It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Blair Wants Islamic Politcal Parties Banned

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:50 PM
link   
funny how quick everyone forgets religious seperation, i'd think an 'islamic' party goes against that principle...so why are such parties allowed to even exist in the first place? is there no such legal seperation in the uk?




posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 04:59 PM
link   
On this one I think I will side with the judgment of Mr. Blair, it doesn't matter that the political Islam parties are parties of peace or good will.

They are Islam, and if they ever gain power in the country, their agenda will lean to their side.

I will be very oppose if our government in the US allow an Islam to gain power.

Islam is Islam not matter how pretty they will paint it, and their religious views and way of life doesn't match the background of the English people.

If they want political power they should go to the country of their ancestors and gain it over there.

Now taking in consideration that England allow other type of very contradicting political views in their country I wonder how they are going to argue this one out.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 05:18 PM
link   
There is zero chances of these parties becoming the dominant party in our country. The demographics speak for themselves, 1.8 million muslims will not provide the majority needed to form government.

So the reasoning for banning these groups resting on the fact that they are Islamic is wrong. Tony Blair is a devout Christian. Does that mean he is incapable of separating church and state?

And what about Queen Elizabeth II? She is head of state and the head of the Church of England!

I am not christian and hence have just as much distaste for christian morals being legislated down my throat than muslim morals. Should I use that as reasoning to remove Tony Blair from office?



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by spliff4020

Communits work for the good of the country. Not the praise of "allah"


If that wasnt a contradiction!



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 07:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by subz
There is zero chances of these parties becoming the dominant party in our country. The demographics speak for themselves, 1.8 million muslims will not provide the majority needed to form government.



Exactly.
Half of those 1,8 million are old enough to vote, half of that half would actually vote, so these political parties are absolutely irrelevant, they have no power.

This is just a political move "oh look at us, we are doing something to fight terror", even if that fight is banning something that has no influence in the first place. Gotta love the politicians.

On a side note, I think that Egypt has a constitutional ban on all religion based parties. They've had that for quite some time to prevent the Muslim Brotherhood from gaining legal power there.
Muslim countries are the places where such parties can actually do damage.

There is no need to go all "OMG!! LIKE we're all toatly gonna go shariah" panic paranoia mood in UK, so chill.



Oh, also regarding USA's separation of church and state: you cannot really talk about separation of church and state when the president's main adviser is a whacked priest who thinks that God apointed the president, and the president himself thinks that God speaks to him, that everything he does is blessed by God, when he pushes laws binding for ALL citizens solely based on morals of one holy book and calls the country a CHRISTIAN country ... and all that.
There is no separation there. That is a living breathing full time marriage between state and church.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:11 PM
link   
mhmm.

Does any of this ring a bell anyone?

It's only a matter of time before they start putting muslims in concentration camps.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Syrian Sister
mhmm.

Does any of this ring a bell anyone?

It's only a matter of time before they start putting muslims in concentration camps.


I think that's a little melodramatic. We don't live in times where you can block out what you're doing. The Net has made the world a very small place.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:44 PM
link   
Just for further clarification on this, would one of those parties being considered for banning be the Muslim Association of Britain?

Anyone know?






seekerof



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Just for further clarification on this, would one of those parties being considered for banning be the Muslim Association of Britain?

Anyone know?

Seekerof


I've not seen this on any of this lists.
I think it would be almost suicidal by Blair to even suggest such a thing since the MAoB have been attempting to stop terrorism and Anti-British views growing in the U.K.

They were also one of the first groups to denounce acts of terrorism in Spain, the U.K. and America - however they never got the media attention they deserved.



posted on Aug, 6 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Side note:

There is no legal Seperation between the Church of England and the British Parliament. The CoE actually has members in the House of Lords automatically.



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 12:14 AM
link   
This is certainly an interesting development in the UK...
Excuse me for my ignorance - I don't keep up with British politics, but I thought Blair was a liberal, am I wrong?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
This is certainly an interesting development in the UK...
Excuse me for my ignorance - I don't keep up with British politics, but I thought Blair was a liberal, am I wrong?



Its not the same in Britain. We don't have bipartisan "liberal" and "conservative" lines. In Parliament there are three main groups, Labour (Tony Bluurrrgh), the Conservatives (Michael Howard, for now) and the Liberal democrats (under Ginger Charles). Then you have maybe a dozen or so other minor parties with a few members here and there, such as Respect (George galloway) and a few NI parties, like the DUP and Sinn fein.

So in short, the political landscape of the UK is diverse and a patchwork, with no clear dividing lines between "Liberal" and "Conservative".



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 02:37 AM
link   
I'd love to be in on the household conversations between well known Human Rights Lawyer Cherie Blair and her husband Tony Blair ....



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:11 AM
link   
As a Brit,i must agree with Tony Blair and Spliff4020.I do admit that we shouldn't put all Islamics under one banner,since like in the Christian faiths,there are different denominations.However,we do have to start somewhere and what Tony has done,is the only logical place to start.

Some Muslims,see Allah,as we see God,creator,protector and the beginning of everything we know.But,then another faction as well.These are the ones that believe Allah wants everyone who is not a follower, destroyed.Through this,they think that by killing,women,children and innocent people,will make them martyrs.THESE,are the cowards,we need to find in England.

I've seen many posts,on different sites,comparing us to Nazi's.We are not, and it is really beginning to piss us Brit's off.In the early 1930's,when the Nazi party started,they were like cloak and dagger,similar to a secret society.They held rallies in secret,hid their swastikas under lapells and covered up any sign of affiliation.But as the party grew,the armbands, badges and colours appeared,until it exploded into what became,the third Reich,or Nazi Germany.By the time the world realised what was happening,it was too late.Many of the German's who weren't Nazi's, gradually turned around,and willingly became them.Then,when strong,they took everything they could.Of course,you had people like Field Marshall Irwin Romell.He wore the uniform,he did whatever the Furher or the high command told him,but did so because he was a soldier,and not a Nazi.


What happened in Germany in the 1920's to 1930's,could now happen within the Islamic communities.Radicals within there,could change the face of,not only the middle east,but the world.It's already beginning.We have to stop it now,which is what Blair is trying to do in England.At the moment,these "terrorists" are mingled within citizens of all countries,which is why they are called,"sleepers".They are peoples neighbours,colleagues,bosses,friends,etc,but will kill everyone they know,when the time is to their liking.

So we have to root them out,in whatever way we can.We don't know who or where they are,and those in their community,are certainly not pointing them out.So,we do it the only logical way and it's starting now.The only other way,is to wait till they attack and kill,then try and catch them,and that is not even for consideration.

Recently,three people were arrested,for knowing about the recent bombs that failed.They knew,but didn't help their fellow citizens,by telling authorities.This makes them "accessories after the fact".They need to be tried,imprisoned,then on release,semt back to where they came from,PERIOD!!!!

[edit on 29/07/2005 by britcitusa]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 03:31 AM
link   
I'm no fan of Tony Blair, but this has to be a step in the right direction Britain has more Mujahidin Islamic Terrorists willing to take up arms against us than any other western nation 20% of the Mujahadin in Europe live in Britain, allowing them an official political platform is extremly dangerous, I welcome these moves but fear tougher measures are a bit late in the day, the damage has already been done. our Asylum system has allowed all the racist bigots to infiltrate our once free land. How did they let this happen?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 05:31 AM
link   
I'd like to see some evidence that states 20% of the "mudjahadin" are based in Britain. Do they all register with the Foreign Office or something?

Also would you prefer that these mudjahadin continue with their violent struggle rather than through peaceful political means? After all, these political parties have committed no crime. Tony Blair has no justification for shutting down political parties. He never shut down Sinn Fein and look how that situation panned out.

We are repeating the mistakes of the early 20th century. Tony Blair is contradicting his sterling efforts of resolving the Northern Ireland troubles when he supresses legitimate political parties.

I would much rather we continue to root out violent terrorists and preachers of hate BUT allow them a peaceful political alternative. That way the disenfranchised can consider going to these peaceful political parties or to the terrorists.

That will result in a reduced amount of terrorists because we allow that party to remain open. Not the other way around.

[edit on 7/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:17 AM
link   
[edit on 7-8-2005 by hands]

[edit on 7-8-2005 by hands]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
(snipped)

Also would you prefer that these mudjahadin continue with their violent struggle rather than through peaceful political means? After all, these political parties have committed no crime. Tony Blair has no justification for shutting down political parties. He never shut down Sinn Fein and look how that situation panned out.

I would much rather we continue to root out violent terrorists and preachers of hate BUT allow them a peaceful political alternative. That way the disenfranchised can consider going to these peaceful political parties or to the terrorists.

(snipped)
[edit on 7/8/05 by subz]


Trying again!

Subz,

But what purpose do these political parties serve? What is their raison d'etre?

The purpose of Sinn Fein / IRA has always been clear to me (whether or not I agree with them doesn't matter - their reason for existence wasn't as fuzzy as I find these islamic parties) but the reason for the existence for these political parties isn't.

Is it purely a matter for arguing for a change to foreign policy - why can't they engage with exisiting political parties for that? Not everyone in the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties takes the party line. Or is it something more fundamental about the nature of our society they want to change?

What is it?



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 06:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by hands
(snipped)
What is it?

Well you see, in a democracy you allow any one to do what ever they choose and to believe what ever they want so long as they abide by the law. These political parties have not broken the law so as far as I am concerned they can do what they choose.

When we start dishing out extra-judicial treatment to those we dont share ideals with we cease to be a democratic country.

Aside from that justification for my stance on this issue I see peaceful political parties as a dampner on terrorism. If we allow disenfranchised and marginalized muslims a legitimate and peaceful voice we will reduce the amount of people the radical muslims can recruit from.

OK?

[edit on 7/8/05 by subz]



posted on Aug, 7 2005 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by hands

Originally posted by subz
(snipped)

Also would you prefer that these mudjahadin continue with their violent struggle rather than through peaceful political means? After all, these political parties have committed no crime. Tony Blair has no justification for shutting down political parties. He never shut down Sinn Fein and look how that situation panned out.

I would much rather we continue to root out violent terrorists and preachers of hate BUT allow them a peaceful political alternative. That way the disenfranchised can consider going to these peaceful political parties or to the terrorists.

(snipped)
[edit on 7/8/05 by subz]


Trying again!

Subz,

But what purpose do these political parties serve? What is their raison d'etre?

The purpose of Sinn Fein / IRA has always been clear to me (whether or not I agree with them doesn't matter - their reason for existence wasn't as fuzzy as I find these islamic parties) but the reason for the existence for these political parties isn't.

Is it purely a matter for arguing for a change to foreign policy - why can't they engage with exisiting political parties for that? Not everyone in the Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties takes the party line. Or is it something more fundamental about the nature of our society they want to change?

What is it?


You could ask, what was the raison d'etre of the Monster Raving Loony Party. Their aims and goals where "fuzzy", but just beacuse you don't want crocodiles in the Thames etc etc doesn't mean you can just ban them.

They have broken no law. Unless of course you make up a new one.........




top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join