Muslim fanatics spouting on British TV: Call for terror, murder and the torture of gay people

page: 6
39
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 01:57 AM
link   
The answer is so simple..............kill them all let their respective gods sort the #ers out!
I & My Family are prepared for what may be comming!




posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:21 AM
link   
i say good, AWESOME

you let them in, you let them control your policy, now YOU get to live with it.


wont be long before you are wearing burkas heh

lets hope those guns protect those poor gays, oh thats right, you dont have any


haha



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 03:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
i say good, AWESOME

you let them in, you let them control your policy, now YOU get to live with it.


I'd hardly say they dictate policy, otherwise why all the Wars they seem to so set against? They are still very much in the minority and will remain so (they only make up 5% of the population - up from 3% in 2001 - so at that rate of growth, it would take them over 200 years to get over 50% of the population.


Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
wont be long before you are wearing burkas heh


Hardly...What reasoning do you base this on?


Originally posted by ~widowmaker~
lets hope those guns protect those poor gays, oh thats right, you dont have any
haha


Typical Yank - poorly informed and thinks everything can be solved with a gun. We actually do have guns, you can legally own a shotgun, rifle or even handguns, but we have never had a pervasive gun culture in the UK so ownership has always been low.
edit on 13/2/13 by stumason because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:07 AM
link   
if they break the law then they should be made to face the same penalties as everyone else !
if they dont abide by the laws of the UK then they should be made to leave and they can freely goto a country where they can exercise their sharia law !

its not right that they expect to be treated as equals yet dont abide by the laws of the UK the same as everyone else !

Our government , judicial system and media should not pander to these people , they need to be forcefully removed if they are shown not to follow our systems , yet they seek to recieve the full benefits that our United Kingdom provides , lets see them removed to a country where they can practice sharia law as they please



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:52 AM
link   
reply to post by happyzodiac
 




What do you expect to happen. Ofcourse the Brits are afraid of the mussies


Why of course?

I personally don't think I know anyone who is 'afraid of the mussies'.

I know some people who dislike what they perceive as creeping Islamification.
I know some people who dislike Islam.
Unfortunately I know a very small minority of people who dislike Muslims.

But the last thing I'd say Brits are of anything or anyone is 'afraid'.

Simply writing about it makes me realise just how juvenile and ridiculous the concept is.



Thats ok because the UK will fall and become totally Muslim


How do you work that out?

The UK will never, ever succomb to Islam and Sharia and even suggesting it displays a complete ignorance of UK society and culture.

Yes, there is a problem with creeping Islamification in some areas of the UK and it needs addressing with a degree of urgency, but the vast majority of the UK is relatively free of any such problems.



This is what happens when you show your stiff upper lip. Shame.


What exactly are you trying to say?
Don't beat about the bush and have the balls to say exactly what you mean.

reply to post by ~widowmaker~
 




you let them in,


Yes, we in the UK have a long and proud tradition and history of welcoming immigrants from beyond our shores - I certainly don't see anything to be ashamed of.



you let them control your policy,


No, we allowed the politicians and PC Brigade - not a good mixture.



now YOU get to live with it.


And we will - and we'll deal with it - to coin a phrase; "Don't panic!".

Don't believe the hype - it's nowhere near as bad as some people would have you believe.....yet.



wont be long before you are wearing burkas heh


If that ever comes to be, which I very much doubt, at least we'll be safe in the knowledge that you Yanks had all long since started wearing sombrero's and poncho's, were all named Juan and called each other essay. [sic]



lets hope those guns protect those poor gays, oh thats right, you dont have any


Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....
So boring
So predictable
So incorrect

Next you'll be coming out with the 'we saved your asses in WWII' bollocks.

I don't know why so many Americans use threads like this just as a vehicle to spout their predictable anti-UK rhetoric but can't you at least try to come up with something original and even slightly humorous?
edit on 13/2/13 by Freeborn because: typo, clarity and grammar



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 06:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by Pinke
Read through this thread, and I think there may be a misunderstanding on what is going on. The dailymail is also not exactly the best source for this type of thing.


The Daily Mail lifted the article almost word for word from the Telegraph.

The Telegraph was reporting rulings made by Ofcom, the communications watchdog.

There is nothing inaccurate or untruthful in this article.


I bolded one issue I have.

Michael Moore isn't technically inaccurate or untruthful most of the time either, but the person makes a decision on what to present and what not to present when building a case ... and it often leads people to less than fair conclusions.

I will give examples of this. Things the Daily Mail could have easily pointed out (all sourced from original article):


Among the shows criticised was Peace TV, co-owned by Dr Zakir Naik

* Except on paper and in the UK Dr. Zakir Naik doesn't own PeaceTV
* Dr. Zakir Naik is also not in the UK, so cannot be prosecuted for hate speech
* Officially PeaceTV is funded by charities based on my research

Not saying I endorse it or the Naik doesn't have a close relationship to the channel, but that's the official position and part of the issue.


He said: ‘If this had happened in a mosque the police would be right in pursuing a criminal investigation. ‘But because they are being broadcast on television channels for some reason there seems to be little appetite for looking into these extreme messages.

* See above, there is no law to prosecute PeaceTV unless it claims to endorse these messages. Fines are in place to prevent channels from claiming no responsibility and blaming the speaker.
* List of actions taken by Ofcom available here; several channels are hit multiple times in the same year just like these ones discussed in the Daily Mail article.


‘If these kind of comments were made against black people, for example, you can imagine a channel being shut down overnight, particularly if they had incited violence against a minority.’

* Little like what happened to www.guardian.co.uk... when they couldn't afford to pay rather large fines. It certainly wasn't 'over night' but it would be relevant to point out that, on some level, effective actions have been taken in similar instances.

I've now done more research and journalism than the Daily Mail on this issue.

Yes, the article didn't blatantly make a minority/majority connection, and it did mention that regulations needed to be looked at and they probably do ... but look at the comments at the bottom! The Daily Mail could have put more effort in the presentation and research in this article IMO. It was obvious what conclusions people would draw from this and the answers to some questions are sitting right on google or a phone call away to the police press officer.

Integrity in journalism has fallen so far IMO when we have so much more technology, but we're still happy with things 'technically' being the truth for the ADHD masses. We deserve better journalism.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 07:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino

Originally posted by SOLIDSNAKE101

...I mean by looking at you're posting history son, a doggy seems to be on a mission to discredit Muhammad/Islam & Muslims in general & I'd say he's pretty manipulative and very conniving in my opinion.



Unfortunately, Muslim radicals do a very good job of discrediting Islam all by themselves.

edit on 13-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)


Unfortunately, You're doing a great job on presenting a useless information. Your intention is vary - Drawing more hate on a particular religious group such as Islam. UK is doing good by the way and I'm not buying any crap you constantly spew on ATS.

I've seen you somewhere, didn't I?

edit on 13-2-2013 by SOLIDSNAKE101 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 08:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
Fringe British Islamic TV channels are giving airtime to Muslim extremists who call for the murder of those who criticize Muhammad or leave Islam and for the torture of homosexuals.

• Radio Asian Fever, in Leeds, was fined £4,000 for broadcasting that homosexuals should be beaten and tortured, adding: ‘Torture them; punish them; beat them and give them mental torture.’

• Noor TV stated ‘There is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death. No one disagrees about this'.

• Birmingham-based Peace TV, broadcast the phrase: ‘One group of scholars, they say that if a Muslim, if he becomes a non-Muslim he should be put to death.’


Ofcom, the communications watchdog, found the stations broke the broadcasting code by allowing the extreme opinions to be aired unchallenged.

Tala Rajab, who wrote the report for Quilliam, an anti-extremist think-tank, told the Sunday Telegraph the ‘shocking’ incidents raised serious questions over broadcast regulation.

He said: ‘If this had happened in a mosque the police would be right in pursuing a criminal investigation.

‘But because they are being broadcast on television channels for some reason there seems to be little appetite for looking into these extreme messages.

‘If these kind of comments were made against black people, for example, you can imagine a channel being shut down overnight, particularly if they had incited violence against a minority.’

Daily Mail


Why are the police turning a blind eye to such incidents?

Previously, in the UK, under the Public Order Act 1986 section 5

• A Christian was charged for calling homosexuality a sin.
• Another Christian couple were charged for calling Muhammad a warlord and stating a burqa was oppressive.
• Another man was charged for calling scientology a cult.

Yet Muslim extremists in the UK can call for the death of those who insult Islam, for the death of those who leave Islam and the torture of homosexuals with impunity?

This lack of even handedness by the British police is doing nothing to further UK inter-racial relations.






just ask the taxi drivers what they think,9 out of 10 want sharia law. We must all join the english defence league.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

If you had studied history indepth, you would have realize that the wars were tribal in nature, and some of the jewish migrants were not prepared to submit to this new upstart mortal professing a religion that resembles theirs in many aspect.



I'm not prepared to submit either.

Your writings make it clear that you believe that it is right and proper that Jews and presumably by extension non-Muslims in general should have submitted to Muhammad.


Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Thus those few tribes not only revolted against the prophet, they even betrayed him and his troops to the pagan barbaric arabs whom were fighting with each other, and thus the consequences they had to face with betrayal, similar with many other nations' practice of that era, even today.



So if a tribe didn't submit to Muhammad and then had the gall to revolt and betray him (how is that possible if they didn't submit?), then you feel it was justified to put the men to the sword and to enslave the females?

That appears to be what you are arguing.


edit on 13-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pinke
Integrity in journalism has fallen so far IMO when we have so much more technology, but we're still happy with things 'technically' being the truth for the ADHD masses. We deserve better journalism.


I agree with you.

The standards and integrity of journalism have fallen greatly.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by SOLIDSNAKE101

Your intention is vary - Drawing more hate on a particular religious group such as Islam. UK is doing good by the way and I'm not buying any crap you constantly spew on ATS.



As individuals, Muslims can demonstrate the most admirable traits.

As a group however, Islam tends to be dominated by hardliners.

Perhaps if Islam as an institution learned to be more tolerant of others, it would attract less criticism?



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:29 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


You still fail to comprehend even what I had written, simplified so that it be easier to understand.

By today's standard, of course what the prophet had done would be harsh. But the prophet is not dealing with pagan barbaric arabs today, nor is anyone else. It was in the past, and no less harsh than what our ancient ancestors had done to each other.

Comprehend, not just read, the history of civilsations and you will realize the prophet was no more brutal than any leader of his time, and worse, put in a position to introduce civilisation to the barbaric tribes back then, not already tamed europeans of the 7th century.

Many in those tribes only understood the language of violence, nothing else. His first convert, if you had truly studied the Islamic civilisation, were only his closest kin, women and freed slaves. It was by his example and leadership using often less violence than necessary, that he gained the acceptance and unity of the tribe.

As for the jews, they were not living in Israel then. Israel did not exist then. They were migrants on the lands of Arabia, and like everyone else, they had freedom of worship, but as migrants, they paid taxes to help fund the newly created state, follow the law of the land, or could leave, just like anyone else, and even today in our modern world.

You can argue all day that it was wrong of the prophet to annihilate criminals, not only jews, even arabs, espacially those whom he had trusted and then betrayed them all, worse, to the barbaric pagans, but in those days and under those environments, it was either the muslims or the pagans in the race for survival. Today, even in our modern times, traitors are given capital punishment. How more back in those ancient barbaric days?

Be objective. History is not just about text, dates and lines. History is created by living humans, with motivations and reasons for the actions taken.

Only by gleaning the truths can we correct those errors, to progress and evolve. Ignorances will only get us all killed without even knowing why we died or dying for, on both sides.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

You still fail to comprehend even what I had written, simplified so that it be easier to understand.

By today's standard, of course what the prophet had done would be harsh. But the prophet is not dealing with pagan barbaric arabs today, nor is anyone else. It was in the past, and no less harsh than what our ancient ancestors had done to each other.


What worries me is that the founder of the 'religion of peace' executed people, enslaved women and children, raided caravans, fought battles, besieged cities, allowed his men to rape captive women, seized land and belongings, extracted tribute at the point of a sword and generally was a very violent and very successful warlord.

Whether we judge Muhammad by the standards of 7th century Arabia or by the standards of Western Europe today, he remains a violent warlord, not a man of peace.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


You certainly do make a good argument matey, well done


Just look at the Greeks of Romans and the way they behaved, not just in combat but as entertainment and they were supposedly civilised....

It isn't fair or right to compare the actions of someone 1300 years ago to our own standards today - heck, even people 200 years ago...



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 11:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


You certainly do make a good argument matey, well done


Just look at the Greeks of Romans and the way they behaved, not just in combat but as entertainment and they were supposedly civilised....

It isn't fair or right to compare the actions of someone 1300 years ago to our own standards today - heck, even people 200 years ago...


The problem is, Islamic doctrine holds that Muhammad led the perfect life...

To be fair, most Muslims choose to underplay or ignore the violence of Muhammad. Unfortunately, the radicals do not.


edit on 13-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Truths are self evident and are NEVER overplayed.

Only the radical islamists and the anti-muslims OVER-PLAYED the 7th century necessary violence that the prophet Muhammad had to sadly use to tame the pagan barbaric arab tribes to know civilisation and rule of law equal for all.



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 12:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
• Noor TV stated ‘There is absolutely no doubt about it that the punishment for the person who shows disrespect for the Prophet is death. No one disagrees about this'.




Oh, totally! If anyone should "disrespect" (interpretation?) the human self-proclaimed messenger of our most loving and forgiving god, they should be killed like the scum they are!

There is no god but allah and mohammed is is prophet... because he totally said so. Death to anyone who doesn't take his word for it!






posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Only the radical islamists and the anti-muslims OVER-PLAYED the 7th century necessary violence that the prophet Muhammad had to sadly use to tame the pagan barbaric arab tribes to know civilisation and rule of law equal for all.


Muhammad had to sadly use violence to tame barbaric Arab tribes to know civilization and the rule of law?

Does that mean if modern day Muslims consider the West to be uncivilized and lacking in sharia law, they will also be sadly forced to use violence to tame the barbaric pagans?



edit on 13-2-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 04:51 PM
link   
reply to post by SeekerofTruth101
 


Equal for all??? Well, except women children gays and non muslims of course



posted on Feb, 13 2013 @ 05:26 PM
link   
Maybe already mentioned, but threats are not covered by free speech.

They would also not be unique in the beating, and mental torture of gays.





new topics
top topics
 
39
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join