Muslims against crusades - BANNED (UK)

page: 3
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by khimbar
Your comments are full of question-begging assertions, but there appears to be little of substance to corroborate them.

What do you base this on ?

Once again, you have made a big claim without backing it up with cold, hard facts.


Very clever.



I'm not arguing with myself.
But I'm just going to italicise my original quotes, and then reply to you with the basis for my original comments.

''The MAC have only about 200 members.''

Their protests don't usually have more than 200 people, should I say. News reports will verify this, and in most cases they struggle to have 50 in attendance.

''The general reaction hasn't been, ''look at those backwardass, knuckle-dragging MAC members'', but more of an increase in hostility towards the 99.9% of British Muslims who don't belong to the MAC.''

Look at the comment sections of any media outlet reporting stories about the MAC.

In fact, search ATS, and you'll find more than one thread - including this one - which devolves from an OP surrounding this fringe group, into a general rant from some members against Muslims.

Note, in particular, the use of the words ''they'' and ''them'', and the lack of direct association which these terms have to the group in question.

''The same will have happened in Muslim communities with the EDL. They'll see hostile, aggressive demonstrations from white people, which will lead to a more isolationist response within their communities for protection, and more suspicion towards the vast majority of white English people who don't share the EDL views.''

That's human nature. It's a survival instinct to move closer to the group who you identify with in cases of conflict.

Safety in numbers provides security if you are threatened. This is all pretty basic stuff.

For a particularly relevant example, you could look into the history of Bengali street gangs in the East End of London, who were formed to protect themselves from frequent attacks by skinheads and the National Front in the 1970s. Or, for that matter, you could look through the countless other examples throughout history of oppressed or threatened people solidifying group identity in the face of adversity.

''Islamophobia does occur in the Hindu and Sikh communities as well, so it's not surprising that there are a few Asians who join the group.''

I suggest you research the history of India.

''It's because most minorities are descended from less than affluent immigrants, and consequently tend to reside in some of the more high-crime areas of British cities.''

As much as I'd love to post a thorough history of each minority group's immigration history, I haven't got the time, nor the inclination to do so - especially as I would just be stating the obvious.

But, in summary:

The post-WWII influx of immigrants from the ex-colonies were largely housed in council accommodation in the less affluent areas of cities, and they generally filled low-wage jobs.

Their children and grandchildren, unless they have managed to gain financial success, still populate these areas in large numbers.

You don't think that the large percentage of black people living in Lambeth or Walthamstow are the descendants of affluent West Indian immigrants, do you ?




posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flyer
Surely people like this should be deported if found guilty,

If they hate the UK so much, why the # are they here?


It's rather difficult to deport British people.

We don't transport people to Australia any more.


edit on 10-11-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Yep, a world of mutually exclusive ideologies without any pressure release spot, and a group of elites forcing them to accept each other on a neighbourhood level - but only in certain areas where the people aren't too violent.

It is awesome. A real brilliant long term plan.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
60 Shariah nations. Lots to choose from. One or two of them don't completely suck.


60 Sharia nations ? There are only 50 majority Muslim countries and territories in the world, and half of them don't even use Sharia Law.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Aeons
60 Shariah nations. Lots to choose from. One or two of them don't completely suck.


60 Sharia nations ? There are only 50 majority Muslim countries and territories in the world, and half of them don't even use Sharia Law.



Don't believe me? Go look up all the nations part of the OIC and are considered to be guided by the Cario Declaration of Human Rights In Islam.

My objections to Islam and its sociopolitical ideologies is not based on websites.
edit on 2011/11/10 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 02:54 PM
link   
reply to post by overseer1136
 


after travelling around india and the syrrounding area a great deal and meeting a lot of wonderful people i came to asking questions. top question was " what would you like to see happen here(in india) " and the answer was always for the british to still be in control, the reasons being that the infrastructure is failing which was installed by the british, there is massive wide spread corruption at all levels, the british ruled with an iron fist but also a fair fist they tried to abolish the cast system and tried to stamp out local corporal punishment. most indian people are exceptionally friendly and hard working but have a zest for life wich is hard for any westerner to understand



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:02 PM
link   
While i agree with this move whole-heartedly i dont like where this is heading now the government is going to start banning groups? this goes against everything i stand for im sorry its every mans right to belong to what ever group they like no one has any right to tell me i cannot be in the KKK or the black panthers or even AARP now i know this makes no sense because i support the British doing this yet in the same breath i say its pure evil to do so but thats a personal flaw with me and my feelings towards Muslims in general
i would much rather see the British government round them up like we do the Mexicans and send them back where they came from not infringe on their right to do what ever they want as long as nobody gets hurt either take the step and kick them out or shut up and live with it as far as im concerned.

Go ahead attack me call me racist (again personal flaw) call me foolish heck you can even call me sally if you must but to outlaw a group is something i never thought i would see in the modern free world countries it looks to me like its just one more step in the wrong direction

I can drive 10 miles and join the crypts or bloods or the Latin kings or the Aryan brotherhood and they have killed more US citizens than any Muslim ever dreamed of but yet its not illegal to be in these groups and they proudly flash colors and signs, so either racism towards Muslims is the culprit or im missing something. how about the governments sack up and just admit it if your Muslim and we dont like your fundamentals your heading back to the sand

PS: i dont hate all Muslims just the ones who want me dead the others are fine and i do enjoy conversation with them and do so on a regular basis not all of them are "evil" as we are lead to believe



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Immune
 


Did you just compare tolerating Islam to not being able to stomp out criminal violent gangs?

Tell me, if one of those gangs made it the stated mission of their group or the well monied of their group was to displace your government....do you think you'd be slightly more concerned?
edit on 2011/11/10 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immune
i would much rather see the British government round them up like we do the Mexicans and send them back where they came from


In most cases, ''sending them back to where they came from'' would be a cheap exercise, as it would likely they come from somewhere like London, Birmingham, Leeds, Luton, Nottingham, Burnley, Oldham or Bradford.


That reminds me of the old joke from Lenny Henry, the black British comedian:

"Enoch Powell wants to give us £1,000 to go home. Suits me. It only costs me 50p to get to Dudley."



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by PsykoOps
Freedom and liberty for everyone! Free speech and expression! Yippeee (does not apply to you if you are of the islamic faiths).


You certainly apply your sarcasm with a very wide brush.
There is no proposal for eliminating Islam, just the hateful, disruptive, and destructive actions of the particular group.
Any country with common sense would do so.
Deutschland has made the Nazi Party illegal. Are you condoning the free speech and expression
for the Nazi Party as well (Yipeee indeed
).
edit on 10-11-2011 by Violater1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Don't believe me? Go look up all the nations part of the OIC and are considered to be guided by the Cario Declaration of Human Rights In Islam.

My objections to Islam and its sociopolitical ideologies is not based on websites.


Firstly, at least a third of the members aren't Islamic countries ( Guyana is only about 10% Muslim, for a start
).

Secondly, the declaration isn't some legally binding document, just as the UN Declaration of Human Rights isn't taken seriously by its signatories.

Thirdly, in majority Muslim countries who don't have Sharia Law, any personal use of Sharia would be legally punishable if it violated the secular laws of the country.

edit on 10-11-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:22 PM
link   
MAC and other similar groups are small fry compared to what the real villains in this country, ie the government and their sponsors, get up to. If they really want peace and justice they should all combine and take on the real threats to us all, they should take on those who are robbing us of everything so they can continue their evil projects. Projects which coincidentally created the conditions which groups like MAC thrive in. Our leaders have invaded their ancestors homelands, bombed and desecrated their towns and robbed their resources. Can you really blame them for having issues? Western policy has created many enemies for us all. I wish all sides concerned would realise who the real evil is in all of this and focus their attentions on them, and that the people of this nation fighting amongst themselves accomplishes nothing for us and plays right into the elite's hands.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Aeons
 

I do see your point but hear me out on this
Now we have to think this out do you honestly think they could overthrow the British government? I dont, the non Islamic British citizens still outnumber the Islamic citizens by a large margin and if they eventually do start to outnumber them then yes Sharia law will happen but if it ever gets to that point the thing that will allow it would be democracy meaning the majority of the citizens determine who and how they want to be ruled over (after which im sure democracy would be finished)

And by the way
www.darkgovernment.com...
Look at all the groups in the US whose mission it is to be prepared to overthrow the government in the event something goes in a way they do not like (not all on the list want to overthrow but read up on them alot of them carefully word their descriptions as to not incite violence but imply they can and will) and its not illegal to be a member of these groups.

i forgot OWS they want to overthrow the government AND our economic system isn't that 2 strikes against them we better ban that group to
edit on 11/10/2011 by Immune because: forgot the most important group of OWS



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by Aeons
Don't believe me? Go look up all the nations part of the OIC and are considered to be guided by the Cario Declaration of Human Rights In Islam.

My objections to Islam and its sociopolitical ideologies is not based on websites.


Firstly, at least a third of the members aren't Islamic countries ( Guyana is only about 10% Muslim, for a start
).

Secondly, the declaration isn't some legally binding document, just as the UN Declaration of Human Rights isn't taken seriously by its signatories.

Thirdly, in majority Muslim countries who don't have Sharia Law, any personal use of Sharia would be legally punishable if it violated the secular laws of the country.

edit on 10-11-2011 by Sherlock Holmes because: (no reason given)


Ah. Human Rights and statements of belief specifically laid out as foundational are utterly unimportant.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Nothing matters, and certainly not what you are freely told about foundational beliefs.

Can you inform my poor stupid brain what does matter then? Since laws, signed legislation, foundational documents of intent, religious leaders, political leaders, and everything else is just bunk?

Thanks, I'd appreciate that.
edit on 2011/11/10 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Immune
I dont, the non Islamic British citizens still outnumber the Islamic citizens by a large margin and if they eventually do start to outnumber them then yes Sharia law will happen but if it ever gets to that point the thing that will allow it would be democracy meaning the majority of the citizens determine who and how they want to be ruled over (after which im sure democracy would be finished)


There's no possibility of Muslims becoming a majority in Britain. Even if they theoretically did become a majority, then it would be the most Westernised Muslim country in the world, and most of the adherents would have a more laissez-faire approach to their religion, and they would have no interest in imposing Sharia Law.

Only 6 countries in the world have executions based on Islamic rules. Half of all majority Muslim countries don't have Sharia Law and most of them don't have or use the death penalty.

If countries with 90%+ Muslim population aren't even interested in having Sharia Law, then why would a majority Muslim Western European country elect to have it ?


The only people who are interested in having full Sharia Law, are the control freaks who would be able to enforce it.

Given the choice between comparative freedom in the West and rigid, authoritarian religious law, then most people, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, would opt for the former. It's a no-brainer.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Ah. FULL Shariah law.

You see, he isn't being fully honest here. The "secular" law is highly influenced by Shariah concepts.

They are dual systems, in which civilian affairs are guided by Shariah courts, and then there is legislated law which is "secular" but largely influenced by Shariah.


Further, the Western nations legal systems have all been looking at using Interntional legal standards from which to set precedent. Including International Islamic Law. So what he is saying is not true. There is an attempt at using International Islamic Law as one of the points for legal precedent at one end, and on the other for it to become an influence on civilian law through civilian courts, and a third point in changing common law standards using precedent based on the other two.

That's all without ever touching your legislative branch at all.

Truth. It'll set you free.
edit on 2011/11/10 by Aeons because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sherlock Holmes

Originally posted by mr-lizard
How far do they want to push us? English people are a very tolerant people, but you shouldn't push us.


''You'' shouldn't push us ?!


Anjem Choudary and the Muslims Against Crusades are English, too ( although not very tolerant ).

This decision is long overdue, as the MAC are nothing more than real-life trolls, stirring the pot and spewing religious hatred.

You've got to love the fact that Choudary was playing the ''democracy card'' when it suits him.


When are people going to learn that nationality is a frame of mind. Just because a person is born in a country it doesn't make then that nationality. If these people were English they wouldn't be anti English. We get the same thing here is Aus. The do gooders call these muslims Australian as these muslims burn our flag and spit on Australian idiology.

I had a South African who was in the Army with me. He had an Aussie flag tattoo and loved the country. He was an Aussie. Just because they're born there doesn't make them truly of that nationality and they only view themselves as that nationality when trying to get off a charge in a court room.
edit on 10-11-2011 by steveknows because: Typo



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:49 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


I love the old joke and it definitely fits the situation but it also promotes my point that most of these people are British CITIZENS who are being told you cannot be in this group, If it was just a bunch of immigrants in Britain on a visa i could understand the step but its not the case. You cannot outlaw someones beliefs (unless you are are in and Islamic country cause they really dont like Christians) nor can you prosecute someone for a crime they have not committed or at least made an effort to even start.
Talking trash is not a crime if it was i would be in jail because i would love to overthrow the US government and start over but until i load the gun and take a drive or try to buy Ricin its just trash talk and thats not a crime



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 03:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Sherlock Holmes
 


That was my point. it will not happen so to outlaw a group because we fear it could happen is just silly.



posted on Nov, 10 2011 @ 04:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
Ah. Human Rights and statements of belief specifically laid out as foundational are utterly unimportant.

Thank you for clarifying that for me.

Nothing matters, and certainly not what you are freely told about foundational beliefs.

Can you inform my poor stupid brain what does matter then? Since laws, signed legislation, foundational documents of intent, religious leaders, political leaders, and everything else is just bunk?


It's not a question of whether it's important or not. I am just stating that the articles in the UN Declaration of Human Rights are merely a guideline and not legally binding, hence why just about every country who has signed or ratified it has - either currently or historically - flouted at least one of the fundamental principles outlined in the UNDHR, since agreeing to adopt it.

I don't see why you appear to think that the OIC version is going to be taken as some rigid, all-encompassing document by its signatories, when - in all intents and purposes - it just appears to be a childish riposte to the UNDHR.

As I've also mentioned, about a third of the OIC members aren't even Muslim-majority countries, so they're not going to have much luck enforcing any kind of Islamic law - even if they wanted to.

Out of the remaining countries, many of them are secular, such as Turkey, Albania and the ex-USSR republics, so again, any Sharia-friendly law would be a no-no.





new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join