Muslims break 2 minute silence

[Chewster]

I was stating how your view is Liberalism at its worst. You will ignore those inciting hatred and religious superiority because you can't see the lines between having a constructive and useful view and inciting hatred.

And your view is what, exactly? Having people deported for having a dissenting opinion. I could say conservatism at its worst, but I'm not even sure modern day conservatives would agree with you. Sorry, but no liberal I know would be happy about the protests, but we (as in, people who have common sense, regardless of political alignment which is completely irrelevant) don't wish to suppress freedom like you do.

And who gets to determine what viewpoints are "constructive"? You? The government? Should a task force be set up to review all protests> What you are proposing is fucking ludicrous.

In any case, you are basically the same as the Axis, maybe minus the domestic camps, but the difference is negligible, if you ask me. You'd clearly prefer to live in a sanitized world, where people all march in lockstep with your POV, and it is rather pathetic.

Plus here is a little history lesson for you. I would like those spouting hatred and religious superiority to be removed which you claim is similar to past wars.

No. What I claimed is that your POV is similar to that of the Nazis. Silence all dissent and difference with the physical removal of those deemed to be dissidents. Like Nazi Germany, and many other despotic regimes we've seen throughout history.

I guess you didn't call for them to be killed or thrown in camps, so that makes you slightly better, but I wouldn't say by much.

Gulf War II - Potential WMD's
Yugoslav Wars - Serbia invades Bosnia and Croatia, and attempts ethnic cleansing.
Gulf War I - Invasion of Kuwait
Vietnam - Idiotic attempt to stop communism and repress the common man under a feudal system.
Falklands - Argentina invades Falkland islands
Koran War - Democratic People's Republic of Korea invades Republic of Korea
WWII - Germany invades Poland, Belgium and France
WWI - arms race & assassination on 28 June 1914 of Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria

So which veterans died fighting the country that was trying to get rid of people inciting hatred and religious supremacy??

What all these wars were predicated on was preserving/spreading "freedom" and "democracy" (in some cases this was somewhat true, in others, more of a smokescreen, but whatever). You wish to undo this by suppressing freedom. Meaning that, in principal, you do not support veterans. Making you just as bad as the extremists, in a wonderful ironic twist. What you'd prefer is that actual tax paying citizens not have a voice, because you don't like what that voice is saying.

Simple as.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I'll come straight out and condemn these idiots, and I wish that a system I'd heard ages ago had been put into place where in all news reporting 'terrorist' can no longer be said, instead the word dickhead is to be used. 'In other news today, a dickhead armed with explosives blew himself up in London, fortunately no innocent lives were lost, the dickhead being the only casualty.' Also, less and less reporting in general. The less publicity they get for being dicks, the less reason they have to do it.

Secondly, I'm totally behind the fact that it's not 'muslims' doing this stuff, but extremist fuckwits who don't even understand what it is to be religious, never mind muslim.

However, the moderate muslims need to take some responsibility by being more vocal in terms of condemning those who do commit these acts and speak hatred towards others. To all 'normal', sensible muslims out there, please do what you can to show to the rest of society that its us and them, the terrorists, not us and them, the muslims, as you've got a fight on your hands, with most of the newspapers doing all they can to lump all muslims in as bomb carrying, hate filled nutjobs.

I've not seen US newspapers covering the Westboro Church and their hate crimes against dead soldiers, but I'm gonna lay my cards down and say they probably don't run with 'Christians ruin soldiers funerals'.

As for 'Pakistanis are the most likely to be lazy jobless layabouts, when I was growing up in the 80s, there was a massive feeling that 'those pakis are coming over here and taking our jobs' and 'all our corner shops are being taking over by the bloody pakis'.

Not taking our jobs...DOING our jobs. They came from their homeland already instilled with a strong work ethic and saw an opportunity to do a 14-15 hour day 7 days a week with a 5am start for little money, and grabbed with both hands.

I say let em all in, give em all a job and we can all go on the dole and live off THEIR tax money After all, if you've been reading the papers, you know anyone without a job gets ten grand a week, a mansion, free drugs and a free blowjob a day. We can't keep that up unless we get more immigrants in doing the work and paying taxes.

 

[slightly evil]

there are plenty of dicks in the world regardless of creed, race, class etc. these however, are prime examples

 

[SenseOfTumour]

I also can't help but think why don't we set up something like they have in America, with the WBC, where at the first sign of trouble, a group of people get together and hold up bigger signs (preferably with really stupid, non political, non inflammatory messages), and stand with them. If they're chanting hate speech, simply get our group to sing the National Anthem more loudly. That or get some 'Four Lions' posters and someone dressed as the Honey Monster and make it look like they're a group of cosplayers. (too far?)

Peaceful protest that defeats the hate speech without causing trouble. Of course, if one side gets angry and gets violent, then it's a shame, but at least it's then criminal.

I just remember seeing the rows of motorbikes protecting funerals from the idiots at WBC and thought what a wonderful idea, showing respect, blocking the fuckwits and yet not stepping on their 'rights'.

Apart from all that, we really need a black and white description of what constitutes hate speech. I can't believe you can say 'Death to' anyone legally anyways, look what happened when Frankie Boyle said a female athlete had a funny nose, and he's a comedian, it's obviously a joke.

When they're demanding deaths, riots and violent uprising, I think that's enough to at least cart them off to the cells for a night's sleep and a calm down.

Maybe a Muslim can inform me too, as I'm horribly ignorant of the religion, do you have a concept of 'Hell' as such? I keep seeing the extremists saying we're going to Hell, but I thought that was a Christian thing.

 

[Kmathers]

Gosh, Matzy.

Firstly, arguing that Political Correctness has gone wrong is an old argument, done to death. If you believe on one hand that we must remove political correctness, then you must disagree with 'pc' hate laws, including the incitement to violence or racial tension. If you disagree with that, then you actually remove any legal recourse to dealing with this people. Because, if you don't have the so-called 'PC' laws, then they have every right to call you whatever they like, and you have no legal way of getting back at them.

Thus, your straw man argument shoots itself in the foot.

As for racist statistics, I think you've not really understood this. If the chances of black male having committed a crime is higher, statistically speaking, then that is that. However, if then the police start stopping all black males because they might be criminals, that is racism. This is because you should not assume that the individual is in any way represented by their skin colour. The assumption of behavior or certain characteristics due to skin colour is a good definition of racism.

You actually are a racist for the above reason. Statistically, as you quote, Pakistani's are more likely to be on benefits, yes. However, to draw the conclusion that therefore these Pakistani's must be on benefits is incorrect and therefore racist. You know nothing of the person, your immediate assumption of them, due to their skin colour and garb, is of a benefit receiving Pakistani. You demonstrate more about yourself in that, than you do making assumption.

I would guess you do this because it suits your narrow viewpoint, and you dislike benefit 'scroungers' as much as extremists, or even Pakistani's.

I'll tell you the 'OMG I CAN'T SAY THAT' brigade actually can say an awful lot. Like this. Free speech means they have right to yell slogans, we have a right to read the remembrance prayer in public and you have a right to post unpleasant comments on the internet. And then we'll argue, in the way these things should be done.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Yep, they should be deported. Makes me sick that my tax goes to help these people and they are allowed to stay in the UK when they clearly have ulterior motives.

Can I just ask why you appear to have jumped to the conclusion that these people are on benefits? Forgive me if I've misunderstood you.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=2699
Pakistani's are the most likely to be unemployed, so I'd presume the most likely to be on benefits.

I looked at that and it's pakistani women who are most likely to be unemployed (no on benefits btw, and not muslim, just pakistani and female and not working).

First thing that jumped to mind to me was that most of my experience is of seeing the man working and the woman looking after the family and children.

Or maybe it's women, and not the pakistani part that's the problem. Maybe all women are muslims on benefits!

Now I'd imagine we're all 100% against muslim extremists, but I think you'd find much lower numbers for being against just muslims, just pakistanis, or as those statistics 'prove' just pakistani women.

I'm not suggesting anything about you, I just find it very hard to trust in statistics from anywhere any more. Almost any numbers can be massaged to suit the needs of those using them.

I'd for instance claim that over 75% of lottery jackpot winners are unemployed, yet not claiming benefits.

 

[Ham_authority95]

'About 35 Islamic protesters'; oh dear, 35 people out of the entire population of London.

Yeah. The second I saw this number, I laughed out loud...

Anyway, just ignore the idiots.

 

[Saint_Zvlkx]

And this is different from the asshole who burned copies of the Qur'an? I understand that you might have lost someone, but Muslims have the same emotional connection with the guy who was burning Qur'ans, so you have no fucking reason to act out because "this is personal." We're fighting a war against ignorance and all the spawn of ignorance, so shut the fuck up if you don't have anything constructive to add.

Two wrongs don't make it right.

And what is that supposed to mean? That we have a right to do appalling things to their religion because the did it to us? I believe that goes against every major religion and set of ethics that exists. Who's going to act mature and STOP MAKING SUCH AN EASY TARGET if they resent us due to poor education and corruption, and we can't pull our heads out of our asses for long enough to realize that we need to change?

And to state this again, what the fuck was your point?

What the fuck? Are you really that daft that you do not understand what I am trying to say? If that's the case, I'm not going to bother explaining it. Re-read your own post, then stew in your thoughts for a bit until you understand it.

I'm sorry, what you seem to be saying is that, since two wrongs don't make a right, then we shouldn't do shit about it. Please correct me if this is incorrect.

 

[Jimbo1212]

Simply put, they should all be deported.
If they do not support 'their' troops, because remember that they are now living in the UK thus UK troops are part of 'their' country, then they should be forced to leave as they obviously do not fit into this society and do not want to fit in which is shown by their offensive behaviour.

 

[Chewster]

Firstly, this isn't a court room so you can't correctly use the term 'dissenting opinion'. And to make it clear as you have completely ignored this point, this is not about repressing freedom this is about *ahem*:

REMOVING PEOPLE WHO ARE INCITING HATRED AND/OR RELIGIOUS SUPERIORITY​

Now as you clearly think these people should stay, do you care to tell me why and what place inciting hatred and religious superiority have in society? When someone talks of freedom of speech do you really think that it means that absolutely anything should be said with no restrictions? Is that view even safe?

What views are constructive are ones with sound reasoning, logic and work in cooperation with society, whilst not endangering anyone. Is saying that all soldiers and non-Muslims are going to hell and should burn one that helps anyone? No. Does it endanger people/be considered inciting hatred and violence? Yes.
Don't argue strawmen - I never proposed that all protests should be reviewed.

Care to say how I am like the Axis or is that an exceptionally juvenile attempt at trying to make my view sound evil? You should be embarrassed, especially considering your age, as what you said has no grounding in reality. Let's compare my view to Hitler's and Japan circa 1944:
My view - anyone who is inciting hatred and/or religious superiority in a detrimental way to society should be removed from society, by force if necessary.
Japan - Invade and conquer China in the name of the Emperor.
Hitler - Invade and conquer Europe & Russia. Kill the Jews and many other ethnic and religious groups because of their religion or race.

Yeah, they're totally the f**king same. Please, go and learn something about WWII other than making stuff up because that is in exceptionally poor taste considering the topic at hand (Veterans) and you not even getting your facts correct.

So none of those wars were started to help remove problematic people in society? What the f**k is your point then?
Where is your limit on what you consider freedom? If someone wants to molester a child for fun, are you going to say "Go ahead" as you don't want to repress his freedom, or are you going to say "No, off to prison for you" to protect society?

How is it a good idea to let people have the freedom to incite hatred?​

Right, so since you're too lazy to respond to my points individually, I guess I won't grant you the same luxury.

Who is inciting hatred? How do you (that is you specifically) decide what inciting hatred is? What specifically is inciting hatred in this case, and against who? Because saying "your soldiers are in hell" =/= (necessarily) "all your solders deserve death and everyone should go out and kill them all now". Unless there is a specific call to arms or an attempt at coercing people forcefully, there is no need for you to conflate the two. And were the protests violent? If not, how is anyone in danger? From the thirty-five people that were mostly ignored? There is probably more physical danger to you from that many drunks in a bar. That you see thisa as some bizarre and dangerous call to arms is rather odd.

Constructive or not (and that is, to a degree, a matter of opinion and depend on the goals of this group, which was probably just to get a bit of attention), they have the right to say these things, distasteful or no. Your desire to take that right away makes you just as bad as any extremist, which is hilarious and tragic. Censorship at its worst. And you may not have proposed that all protests be reviewed, but you are missing the point. I asked who should be the one to decide these things and how, which you didn't answer. You don't actually know what a strawman is.

For the moment though, let us go with the assumption that what was said was hate speech, why do you get kick people out for it? There are relevant laws in place for hate speech, for just such occasions. Deportation is not a punishment that fits the crime and that you think it does is rather disturbing.

And I've already explained how you are like the Axis, but you choose to ignore what has been said, instead opting to repeat the same lines, ad nausium. Which makes you a dishonest debater at most and a troll at worst. Not sure which it is at this point, but no matter. For kicks, here it is again: the Axis, and the Nazis more specifically, thought it right to take people away from their homes because they didn't have the same views as themselves. You feel that, because this speech is not "constructive" (i.e. not what you think free speech is supposed to be about) that they should be taken from their homes and expelled, even if they are productive, tax-paying citizens otherwise. In Germany, they were put in camps, and some were killed. That is the only difference between you and they.

And what the fuck does anything have to do with courtrooms? That term can be used in other contexts. You throw about terms and ideas like you have an idea what they mean, but I don't think you do. Fact is, the protester's opinions do not sync up with yours and because they were disrespectful, they, according to you, need to be deported. The same things were done by Nazi Germany, except they were killed (which someone here has already advocated). Meaning you share ideologies with the Nazis. Deal with it.

You're dishonest and support dictatorship-like tactics because someone said something you don't like. There really isn't much more to it then that. And that is fine and all as you are entitled to your warped opinion as much as the next guy, but that also makes you as bad as the extremists. As others say, two wrongs don't make a right, even though you seem to think so.

Sadly, you're the worst kind of bigot; one who tries to hide behind irrelevant catchall phrases like "PC" and who bring up partisan politics when they are not important (based on assumptions, no less), one who denies being a bigot, even though his words illustrate that fact clearly. I'd have much more respect for people like you if you were just honest and came right out and said you hate certain groups, for whatever reason. It is obvious that you view all brown people as being the same, otherwise you wouldn't have brought up the welfare bit earlier.

 

[DrWilhelm]

Gosh, Matzy.

Firstly, arguing that Political Correctness has gone wrong is an old argument, done to death. If you believe on one hand that we must remove political correctness, then you must disagree with 'pc' hate laws, including the incitement to violence or racial tension. If you disagree with that, then you actually remove any legal recourse to dealing with this people. Because, if you don't have the so-called 'PC' laws, then they have every right to call you whatever they like, and you have no legal way of getting back at them.

Thus, your straw man argument shoots itself in the foot.

As for racist statistics, I think you've not really understood this. If the chances of black male having committed a crime is higher, statistically speaking, then that is that. However, if then the police start stopping all black males because they might be criminals, that is racism. This is because you should not assume that the individual is in any way represented by their skin colour. The assumption of behavior or certain characteristics due to skin colour is a good definition of racism.

You actually are a racist for the above reason. Statistically, as you quote, Pakistani's are more likely to be on benefits, yes. However, to draw the conclusion that therefore these Pakistani's must be on benefits is incorrect and therefore racist. You know nothing of the person, your immediate assumption of them, due to their skin colour and garb, is of a benefit receiving Pakistani. You demonstrate more about yourself in that, than you do making assumption.

I would guess you do this because it suits your narrow viewpoint, and you dislike benefit 'scroungers' as much as extremists, or even Pakistani's.

I'll tell you the 'OMG I CAN'T SAY THAT' brigade actually can say an awful lot. Like this. Free speech means they have right to yell slogans, we have a right to read the remembrance prayer in public and you have a right to post unpleasant comments on the internet. And then we'll argue, in the way these things should be done.

Actually, you're the one with the strawman.
Political correctness is allowing the incitement of hatred and/or religious superiority when both only serve to cause problems for society.
I'm not sure what you are on about referring to PC hate laws, care to elaborate?
How does disagreeing with political correctness which allows people to incite hatred under the guise of freedom of speech mean that these people can't be charged...? That doesn't make sense...You incite hatred, you should be removed from society...Not a complex argument.

Let me get this straight. If statistics were to appear that whites commit crime 10 times more likely than any other ethnic group in, say, Arizona, it's racist to proportionally stop more whites than blacks, even though by doing so you ARE statistically more likely to catch criminals that way? That is political correctness gone mad because it is making the police force more inefficient. True, it should be deemed on a case to case basis (working with previous example, it would still not make sense to stop a white business man over a shady looking member of another ethnic group) but as a rule of thumb if you were to come across two people, one white, one black, who both look like criminals but could only question one, does it not make COMPLETE LOGICAL SENSE to stop the white instead of black? Of course it does, so how the f**k is that then racist when it is based on stats, which are completely unbiased & logical?

I did not say those Pakistani's ARE on benefits, nice strawman there. I said it is more likely that they are on benefits, and the thought I may be paying for one of them sickens me. I'm not racist, you just have an exceptionally poor understanding of statistics.

What freedom of speech doesn't allow is the incitement of hatred, yet you all seem to think it does & that it should. Nice to see you are helping to make the country a more dangerous place because of a misguided sense of right or wrong.

You may not have specifically said that they're on benefits but you sure did say "Makes me sick that my tax goes to help these people". As far as I can see, you insinuated that they are on benefits. If that wasn't your intention, maybe you should reconsider your phrasing next time.

 

[nofear220]

action MUST be taken against them

e.g DEPORTATION of all those involved

I agree with this. Hell, I would put a bullet between each one of their eyes if I witnessed it first hand. You need to retaliate with extreme actions when dealing with extremist shitheads. (no I didn't mean shithead as a racist remark)

I am offended by your remarks and think you should be deported

Its Freedom of speech they have the right(just like the WBC,KKK,Black Panthers). If you want the good that comes with this right you must also take the bad

Are you being serious? If so, congratulations. You've just become the thing you claim to hate (Stabbing Westward styles!)

Seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you? Deport/kill all those you don't like? Yay for "democracy"! Just be sure you are marching in the proper step, because showing disrespect is grounds for being killed apparently. That sounds vaguely familiar, actually...

No no no, stop twisting words here, deport and kill these extremists who forgot that people who had family in WW1 and 2 are extremely offended by their atrocious acts of 'free speech'. They would cut my throat if I told them their god (and every other god) was a lie, so why is it so bad when I say that they should be deported/killed for their extreme actions.

 

[Chewster]

No no no, stop twisting words here, deport and kill these extremists who forgot that people who had family in WW1 and 2 are extremely offended by their atrocious acts of 'free speech'. They would cut my throat if I told them their god (and every other god) was a lie, so why is it so bad when I say that they should be deported/killed for their extreme actions.

What? What word twisting is there? You said you'd kill them if you saw them doing this. In fact, your exact words were :"Hell, I would put a bullet between each one of their eyes if I witnessed it first hand." You want people to be killed because they offend families of veterans, or rather, you said that you'd do it yourself. That is fucking asinine and makes you a bit of a psychopath.

And they would cut your throat if you said something offensive to them? Who? The people protesting? How do you know? Do you know these people personally? Are you trolling or something? I sure as fuck hope so. If you're admitting to it with the above post, get ready to catch the banhammer right in the ass end boyo, because chances are, someone will report you.

 

[direkiller]

Care to tell me why it is wrong to remove people who endanger other people by inciting religious supremacy and hatred bad for society as a whole? The Nazi's killed people because of religion etc, that is completely different from removing people because of others safety. If you think that is wrong, then clearly you must be opposed to prisons, which serve to remove people from society for society's safety.

None of what they did was Criminal so comparing it to jail is just idiotic
but if you want examples of what your suggesting:
Native Americans were segregated for there safty
Blacks were segregated in schools for there safety
Japanese-Americans were segregated for there safety in WW2
(Sorry don't know any British examples but i know there are some)

That is not that far off what the Nazi did and that is what you are suggesting. As soon as you start putting people away for there beliefs you no longer see them as a person. You only see the idea you want to die

http://www.youtube.com/user/theamazingatheist?blend=1&ob=4#p/u/22/oPC-isxrhTs
Freedom of speech sometimes means the bad-guys win

 

[Giest4life]

Yep, they should be deported. Makes me sick that my tax goes to help these people and they are allowed to stay in the UK when they clearly have ulterior motives.

Troll Alert!

Or a very relevant and sensitive topic....Which it is. If you want to go back to discussing video games then do that, but frankly I enjoy these mature topics of actual relevance to the real world, which you deem as 'trolling'.

It's not the nature of the topic, but the tone in which it's presented that stinks to me of troll. If you believe otherwise, you're welcome to jump in, of course.

 

[Chewster]

Alright, I know I said I wouldn't set it up this way, but this is the only way to keep things organized, so I guess I'll be the bigger person. I'm not responding to every line, because you seem to think that repetition is the same as refuting something.

Saying the protests were not dangerous is like saying a gun is only dangerous if it is shot. You have to consider the potential danger, y'know, that think called hindsight?

Yeah, guns generally don't just fire at random though, without someone behind the trigger. Analogy fail.

Besides of which, you cannot hold your own countrymen in very high regard if you think these protests are going to incite violence against soldiers. Are all British people weak-minded enough to go along with whatever is being hollered on the street?

Let me make it more clear: if I stand on a corner and scream "Atheism rules! All religions are gateways to violence, down with all religious people" and other things in that vein, it isn't my fault if some nutter goes and shoots some church goers because he said that I influenced him, unless I knew he was nuts and specifically manipulated him into doing that through some manner of coercion. There are thirty-five of these guys, and in a couple of weeks, they will be forgotten. You overestimate their impact by a rather large margin and seem to think that people are foolish, blind children, just waiting to be lead by the hand. Clearly, you're the one who is naive here.

Care to tell me why it is wrong to remove people who endanger other people by inciting religious supremacy and hatred bad for society as a whole? The Nazi's killed people because of religion etc, that is completely different from removing people because of others safety. If you think that is wrong, then clearly you must be opposed to prisons, which serve to remove people from society for society's safety.

It isn't wrong, if they are actually a legitimate threat to the public. This protest did get a bit violent and as such, the people were taken away, but it wasn't because of the words they said and the signs they held. It was because they clashed with the coppers. Besides, prison =/= deportation, so nice try. Had you originally proposed jail, you would have seemed much more reasonable.

And the Nazis killed a lot of different groups mainly for ideological reasons, even if some of that was rooted in their despise for Jewish people (which was, as I understand it, more based in Jewish stereotypes that have pervaded history, and less to do with the actual religion itself). Your proposed punishment (deportation) does not fit with what they did (exercise free speech in a callous and insensitive manner). Thus why you are comparable to the Nazis. You wish to silence speech that you dislike through physical force, under the guise that it is a "threat" to the public, when you cannot prove that it is. Your arguments are thin and poorly supported and reek of bigotry.

Also care to tell me how stating religious supremacy is a good idea?

That is not relevant. Something doesn't have to be a good idea for it to be legal and allowed in a free society. I can go and jump off my roof if I wish, but that doesn't mean it is illegal or a good idea. Where on Earth did you get the idea that all free speech is supposed to be "good" for it to be allowed? And again, by what standard are you measuring this, and why is so special about you that makes you the arbiter of what constitutes "good" and "constructive" speech and what does not? Be as specific as possible.

Because no one here is saying that what they did was in good taste as it certainly was not. I am saying, however, that your reaction is fucking idiotic and well over the top. It is, quite clearly, a reaction that is based on emotion, and not logic and seems rather similar to other dictatorships we've seen in human history.

Oh and icing on the cake:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/8126357/Muslims-clash-with-police-after-burning-poppy-in-anti-Armistice-Day-protest.html
Because clashing with police is always great and shows that they certainly were not inciting hatred or violence. Buuuuusted

They clashed with the police. They didn't incite others to clash with the police. Argument fail. Again.

Anyway, this is pointless, as you've already given away your position as a bigot, thanks to that link you gave that supposedly meant that these protesters are all on the dole, when it actually didn't say that at all. You obviously don't know how to argue properly and you don't know what fallacies are, and I doubt very much that any logical argument presented to you is going to do much, despite your supposed hard-on for logic in public protest.

PROTIP: you'd gain more respect from people if you'd just cop to being a reactionary bigot. I don't think I'll be responding again, but feel free to show the world your true colours some more.