Poppy-burning Muslim protesters mar Armistice Day commemorations as millions fall

page: 39
70
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doujutsu

Originally posted by KingDoey
reply to post by GrumpyBadger
 


Riddle me this then... Why were six EDL members arrested in gateshead for burning a Qu'ran recently? Surely this is just them demonstrating their freedom of speech too?


Those EDL members were arrested for a good reason otherwise the black and asian muslim youths would have been on the streets looking to cause trouble.

Looking at how multi-cultural Britain has become, a full-scale race war would finish this country and the authorities know that very well.


Ok then,

So why wern't the extremists arrested the other day then? It is EXACTLY the same. I know plenty of people from my way that were keen to go and smash up the local mosque as a result of the other day.

They are alienating themselves quickly and for many (myself included) there is no going back from the events on Armistice Day.

They will get their dues.




posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 04:44 PM
link   
reply to post by GrumpyBadger
 


I appreciate the effort put into your reply and of course there is more than an element of truth in what you have posted, but the question still remains; what shold we have done?

Should we have left Saddam in power and compounded our previous mistakes and allow him to commit horrific acts of brutality against his own people and his enemies, allow him to try and bully and dominate the region and to institutionalise his extremely brutal family as the legitimate regime?

Should we have allowed The Taliban to stay in power and continue with their particularly barbaric, repressive and unforgiving brand of Islam/
Should we have allowed them to continue training terrorists who were intent to murder any number of innocent people throughout the world?
Should we have allowed The Taliban to spread their sphere of influnce into Pakistan and risk them gaining control of their nuclear arsenal and thus risk major or even nuclear confrontation with India?

Of course we have been mislead and lied to by our leaders.
And yes, some horrific crimes have been committed in our name.
And for them the guilty should be held accountable.

But I ask again, what shouod we have done?
Because doing nothing would have been a bigger crime and a far more dangerous course of action.

But still, that bears no relevance to the topic of this thread.
Those protesters showed immense disrespect on a solemn commemoration of those that have served our country.
That those self same protesters demand complete and total respect for any of their observations yet offer nothing but contempt in return has been seen as a massive insult by many.

What is hard about that to understand?



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


Obviously I'm not calling you a blowhard as I know you've seen combat and I presume you wouldn't want to have to do it again for anything but the most serious of matters, it has nothing to do with sex you could say it's a name for a keyboard tough guy, you recognise the type.

Much much closer and more hated than Nottingham, why did you guess Nottingham by the way



posted on Nov, 16 2010 @ 07:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Yissachar1
 


How many US Marines does it take to guard "Big Pharma's" Poppy Fields? And the Lithium?

What a pack of Idiot's!



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 04:57 AM
link   
reply to post by Blue_Jay33
 


You want me to show respect for politicians who don't even know the meaning of such words?
Did you even read what I wrote? My Grandad was a WW2 veteran and I am in complete support of everything he did, but please don't think for one moment that he has anything in common with the soldiers of today. He defended his country. Todays soldiers are nothing more than self deluded mercenaries, serving a morally corrupt government.
I won't even mention the phony manufactured wars in Iraq or Afghanistan.To do so is to drag my Grandad's name into the gutter. Only an idiot would sacrifice themselves on the word of Tony Blair or George Bush, but unfortunately there's plenty of soldiers willing to do so.



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by stumason
 


You truly are brainwashed. Who the hell do you think put Saddam Hussein in power in the first place? Who did we topple? The puppet governnemt the west installed. Where do you get off claiming the moral high ground, especially when those you defend don't have any morals or ethics.
What sacrifices have you made? Lost any family members during this phony war? I did'nt think so.
Try telling that to the 100,000 Iraquis who have.
edit on 17-11-2010 by kindred because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 17 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
What should we have done?

It starts with the ends of World Wars I and II. The winners split up the Middle East along colonial regions into countries in a way that did not respect local tribes and ethnic groups. The Kurds are one example, split between Turkey and Iraq. Iraq is another example, pooling warring Shiites and Sunnis together into one country. It required someone like Saddam to keep the country together. The only reason Iraq still exists, is because the ethnic cleansing was partly successful, and people aren't so much living next door to people they hate. Bush had negative ulterior motives for starting that war that had little to do with helping oppressed people.

The next big thing was the recreation of Israel in a brutal manner out of Palestine. That should never have happened, as prophesied by scriptures as it was. Israel only exists now because the U.S. and Britain supported the Zionists. Now it is an unsolvable mess. No matter how much the Jewish people suffered in the Holocaust, that does not give them any excuse to mistreat other people, who had nothing to do with it. But we can't just tell them to leave, now - it has gone way too far.

And the 9/11 and Taliban issue in Afghanistan was an overreaction to what should have been a police matter. All that we have succeeded in doing is to create many more terrorists than there were before. However badly the Taliban and associated religious extremists treated the general population, we have ultimately not helped the matter by going to war. It needed to be up to the oppressed population to eventually rise up against their oppressors. And, after all of that, have we captured Bin Laden?

Yes, the nukes in Pakistan and India are a dangerous problem, but I believe that we have only made things worse in the way that we have gone into the region.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by GrumpyBadger
 


Should we have allowed The Taliban to stay in power and continue with their particularly barbaric, repressive and unforgiving brand of Islam/
Should we have allowed them to continue training terrorists who were intent to murder any number of innocent people throughout the world?
Should we have allowed The Taliban to spread their sphere of influnce into Pakistan and risk them gaining control of their nuclear arsenal and thus risk major or even nuclear confrontation with India?


You know it funny that we tell muslims to go back to their own land if they want to practise sharia law yet we are busy trying to install secular democracy through wars and sanctions in their countries.We control their governments and if they don't listen to us we will annihilate them in every way possible.If they try getting their hands on nuclear tech than we will bomb the holy crap out of them.If countries like Iran and libya acquire nuclear weapons we will finish them.

Hypocrisy and double standards?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:30 AM
link   
reply to post by sorgfelt
 


At last someone at least tries to answer the question 'what should we have done?' because for all the criticism of recent events in the M.E. very few people actually have even a slightest idea of what we should have done.

Yes, the root of the problem does, at least in part, lie in the division of the region after WWI & II.
But even then there was no easy answer and no solution would have pleased everyone, all would probably have led to some sort of confrontation eventually.

The formation of Israel compounded the situation, but again, what was the alternative?
Bear in mind that the newly formed United Nations Partition Plan proposed the division of Palestine into two seperate states - one Jewish, one Arab with Jerusalem becoming an 'international city' governed by the fledgling UN.
The Jews ageed to this proposal, even the terrorists.
It was The Arabs and Palestnians who rejected this plan - a fact most people conveniently forget or ignore.

Saddam was out of contol and could not be allowed to establish a dynasty.
The brutalities of his regime were obscene and an affront to humanity.
The lies we were told in a attempt to legalise and justify his removal were beyond reproach and those guilty should be held accountable.
That they also had another, supposely hidden agenda is beyond doubt.
But bear in mind that we were initially greeted with open arms by the vast majority of Iraqi people who despised Saddam's tyrannical regime.
Once we had removed Saddam was when the real mistakes were made.
A very good explanation of how it all subsequently went wrong is the BBC documentary Secret Iraq.
www.youtube.com...
There are 4 parts to each episode.
I thoroughly recommend anyone who really wants to understand recent and current events in Iraq to watch it all.

As previously explained, we had no option at all to go into in Afghanistan.
Unfortunately we were again lied to as to the reasons why?
And again, as before, as well as the moral and political reasons I am sure there are other less altruistic reasons for Western intervention.
And again unfortunately, we don't seem to have learnt from the mistakes we made in Iraq and seem hell bent on alienating and making enemies of the local population who initially welcomed us.

People are quick to criticise but again I ask, what alternatives did we have?

And again, where is the relevance with the disgraceful actions of these protesters?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 06:48 AM
link   
reply to post by Doujutsu
 


Who is telling Muslims to go back to their own countries?
The majority of Muslims here in the UK are second or even third generation; this is their country.
That they can't let go speaks volumes about them and not the country that has welcomed them with open arms and afforded them all the same rights and benefits as anyone else.
That they then use those rights to publicly disrespect the self same people who fought for those rights and benefits makes their disrespect even harder to stomach.
And on top of that they demand complete and total respect for their observations yet would deny me the right.

Yes indeed, hypocrisy and double standards.

If you are looking for intolerance and bigotry you are looking in the wrong direction, look at those you seek to blindly defend.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Doujutsu
 


Who is telling Muslims to go back to their own countries?
The majority of Muslims here in the UK are second or even third generation; this is their country.
That they can't let go speaks volumes about them and not the country that has welcomed them with open arms and afforded them all the same rights and benefits as anyone else.
That they then use those rights to publicly disrespect the self same people who fought for those rights and benefits makes their disrespect even harder to stomach.
And on top of that they demand complete and total respect for their observations yet would deny me the right.

Yes indeed, hypocrisy and double standards.

If you are looking for intolerance and bigotry you are looking in the wrong direction, look at those you seek to blindly defend.


You have deflected my point i made in my previous post.Many indigineous Britains feel that if the muslims want to follow sharia law, eat hallal and build more mosques and madrassas (islamic schools) than they should go back to their own countries.And we also know majority muslims will only intergrate to a certain extent.

But how can these people go back to their own countries where the West is somehow interupting to install secular democracy and millitary bases? Why are these people denied from acquiring nuclear and biological weapons? Why should muslim countries follow what the West dictates to them?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 


The mention of sherwood forest. You are not a dingle are you?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Doujutsu
 


And you expect me to be a spokesperson for a nation?
Sorry to disappoint but I am neither willing or able to.

And you judge the majority on the opinions of a small minority yet how so do you complain when the 'majority' Muslims are judged by the actions of the 'minority' extremists.
Hypocrisy and double standards yet again methinks!

As for the spread of nuclear weapons, never heard of this?
en.wikipedia.org...
After being initially proposed by those pillars of Western decadence Ireland and Finland, 189 nations signed up for it including those well known puppets of the UK / US, China and Russia.

As an aside, I personally believe every effort should be made to enable cheap, clean and safe nuclear power to every single nation and our governments should be providing extra resource into the development of nuclear fusion as a priority.
edit on 18/11/10 by Freeborn because: keyboard still knackered



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by Doujutsu
 


And you expect me to be a spokesperson for a nation?
Sorry to disappoint but I am neither willing or able to.

And you judge the majoity on the opinions of a small minority yet how so do you complain when the 'majoity' Muslims are judged by the actions of the 'minority' extremists.
Hypocisy and double standards yet again methinks!


Again you try deflect! So majority muslims don't eat halal, believe in Sharia law and send their kids to mosques, madrasas and islamic schools? The small minority extremists want to wage war against the West while the majority muslims just want to live peacefully and intergrate to a limit with the hosts.



As for the spread of nuclear weapons, never heard of this? en.wikipedia.org...


NNPT not signed by israel and no wars or sanctions have been threatened against it.It is given free $Bills of aid to increase its nuclear arsenal.



As an aside, I personally believe every effort should be made to enable cheap, clean and safe nuclear power to every single nation and our governments should be providing extra resource into the development of nuclear fusion as a priority.


Whats wrong with Islamic nations acquiring nukes for millitary purpose?



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Yissachar1
reply to post by Thepreye
 


The mention of sherwood forest. You are not a dingle are you?


We are Wolf Men Mighty Wolf Men, do you call us dingles, well you know what I said to my old man when he said be an Albion Fan, as it happens he was a bit of a ***t and he didn't like bananas



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 08:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doujutsu

Again you try deflect! So majority muslims don't eat halal, believe in Sharia law and send their kids to mosques, madrasas and islamic schools? The small minority extremists want to wage war against the West while the majority muslims just want to live peacefully and intergrate to a limit with the hosts.


Exactly what is your point?

The majoity of UK citizens do not say that Muslims should go 'home'.
You are judging the majority by the actions of a minority yet protest if / when the same reasoning is applied to Muslims.
Clearly hypocrisy and double standards.

If you are asking should Muslims abide by the laws of this land then yes they should.
Should they be allowed to follow their own customs and traditions?
Of course they should, as long as no laws are being broken.
But if there is conflict then the laws of the land takes precedent.

And I personally believe that they should also treat our traditions with the same respect that we afford them.

Surely that's not expecting too much, is it?



NNPT not signed by israel and no wars or sanctions have been threatened against it.It is given free $Bills of aid to increase its nuclear arsenal.


And exactly the same applies to Pakistan.
Your point is?
And as for aid just where would Pakistan be without UK aid?



Whats wrong with Islamic nations acquiring nukes for millitary purpose?


No more countries should have nuclear weapons regardless of politically ideaology; the more that have them the more likely they will be used again, something I'm sure you would agree none of us want.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 09:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn

Originally posted by Doujutsu


Exactly what is your point?


My point is that as the islamic population grows in UK they will do as they like within the laws.But majority of the British people have had enough of their culture and towns becoming more 'islamified'.Hence you have racist groups like EDL, BNP, NF,UKIP,ED, Green Arrow, stromfront etc etc who are funded and supported by the indigineous Brits.We know islamic nutters only exist in a few dozens but these groups use them to further their agenda regarding 'islamification'.I mean would you be happy if more Saudi funded madrasas and huge mosques are built in UK as long as all the laws are followed and applied?

Which ultimately means if you tell the muslims to go back and do as they like with their countries than they can turn around and say 'well mate maybe you should get out of our countries too and let us practise our religion to its full extent'.

Or would you still stick to 'muslims can do anything they want as long as none of the laws are broken'?



And exactly the same applies to Pakistan.


So is india, but them both countries are a threat to each other.And we also know the amount of pressure pakistan has faced and still faces regarding it's nuclear arsenal.Pakistan doesn't recognise israel's existance in ME and do you really think pakistan won't be threatened once it acquires or develops long-range missiles that can cover israel? As we already know the reason why iraq was attacked was to secure israel and the reason why iran faces sanctions and war threats because israel feels it won't be the big boss of ME anymore if Iran acquires nukes.



And as for aid just where would Pakistan be without UK aid?


Which is used to keep the Pakistani leadership corrupt to it's core.



No more countries should have nuclear weapons regardless of politically ideaology; the more that have them the more likely they will be used again, something I'm sure you would agree none of us want.


I disagree, with nuclear weapons no nation will go around attacking another nation and it will form an equilibrium no matter how advanced other nations become with their millitary tech.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doujutsu

Originally posted by Freeborn

Originally posted by Doujutsu


Exactly what is your point?


My point is that as the islamic population grows in UK they will do as they like within the laws.But majority of the British people have had enough of their culture and towns becoming more 'islamified'.Hence you have racist groups like EDL, BNP, NF,UKIP,ED, Green Arrow, stromfront etc etc who are funded and supported by the indigineous Brits.We know islamic nutters only exist in a few dozens but these groups use them to further their agenda regarding 'islamification'.I mean would you be happy if more Saudi funded madrasas and huge mosques are built in UK as long as all the laws are followed and applied?

Which ultimately means if you tell the muslims to go back and do as they like with their countries than they can turn around and say 'well mate maybe you should get out of our countries too and let us practise our religion to its full extent'.

Or would you still stick to 'muslims can do anything they want as long as none of the laws are broken'?



And exactly the same applies to Pakistan.


So is india, but them both countries are a threat to each other.And we also know the amount of pressure pakistan has faced and still faces regarding it's nuclear arsenal.Pakistan doesn't recognise israel's existance in ME and do you really think pakistan won't be threatened once it acquires or develops long-range missiles that can cover israel? As we already know the reason why iraq was attacked was to secure israel and the reason why iran faces sanctions and war threats because israel feels it won't be the big boss of ME anymore if Iran acquires nukes.



And as for aid just where would Pakistan be without UK aid?


Which is used to keep the Pakistani leadership corrupt to it's core.



No more countries should have nuclear weapons regardless of politically ideaology; the more that have them the more likely they will be used again, something I'm sure you would agree none of us want.


I disagree, with nuclear weapons no nation will go around attacking another nation and it will form an equilibrium no matter how advanced other nations become with their millitary tech.



Biggest laugh I have had all day.


Will reply in greater depth when I have finished work.



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 09:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Thepreye

Originally posted by Yissachar1
reply to post by Thepreye
 


The mention of sherwood forest. You are not a dingle are you?


We are Wolf Men Mighty Wolf Men, do you call us dingles, well you know what I said to my old man when he said be an Albion Fan, as it happens he was a bit of a ***t and he didn't like bananas


I KNEW it!!! Thought I could smell a dingle


Its against the law in my house to be a wwfc supporter. Tesco carrier bags all the way!



posted on Nov, 18 2010 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Doujutsu
My point is that as the islamic population grows in UK they will do as they like within the laws


And do you think that's right?
If so what happens to the 'indiginous' British people?
If not, what should we do?



Which ultimately means if you tell the muslims to go back and do as they like with their countries than they can turn around and say 'well mate maybe you should get out of our countries too and let us practise our religion to its full extent'.


They are free to return any tme they like and I'm sure they are quite free to worship Islam in their own countries, unlike Christians and other non-Islamic religions in some Islamic countries.

And to counter any accusations of me promoting a Christian agenda I'd like to point out that I'm very much agnostic and find the beliefs of all organised religions pretty much pointless.



So is india, but them both countries are a threat to each other.And we also know the amount of pressure pakistan has faced and still faces regarding it's nuclear arsenal.Pakistan doesn't recognise israel's existance in ME and do you really think pakistan won't be threatened once it acquires or develops long-range missiles that can cover israel? As we already know the reason why iraq was attacked was to secure israel and the reason why iran faces sanctions and war threats because israel feels it won't be the big boss of ME anymore if Iran acquires nukes.


But you tried to imply that Israel alone didn't sign NNPT and that they were treat somewhat uniquely, quite clearly they weren't, and there has been no discrimination shown towards Islamic states that chose not to and develop their own nuclear weapons.

You appear to be selective in the presentation of facts.
You then proceed to present your opinion as factual.
We don't know Pakistan will come under pressure if they develop long range missiles.
We don't know Iraq was invaded to secure Israel.
We don't know Iran faces sanctions because of Israel.

And to be honest, none of that should have any bearing on Muslims living in the UK and respecting UK traditions and values.

You seem to be trotting out every percieved injustice to Muslims / Islam by rote in yet another predictable attempt to absolve these extremists of any responsibilty or blame for their actions.



Which is used to keep the Pakistani leadership corrupt to it's core.


Pakistan is corrupt to the core, not just it's leadership.
Corruption is endemic throughout it's society and is present at every level.
That is a cultural issue not a religious one.

And would you feel safe with The Taliban in contol of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal?



I disagree, with nuclear weapons no nation will go around attacking another nation and it will form an equilibrium no matter how advanced other nations become with their millitary tech.


Nonsense, as alluded to above, imagine a world where The Taliban have their finger on the trigger?





new topics
top topics
 
70
<< 36  37  38    40  41 >>

log in

join