?
Obviously doesn't quite fit into these so called 'characteristics of fascist regimes' - own goal methinks.

9. Corporate Power is Protected - Britain First like to present themselves as an alternative to globalisation, however their dalliance with the neoliberal Tea Party fringe in the US show that they have more in common with hardline neoliberals than they like to let on.

So neo-liberals are now Nazi's?

Another indicator that they are no opponents of globalisation is the way they use their Facebook page and website to propagandise for Cadbury's, which was once a British company, but is now owned by the American multinational giant Kraft.

Again, so by extension they must be extreme right-wing?

This is getting ridiculous.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated - Britain First make a big deal out of opposing socialism and trade unions as enemy ideologies.....

No bigger suppressants of the UK working people than Thatcher, Blair and Cameron - are all of them Nazi's?

.... and they also use their Facebook page to attack the minimum wage.

First of all, I can't imagine that being very effective.
And secondly, the minimum wage has been a curse to the British working people - topic for another thread?

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts - The Britain First Facebook page is rife with anti-intellectual comments and infographics.

Please describe what is meant by 'anti-intellectual' and give examples of them advocating suppression of the arts etc.

Still, nothing really to describe them as 'extreme right wing' yet is there?

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Britain First are obsessed with crime and punishment, making frequent calls for the death penalty to be re-introduced. Nooses and gallows are recurring motifs on the Britain First page, and they also use public outrage at judicial decisions, in order to con people into donating to their political party.

Many people have genuine concerns about Crime and Punishment in the UK.
People are entitled to support the re-introduction of the death penalty - hardly makes them a Nazi. (For the record I oppose capital punishment, again, for another time and place methinks).

As I said before, I think Britain First are particularly unscrupulous when it comes to raising money - but its not a trait unique to fascists.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption - .....

Well, that describes every UK government I've known in my lifetime - I'm 50 years old by the way.

Thankfully Britain First have no political power, so they are not in the position to use their power to enrich themselves and their cronies,

So why mention it?
And if they did have power they'd be no different to any other political party.

Not really enough to call them 'extreme right wing' is it?

14. Fraudulent elections - Once again, these guys are not in charge of the country, so they haven't got the power to rig elections in their own favour.

So, again.....what's the point?

Of the fourteen characteristics of fascism identified by Laurence Britt,....

A man of no known academic or professional standing at all and whose 'fourteen characteristics' even a simpleton like myself can more or less debunk.

Not very good supportive evidence really is it?

a reply to: amazing

It just wouldn't happen here in America but because we'd rather die on our feet then live on our knees.

So, the deaths by Cop in The USA, happened in some twilight zone bizarro world USA? Was this a different country?

www.theguardian.com...