Poppy-burning Muslim protesters mar Armistice Day commemorations.

[Hiro]

Islamic protesters sparked fury today after they burned a model of a poppy and deliberately broke the silence at Armistice Day commemorations in central London.
As millions of Britons fell silent to remember those who have died in war, members of a group called Muslims Against Crusades clashed with police during an 'emergency demonstration' in Kensington, west London.
As the clock struck 11am, the Islamic protesters burned a model of a poppy and chanted 'British soldiers burn in hell'.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1328703/Remembrance-Day-Poppy-burning-Muslim-protesters-mar-Armistice-Day.html

[Deak]

Thats not right at all...

*REMOVED*

Edited by Bolt660 (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not avoid the filter.

[Ed.]

I think it's frankly disgraceful. However we must remember that it is just a minority group of extremists.

[Niall!]

This pisses me off.

*REMOVED*. I'm not usually racist, but these stories have been cropping up more and more over the past few months.

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Moderator): Please don't post inappropriately, thanks.

[cocaine]

******* kick them out of britain

[Conservative,]

Lock 'em up, throw away the key, and do it back to them whenever their version of it is. Alternatively hire a hitman to get rid of those dirty pieces of ****. I'm not a racist, but if they're going to do that then they can ****(rhymes with get the truck out) of my country :|

[Ed.]

Like seriously, if they hate the UK so much - why are they here? Go home?

[Conservative,]

Like seriously, if they hate the UK so much - why are they here? Go home?

*REMOVED*

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Moderator): Please don't post inappropriately, thanks.

[Hayleigh]

DO THEY KNOW HAVE MUCH BLOODY SACRIFICE THOSE SOLDIERS WENT THROUGH :@ OMG THEY SHOULD BE SERIOUSLY PUNISHED :@

[Jessicrawrr]

they can go ******* burn in hell.
aren't going to respect our soilders, they can get the **** out of our country!

[Ed.]

Robbie - bit extreme. The thing is, with a story like this anything English people say will be taken as racist. Like how are they not arrested for racial crimes or whatever?

[kuzkasate]

Thats totally unacceptable, if it wasnt for Russian, British and American (although the Americans part can be debated) soldiers and all the other countries that fought against Hitler, then they probably wouldnt of even been on this Earth, so for them to say that, I think is really disrespectful.

[Conservative,]

Robbie - bit extreme. The thing is, with a story like this anything English people say will be taken as racist. Like how are they not arrested for racial crimes or whatever?

I think I have mentioned several times some of my ideas are radical anyway, they probably are/will end up as terrorists if they hate UK so much...

and probably just that - they'll claim racism or something and then we'll get bad press for arresting Muslims on racial crimes ground. The whole system is dumb. The only reason I can possibly think of was it was a peaceful demonstration - but to my mind burning a poppy and shouting that kind of ****** up **** is not peaceful.

---------- Post added 11-11-2010 at 06:05 PM ----------


Thats totally unacceptable, if it wasnt for Russian, British and American (although the Americans part can be debated) soldiers and all the other countries that fought against Hitler, then they probably wouldnt of even been on this Earth, so for them to say that, I think is really disrespectful.

Armistice day is WW1 and the Americans pretty much won us WW2. Lol.

[Ed.]

Do these fanatics know that it was British and other Nato forces who helped their muslim brothers in Kosovo in 1999?

[immense]

Armistice day is WW1 and the Americans pretty much won us WW2. Lol.

Russia won WWII - that just isn't flashy enough to teach.

[Conservative,]

Do these fanatics know that it was British and other Nato forces who helped their muslim brothers in Kosovo in 1999?

That's very true haha. I doubt it - or if they do they ignore it.

I'm not only infuriated because they ruined a day of remembrance, but because they had the CHEEK to do it at the time of remembrance, and in one of the busiest places whilst burning a poppy in the country that lost 880,000 men? :S I lost relations in the war as did nearly everyone in the country (if not relations then grandparents friends or something).

It's disgusting and disgraceful, get them out of this country. NOW.

---------- Post added 11-11-2010 at 06:12 PM ----------


Russia won WWII - that just isn't flashy enough to teach.

Russia won the war from the East yes, but if the USA hadn't nuked Japan the war would have ended in Europe but continued into Asia.

[Ed.]

Also, they claim they were complaining about the Iraq war - Did they want to live under the tyranny of Saddam?

[Conservative,]

Also, they claim they were complaining about the Iraq war - Did they want to live under the tyranny of Saddam?

Probably because they're the radicalist mother ******* that would want him aren't they.

[Ed.]

This just makes me so angry.

[luce]

so they can do that yet the priest guy in america who wanted to burn qu'rans couldn't because of national uproar and everything, this is the one thing that gets me so angry it's one rule for them and world war for the rest of us. i don't think they realize our men are dying and fighting to preserve their home land where they should be living. They don't have to be there and most say they shouldn't but they are.

if we did that to defile their precious days then we would die and it would be news all over the world.

[Stephen]

I think they've made it clear on what we have to do.. See one in the street, burn the ******

[Jordy]

For once I'm actually glad to see the English Defence League and I don't often say that.

Why are the police wearing baseball caps btw? They look like a bunch of chavs.

[Mathew]

so they can do that yet the priest guy in america who wanted to burn qu'rans couldn't because of national uproar and everything, this is the one thing that gets me so angry it's one rule for them and world war for the rest of us.
Exactly why the UK is so messed up. We try so hard to avoid being racist that we end up being racist to our own people. Absolutely pathetic.

To me, British soldiers are what represent Britain on the front line and they sum us up in a nutshell. If you don't like our soldiers, you must have a serious problem with Britain. In which case, **** off.

"3 arrests were made" - these past couple of days have been embarassments for the Police (Tory HQ and here). Give the Police a gun and all these morons would keep their opinions to themselves and run a mile.

Oh, and on a side note; I love the top comment.



How many of you now wish you had voted B.N.P.
- Englishman, England, 11/11/2010 13:55

[Hiro]

Video of the poppy burning.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MUAFuo9yr4

[Fez]

Russia won WWII - that just isn't flashy enough to teach.

And WWI was pretty much stalemate.

[Starburst..x]

Nothing a nice Police batton to the face wouldn't solve....over and over again...

It's disgusting and so extremely ******* hypocritical. I loved how one sign said 'Our heroes will live in paradise, yours will burn in hell' when their so-called 'heroes' are the ones who inhumanley killed hundreds if not thousands of innocent people.
Send them out to a war torn place and ask them to fight, I'm sure they will feel different, better still send their family members out there.
If there is a God lets hope these people will get whats coming to them. Scumbags.

[dirrty]

http://30.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lbiz4yQt9j1qde33io1_500.gif

disgusting behaviour.

[Ed.]

This small group of individuals has shamed the whole Muslim community. Most of the Muslim community do not agree with what they did but because the men involved were muslim, everyone is blaming the muslim community.

[Neversoft]

This really brings my piss to a boil.

[Calvin]

Should of grabbed them all and burn them to death, sick idiots.

[luce]

put the fire out with their eyes.

On a series note after seeing the video there were only a few which puts such a bad reflection on the people who don't believe in this who are Muslim but they are so prolific in England at the moment it won't be too long before the public take sorting them out into their own hands because i know if i was there and i was trying to remember my husband or something who was killed by extremists i would have set on them.

[Conservative,]

Death by hanging.

No but seriously, we need to sort out punishment system out. A crime like this - they deserve to be shot on the spot. Arm the police and let them open fire on such racist ********. To be honest, I'd happily shoot every single one of them if I was able to. And as others have said, maybe a better punishment would be to make them fight?

Haha just thought of a great idea: Put them in the army to fight in Afghanistan...if they desert/friendly fire then shoot them :)

[Caution]

Such a shame this country is too scared to actually do anything about it and deport them.

[Neversoft]

Lock 'em up, throw away the key

do it back to them whenever their version of it is.

hire a hitman to get rid of those dirty pieces of ****

they can **** out of my country

they're going to try and bomb us at some point

they probably are/will end up as terrorists

It's disgusting and disgraceful, get them out of this country. NOW.

they're the radicalist mother ******* that would want him aren't they

Death by hanging

A crime like this - they deserve to be shot on the spot.

Arm the police and let them open fire on such racist ********.

I'd happily shoot every single one of them if I was able to

Put them in the army to fight in Afghanistan...if they desert/friendly fire then shoot them

Chill out bro.

[Conservative,]

Chill out bro.

No thanks. I'm actually outraged by it - I have close relatives who died in the war and I think it's disgusting that those men who CHOSE TO LIVE HERE are protesting? Get those ******* out of my country.

[Jessicrawrr]

that video makes me feel sick.
racist people, if we went over to their country and did something like that, what'd happen?!

[Conservative,]

that video makes me feel sick.
racist people, if we went over to their country and did something like that, what'd happen?!

We'd be bombed, shot or hung.

[Technologic]

Absolute disgrace

[Stephen]

Chill out bro.

hahahahhaha

but yeah bad stuff

[AgnesIO]

I actually feel sick after reading this.

Seriously if you hate the ******* country so much, why don't you go ******* home. Why the **** do we stand up for these evil ******s? With all due respect (yeah, right), ALL OF THE **** HEADS WHO FOLLOW ISLAM, INTERPRETING THE QU'RAN SO THAT THEY CAN MURDER PEOPLE SHOULD BE DEPORTED.

If I went to their country they would have be beheaded, yet we let them stand in the ******* street. I also know for a fact, if I went to the remembrance to day and started screaming at them I would have been arrested. STAND UP TO THEM FOR **** SAKE.

[Conservative,]

I actually feel sick after reading this.

Seriously if you hate the ******* country so much, why don't you go ******* home. Why the **** do we stand up for these evil ******s? With all due respect (yeah, right), ALL OF THE **** HEADS WHO FOLLOW ISLAM, INTERPRETING THE QU'RAN SO THAT THEY CAN MURDER PEOPLE SHOULD BE DEPORTED.

If I went to their country they would have be beheaded, yet we let them stand in the ******* street. I also know for a fact, if I went to the remembrance to day and started screaming at them I would have been arrested. STAND UP TO THEM FOR **** SAKE.
Agreed so much, I owe you a lot of +rep atm :L

[myke]

It makes me feel sick but I'm not going to turn to racism or swearing and stuff.

Although if we did something over in their countries like that then we'd be hung for w.e it's called... god knows.

Shame there's people like this.

[AgnesIO]

It makes me feel sick but I'm not going to turn to racism or swearing and stuff.

Although if we did something over in their countries like that then we'd be hung for w.e it's called... god knows.

Shame there's people like this.

Has anyone been racist?

[Mathew]

As much as I love to say "It's not racism, it's the truth" - some stuff is on the brink of being racist. Remember there are a lot of British Muslims who were born here, hence making them legal. You can't generalise everyone who follows the Islamic faith to being rowdy fire-starters and poppy-burners.

[myke]

Has anyone been racist?

Yes - indirectly, read the first page

[Callum.]

Deport the *****. ******* annoying. Sickening.

[AgnesIO]

This pisses me off.

They should be deported. All of them. I'm not usually racist, but these stories have been cropping up more and more over the past few months.

All muslims??

--

This is the only post that might be racist if that is what he means..

[Chippiewill]

This is disgraceful, they are guests of our country, they can either shut up and be respectful or get the hell out of this country. I guess I'll go into their country and put up pictures of Muhammad everywhere then, considering that's the kind of level that we're playing on. They're bloody fine to do it in their own country but to have the audacity to attempt such a thing in Britain, why I wouldn't complain if the police smacked them all around a little to be quite frank. I'm all for human rights and freedom of speech but that's just plain rude, offensive and unnecessary.

[Agnostic Bear]

This just in:
America nukes all countries ending in istan and iran.

World returns to ULTRAPEACE. Don't deny it, you know it to be true.

[Niall!]

All muslims??

--

This is the only post that might be racist if that is what he means..

Allow me to rephrase;

*REMOVED*

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Moderator): Please don't post inappropriately, thanks.

[Chippiewill]

This just in:
America nukes all countries ending in istan and iran.

World returns to ULTRAPEACE. Don't deny it, you know it to be true.

Thank-you I.N.T.E.L.L.I.G.E.N.C.E. - this does make excellent sense! Then every other country declares war on America for crimes against humanity, you win some then you lose some.

[Inseriousity.]

Disgusting but as has already been pointed out, they're in a minority. In fact, just this morning I saw a Muslim walking down York wearing a poppy. Despite this, part of fighting in these wars is for freedom to protest, freedom of speech. Extremism wins when we sink to their level ("******* burn them in the eyes" etc).

[Niall!]

Allow me to rephrase;

*REMOVED*

Edited by HotelUser (Forum Moderator): Please don't post inappropriately, thanks.

Seriously? You're giving me a warning for being LESS racist?

[HotelUser]

This is an absolutely disgusting act committed by a sick extremist group. HOWEVER I want to point out that it's not suitable making racial comments because this small group is just that, a small minority group. There are thousands of citizens in Britain who practise the Muslim faith who are not like this at all.


Disgusting but as has already been pointed out, they're in a minority. In fact, just this morning I saw a Muslim walking down York wearing a poppy. Despite this, part of fighting in these wars is for freedom to protest, freedom of speech. Extremism wins when we sink to their level ("******* burn them in the eyes" etc).

You knew they were of the Muslim religion just by looking at them?

[Inseriousity.]

This is an absolutely disgusting act committed by a sick extremist group. HOWEVER I want to point out that it's not suitable making racial comments because this small group is just that, a small minority group. There are thousands of citizens in Britain who practise the Muslim faith who are not like this at all.



You knew they were of the Muslim religion just by looking at them?

No I asked him where he got his poppy from because I wanted to buy one then I just got talking to him.

[HotelUser]

No I asked him where he got his poppy from because I wanted to buy one then I just got talking to him.

Ah, alright. Your post confused me :P

Anyway I hope this group faces serious repercussions for their actions.

[AgnesIO]

This is disgraceful, they are guests of our country, they can either shut up and be respectful or get the hell out of this country. I guess I'll go into their country and put up pictures of Muhammad everywhere then, considering that's the kind of level that we're playing on. They're bloody fine to do it in their own country but to have the audacity to attempt such a thing in Britain, why I wouldn't complain if the police smacked them all around a little to be quite frank. I'm all for human rights and freedom of speech but that's just plain rude, offensive and unnecessary.

Do what they do in Spain. Beat the **** out of them in an Alleyway.

[Chippiewill]

Do what they do in Spain. Beat the **** out of them in an Alleyway.

Stupid 'laws' :/

[hairpins]

eye hope every1 of them gets kiked n banned from the uk 4eva so they carnt *** bk

[Conservative,]

eye hope every1 of them gets kiked n banned from the uk 4eva so they carnt *** bk

How old r u srsly? It's not a subject to joke about.

[alexxxxx]

BREAKING NEWS; Extremists being extreme causing UPROAR.

Just ignore them/it for heavens sake. Flag burners and book burners are just mad, as long as they are not actively recruiting, calling for violence or being violent - it's not really bad is it?

'Burn in hell' - alright, whatever. Even if they are followers of the Qu'ran surely they'd leave their god to decide who should burn in hellfire.

PS: Strangely there was no organised silence at university and because i was working hard on my project i completely forgot =/

[Nemo]

Annoying the image they portray of my colour/race. fml.


To the people being racist however, **** and stop being dumb.

[Eoin]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2091/poppya.jpg (http://img526.imageshack.us/i/poppya.jpg/)

[iRaaave.]

its not fair because if we go to london and burn Afghan flags then we get done and put in jail... but nothing happens to them when they burn our stuff? and they dont get jailed or fined or done? its stupid tbh.

[Jordy]

http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/2091/poppya.jpg (http://img526.imageshack.us/i/poppya.jpg/)It's a real shame they don't know how to spell "Bloodstained" (I was thinking Aloostained for ages lol).

Must admit it took me a while to realise what they were saying, this seems to explain it;
http://www.scotzine.com/2010/11/time-celtic-fc-banned-fans-group-over-poppy-protest-shame/

Whilst they're also against Poppy's it seems to be for a much different reason, although just as fascicle.

[Dean]

Of course the negative events of today were disrespectful but I think people are really uneducated in the sense that they believe that Islam is an ethnicity, not a religion. By telling Muslims to "go home" or "get out of our country" is basically telling them to stay in the U.K. as yes, British people can be Muslims too.

I also think it's unfair how people are generalising the whole islamic faith whilst it was just a minority who took part in the events of today.

Just a little recap, of course it's disrespectful but the hates against the islamic faith is a bit too far.

[Rixion]

Why does there always have to be people ruining special days, they should be deported all of them immediately.

With no respect for the country, why are they here causing a commotion and promoting their religion whilst people trying to think of those being remembered. Evil evil people.

[Nemo]

Why does there always have to be people ruining special days, they should be deported all of them immediately.

With no respect for the country, why are they here causing a commotion and promoting their religion whilst people trying to think of those being remembered. Evil evil people.
Because you can't just deport people who you think are wrong, because what is wrong is debateable. Its easy enough to say that.

Im surprised they weren't chased down tbh

[Jordy]

Because you can't just deport people who you think are wrong, because what is wrong is debateable. Its easy enough to say that.

Im surprised they weren't chased down tbhSounds like the EDL tried to but the police split them all up and escorted the Muslim protestors away whilst arresting EDL members.

[Stephen]

Tbh it would be the same if someone did this to a one of them, they'd blame all white people etcetc. I guess it's just a rage moment, you know you can't touch them because you don't know who the hell they really are so you blame any person you see/think of seeing that are muslims or whatever and then people take that as racism. The people who go over the top and would kill a muslim in the street over it are just sick in the head but other people are just acting naturally because that's how most people's brains work

[beth]

some of the statuses i've seen on facebook tonight have been ******* disgusting.

all they wanted was a reaction and you sure as hell gave them one.

just a little thought here: why does the word muslim need to be in this sentence? why does it have to be included. just a little view on society.
so it woulda been alright if white people had been burning the poppy? obviously not.
just a nice bit of british racial segegration. love it.

DISCLAIMER: i think it's completely despicable, but yet again the lack of education from certain people is just so obvious.

---------- Post added 12-11-2010 at 12:49 AM ----------

p.s: apparently i've replied this but i can't see my post....

[Dean]

some of the statuses i've seen on facebook tonight have been ******* disgusting.

all they wanted was a reaction and you sure as hell gave them one.

just a little thought here: why does the word muslim need to be in this sentence? why does it have to be included. just a little view on society.
so it woulda been alright if white people had been burning the poppy? obviously not.
just a nice bit of british racial segegration. love it.

DISCLAIMER: i think it's completely despicable, but yet again the lack of education from certain people is just so obvious.

---------- Post added 12-11-2010 at 12:49 AM ----------

p.s: apparently i've replied this but i can't see my post....

I agree with you so much Beth, the status' on Facebook are out of order, even if it was disrespectful.

[Nemo]

some of the statuses i've seen on facebook tonight have been ******* disgusting.

all they wanted was a reaction and you sure as hell gave them one.

just a little thought here: why does the word muslim need to be in this sentence? why does it have to be included. just a little view on society.
so it woulda been alright if white people had been burning the poppy? obviously not.
just a nice bit of british racial segegration. love it.

DISCLAIMER: i think it's completely despicable, but yet again the lack of education from certain people is just so obvious.

---------- Post added 12-11-2010 at 12:49 AM ----------

p.s: apparently i've replied this but i can't see my post....
agreed 10000000%, luckily though the people on my facebook aren't as ******ed as other parts of england, good ol' multicultural london.

[Dean]

agreed 10000000%, luckily though the people on my facebook aren't as ******ed as other parts of england, good ol' multicultural london.

True that! I only saw like 1-2 statuses, other people wouldn't even bother because of the amount of crap you can earn yourself into.

[beth]

agreed 10000000%, luckily though the people on my facebook aren't as ******ed as other parts of england, good ol' multicultural london.

sadly my hometown of birmingham is falling rapidly into bnp culture, here at uni in kent everyone seems a lot less open. but i must say, canterbury is far less multicutural than home.
so i don't get it.
i guess the lack of education in my inner city and the rise of immigration to the area just leads to one big confused mess.

[Misawa]

Sickening but inevitable and thus totally unsurprising.

[Apple]

Of course the negative events of today were disrespectful but I think people are really uneducated in the sense that they believe that Islam is an ethnicity, not a religion. By telling Muslims to "go home" or "get out of our country" is basically telling them to stay in the U.K. as yes, British people can be Muslims too.

Have you seen the video? They look about as english as Binladen, evidently originally from a country ending in istan (most likely).

I think this is hideous, they can just walk right into the Capital of England whilst it's Remembrance Day and do the worst possible kind of disrespecting act and just get away with it like that? If we did it in some of the countries they were originally from they'd chop us up, or the local police would beat the **** out of us.

EDL; I hope you have something big planned!

[beth]

Have you seen the video? They look about as english as Binladen, evidently originally from a country ending in istan (most likely).

I think this is hideous, they can just walk right into the Capital of England whilst it's Remembrance Day and do the worst possible kind of disrespecting act and just get away with it like that? If we did it in some of the countries they were originally from they'd chop us up, or the local police would beat the **** out of us.

EDL; I hope you have something big planned!

what has that got to with anything.

some of you people need to learn how to identify the difference between an entire race and 35 ******* people.

[Casanova]

I totally agree it's a total disgrace that it's allowed, it truely does show how inept our countries services are if they don't fight the abuse that some stand while they're being patriotic and supporting their country in their endeavours; no matter if they're wrong or right.

What makes me angry isn't the hate filled messages that they're spreading, it's the fact that in our own country to be 'british' represents someone whom would allow hatred in their own country under the pretense of 'culture and acceptance'. I do agree people are allowed to support and celebrate their own opinions and feelings--that is known as free speech.

Our country has already shown that free speech that is known as 'hateful' is an offence, and has jailed and prosecuted those whom fight from the other offence - those who represent the racist side of our country whom don't support nor want different faiths to be known in our country. Therefore, why aren't we allowed to prosecute and jail (and deport afterwards) those whom don't hold our values in their hearts? those whom believe this country is wrong in their policies and don't accept them... if we don't we're not asking nor wanting them to stay on our soil.

As a country our 'diversity' has cost us a lot, most of all our backbone. We're seen as racist if we don't agree with immigration and support of those from different countries. I know that's untrue, personally I'm not racist but I voice an opinion which many think of as racist when it's said outloud. Simply because most don't believe it's 'right' to say, all because they're afraid of saying that it's correct.

What's wrong here is our country and OUR policies, not those whom have expressed their opinion.
No matter how wrong it is, it's there and they're allowed it. Yes, I totally disagree with it and truely believe they should **** off!

[AgnesIO]

What's interesting is that these evil people who come and do these protests always use the "your laws mean you can't get rid of us, so we will carry on preaching" - yet they also bang on about bringing the sharia law in to the uk etc?

They should either be forced to follow our laws, or **** off - instead of playing games with us

[wiktoria]

That's disgusting. It annoys me how some people try to change Britain. If you want to live here you have to get used to it. It's not everyone and I think what they did is a disgrace.

[ifuseekamy]

Islam isn't a race.

[GommeInc]

Hmmm, what ignorant and clearly disrespectful pigs. No wonder no one takes their kind seriously.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Whether we like it or not, these people have every right to do what they doing however distasteful we may find that. I think the real issue is hypocrisy again from government which paints a misleading picture and which fuels anger over issues such as this - this government and the last government allow these types of protests to go ahead but do not allow the likes of the English Defence League to protest, if you are going to have democracy and liberty then it has to be two sided. It was only a month or two ago that the police arrested a group of lads (thuggish as they seemed) for burning the Koran.

If it continues to be one-sided then you will only have more people joining the likes of the EDL.

[Conservative,]

Whether we like it or not, these people have every right to do what they doing however distasteful we may find that. I think the real issue is hypocrisy again from government which paints a misleading picture and which fuels anger over issues such as this - this government and the last government allow these types of protests to go ahead but do not allow the likes of the English Defence League to protest, if you are going to have democracy and liberty then it has to be two sided. It was only a month or two ago that the police arrested a group of lads (thuggish as they seemed) for burning the Koran.

If it continues to be one-sided then you will only have more people joining the likes of the EDL.

True, but it doesn't make it right. I'd happily have had the EDL be there and smash their heads in - although the EDL would've been arrested. But it's so wrong that Muslims can do what they want here, they can protest, they can follow their ridiculous laws, yet over there, if we went and lived, we'd get hung if we did half of what they do.

It's so disrespectful and I think that if we're going to allow them to do that, the EDL should be allowed to do what they want? It's the same thing, except the EDL are seen as attacking a minority, and therefore it is wrong, yet those Muslims are attacking the majority - aka more people will be offended, yet it is right?

HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE.

[-:Undertaker:-]

True, but it doesn't make it right. I'd happily have had the EDL be there and smash their heads in - although the EDL would've been arrested. But it's so wrong that Muslims can do what they want here, they can protest, they can follow their ridiculous laws, yet over there, if we went and lived, we'd get hung if we did half of what they do.

It's so disrespectful and I think that if we're going to allow them to do that, the EDL should be allowed to do what they want? It's the same thing, except the EDL are seen as attacking a minority, and therefore it is wrong, yet those Muslims are attacking the majority - aka more people will be offended, yet it is right?

HOW DOES THAT MAKE SENSE.

Both should be allowed provided it stays within traditional English law (which discounts ridiculous modern law and European legislation).

The entire basis for freedom of speech is to protect and allow those with unpopular views to air them, be it in actions, protests or writing. There is no right in traditional English law not to be offended, and that includes (whether we like it or not) veterans who have served in the war and ourselves.


yet those Muslims are attacking the majority - aka more people will be offended, yet it is right?

It is right because that is freedom of speech, you can't pick and choose what views to allow.

[Conservative,]

Both should be allowed provided it stays within traditional English law (which discounts ridiculous modern law and European legislation).

The entire basis for freedom of speech is to protect and allow those with unpopular views to air them, be it in actions, protests or writing. There is no right in traditional English law not to be offended, and that includes (whether we like it or not) veterans who have served in the war and ourselves.



It is right because that is freedom of speech, you can't pick and choose what views to allow.

But the point is that the protests were - in effect - violent? I don't see how burning a very symbolic object is peaceful? It's just burning the stars & strips flag in America, or burning the Koran. It's seen as a crime. But they can do that?

I'm all for freeedom of speech but this is political correctness gone mad.

[Nemo]

But the point is that the protests were - in effect - violent? I don't see how burning a very symbolic object is peaceful? It's just burning the stars & strips flag in America, or burning the Koran. It's seen as a crime. But they can do that?

I'm all for freeedom of speech but this is political correctness gone mad.
I dont think you quite understand the meaning of violent

[GommeInc]

It was only a month or two ago that the police arrested a group of lads (thuggish as they seemed) for burning the Koran.
Two wrongs do not make a right, and allowing ignorance like this just leads to the ignorant disease spreading. Good on the police for arresting them, they're clearly dumb people too and should probably not be seen nor heard. Same as these ignoramuses who were burning poppies for goodness knows what reason, probably to troll. Freedom of expression and free speech are reserved for people who have done research and know what they're talking about, and both sides are as stupid and dumb as they can get and are not allowed these "rights" as they are clearly incapable of rational thought.

[-:Undertaker:-]

But the point is that the protests were - in effect - violent? I don't see how burning a very symbolic object is peaceful? It's just burning the stars & strips flag in America, or burning the Koran. It's seen as a crime. But they can do that?

I'm all for freeedom of speech but this is political correctness gone mad.

It is only seen as a crime in the eyes of modern law and European type law, as I said before there seems to be some ridiculous notion now that you have a right to be not offended and that to offend somebody is a crime. It may offically be a crime, but to anybody with an ounce of common sense - its a draconian law which infringes on our rights.

If I want to burn an effigy of my family, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to burn the British flag, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to burn the bible, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to burn the Koran, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to draw the prophet Muhammad, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to deny the holocaust, I should be allowed to do so.


Two wrongs do not make a right, and allowing ignorance like this just leads to the ignorant disease spreading. Good on the police for arresting them, they're clearly dumb people too and should probably not be seen nor heard. Same as these ignoramuses who were burning poppies for goodness knows what reason, probably to troll. Freedom of expression and free speech are reserved for people who have done research and know what they're talking about, and both sides are as stupid and dumb as they can get and are not allowed these "rights" as they are clearly incapable of rational thought.

You have basically just told me that freedom of speech is reserved to those who agree with you, the same logic which all dictatorships have used along with what form Islam currently takes and which the Catholic Church used to take before its power was broken.

[Chippiewill]

-winging about freedom of speech-


You do realise that what we think of as freedom of speech is no where near what we actually have, it basically gets you to 'The government sucks' and that's about it. What you think of as freedom of speech is what they have in America where you can say pretty much anything.

[GommeInc]

You have basically just told me that freedom of speech is reserved to those who agree with you, the same logic which all dictatorships have used along with what form Islam currently takes and which the Catholic Church used to take before its power was broken.
Where did I say that, or are you doing the typical "put-words-in-mouth" argument? I did not say that, therefore that comment you made is pointless. Freedom of speech is played upon too often by people who really do not know how to form arguments, make an argument nor know what they're actually protesting for or against. You get generic and xenophobic slurrs which makes the credibility of many protests drop lower than Ann Widdecombes smooth breasts. The people burning the Qu'ran for example, they were outright attacking Islam in general when the real problem is with Muslim Extremists, a small minority. Then you get the people in this article burning poppies for no reason, s they appear to not have one other than "British soldiers burn in hell", even though the fact the wars relating to WWI, WWII and any other war probably averted problems for these countries, and the fact that the morons are living in a "free" country which, if these hellish British soldiers didn't fight, wouldn't be the haven they're living in now. The fact they're hating a nation that has somehow took them on is amazing too. It's not freedom of speech like RSPCA marches where good evidence has been found (though I disagree with animal testing should be scrapped which was/is a popular topic in the past), it's just stupidity in large numbers protesting without cause.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You do realise that what we think of as freedom of speech is no where near what we actually have, it basically gets you to 'The government sucks' and that's about it. What you think of as freedom of speech is what they have in America where you can say pretty much anything.

That is freedom of speech and that is what i'm arguing for, the American system is based on old traditional English law which i've been arguing for and have made the point that modern law and European-style law is wrong.


Where did I say that, or are you doing the typical "put-words-in-mouth" argument? I did not say that, therefore that comment you made is pointless. Freedom of speech is played upon too often by people who really do not know how to form arguments, make an argument nor know what they're actually protesting for or against. You get generic and xenophobic slurrs which makes the credibility of many protests drop lower than Ann Widdecombes smooth breasts. The people burning the Qu'ran for example, they were outright attacking Islam in general when the real problem is with Muslim Extremists, a small minority. Then you get the people in this article burning poppies for no reason, s they appear to not have one other than "British soldiers burn in hell", even though the fact the wars relating to WWI, WWII and any other war probably averted problems for these countries, and the fact that the morons are living in a "free" country which, if these hellish British soldiers didn't fight, wouldn't be the haven they're living in now. The fact they're hating a nation that has somehow took them on is amazing too. It's not freedom of speech like RSPCA marches where good evidence has been found (though I disagree with animal testing should be scrapped which was/is a popular topic in the past), it's just stupidity in large numbers protesting without cause.

I bolded it for you, but here it is again what you say; "Freedom of expression and free speech are reserved for people who have done research and know what they're talking about, and both sides are as stupid and dumb as they can get and are not allowed these "rights" as they are clearly incapable of rational thought." - in other words, freedom of speech should be regulated.

The post you've made now, but that logic is just as bad. You say these people do not know how to make rational arguments - instead of trying to argue for what they are saying to be banned and made illegal, why not form your own argument to destroy theirs because thats freedom of speech. If you don't like what people are saying, you dont go out and ban it - you confront it and prove them wrong.

Again, you say 'without cause' - who said? you? why? because you disagree with them? what if I wanted what you say banned based on my argument that you don't have a cause. You'd quite rightly be up in arms because i'm treading all over your right to freedom of speech.

[MrPinkPanther]

Surely it's a bit counter productive saying "lets kill all muslims" for a small group of them burning some poppies on remembrance day considering part of what we are supposed to be remembering is the fight against fascism and the tens of millions of people who died defeating it.

[Apple]

You do realise that what we think of as freedom of speech is no where near what we actually have, it basically gets you to 'The government sucks' and that's about it. What you think of as freedom of speech is what they have in America where you can say pretty much anything.
Yeh lol in America they can just say it how it is, over here we cannot.

what has that got to with anything.

some of you people need to learn how to identify the difference between an entire race and 35 ******* people.

I was replying to Dean...

Dean was saying that telling them to go home would just be pointless as British people can also be muslim. However in that video they obviously all originated from another country and have moved over here recently. Besides, what sort of British person burns poppies on Remembrance Day? Our soldiers fought for freedom of speech and to prevent England from being invaded by foreigners, if only they could see it now...

[Mathew]

If I want to burn an effigy of my family, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to burn the British flag, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to burn the bible, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to burn the Koran, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to draw the prophet Muhammad, I should be allowed to do so.
If I want to deny the holocaust, I should be allowed to do so.
I occasionally agree with your posts but this baffles me. Surely if we're living in a society where everyone is allowed to start fires and burn whatever their please, we're going to be living in a very offensive, very hurtful and extremely unruly environment. While some rules go over the top (Safety guidelines in particular), we shouldn't simply throw them all out of the window.

[Nemo]

I occasionally agree with your posts but this baffles me. Surely if we're living in a society where everyone is allowed to start fires and burn whatever their please, we're going to be living in a very offensive, very hurtful and extremely unruly environment. While some rules go over the top (Safety guidelines in particular), we shouldn't simply throw them all out of the window.
But then where does one cross the line as to what is and isn't rude/offensive. It's just too much of a debateable subject so personally i think its either easier to just leave all of them alone since its impossible to ban them (bringing me back to everything being debateable). However i think its right the EDL were stopped since they were obviously gonna cause harm, but then you could say the extremists should be arrested too since they were obviously provoking that sort of response, but then you could say a lot of stuff is.

Its a tricky one.

[alexxxxx]

all the placards they have put up seem not to be particularly offensive.

in fact it is almost refreshing that it shows that these people are allowed to do this because of the sacrifices of WWI/WWII soldiers. i doubt this sort of action would have been permitted under a nazi regime!

if the EDL were actively charging towards the protesters, then the police were right to lead them away. if either of the groups were provoking each other with direct threats/insults then they should be lead away.

[AgnesIO]

all the placards they have put up seem not to be particularly offensive.

in fact it is almost refreshing that it shows that these people are allowed to do this because of the sacrifices of WWI/WWII soldiers. i doubt this sort of action would have been permitted under a nazi regime!

if the EDL were actively charging towards the protesters, then the police were right to lead them away. if either of the groups were provoking each other with direct threats/insults then they should be lead away.

What could you do under the nazi regime? I think this is quite a silly comment - I can almost say for a fact, the British soldiers would hate to see this.

---

It is also interesting that if it wasn't for the allied soldiers (British etc) the muslims probably wouldn't even be alive now.

[Conservative,]

What could you do under the nazi regime? I think this is quite a silly comment - I can almost say for a fact, the British soldiers would hate to see this.

---

It is also interesting that if it wasn't for the allied soldiers (British etc) the muslims probably wouldn't even be alive now.

Agree with both points. You really think a British soldier, who fought for independence & peace, would ENJOY seeing a memorial to him being burnt? That's like saying Hitler would enjoy the sight of Jews roaming around Berlin - it's ludicrous.

[GommeInc]

I bolded it for you, but here it is again what you say; "Freedom of expression and free speech are reserved for people who have done research and know what they're talking about, and both sides are as stupid and dumb as they can get and are not allowed these "rights" as they are clearly incapable of rational thought." - in other words, freedom of speech should be regulated.

The post you've made now, but that logic is just as bad. You say these people do not know how to make rational arguments - instead of trying to argue for what they are saying to be banned and made illegal, why not form your own argument to destroy theirs because thats freedom of speech. If you don't like what people are saying, you dont go out and ban it - you confront it and prove them wrong.

Again, you say 'without cause' - who said? you? why? because you disagree with them? what if I wanted what you say banned based on my argument that you don't have a cause. You'd quite rightly be up in arms because i'm treading all over your right to freedom of speech.
Paragraph 1: You seem to have changed your argument. You said that freedom of speech only exists if I agree with it, now you've changed that argument because my original post suggested no such thing. I conclude that you misread what I wrote and therefore I have won that argument.

Paragraph 2: They're constantly proven wrong. If they can't form rational arguments (i.e. their points are clearly invalid and extreme to the point exaggerations are added to prove an invalid point, therefore a waste of time and air), then they shouldn't be arguing at all claiming they have freedom of speech, when what they have to speak about is pure vomit. "DEATH TO BRITISH SOLIDERS" in Britain is clearly ignorant and stupid thing to say, when the country they're in would be totally different if these soldiers fought no wars. Same as the imbesiles burning the Qu'ran to somehow prove a point that Muslim is generically bad and evil, when actually it's a minority. If I was against Muslim extremism, I'll burn pictures or idols of their god - the extremist leader(s) - which could be Osama Bin Laden or another leader, because burning the Qu'ran makes no point and will not make people listen, seeing as extremists do not appear to be following their "religion" anyway, or not to the extent the majority do anyway.

Paragraph 3: No, because it proves nothing. What did burning the poppies do? Buggar all, sweet "F.A.". If anything, they've just lowered their credibility. And you don't seem to have an example of an argument, though if you did it would probably be well constructed, unlike some of these clearly ignorant and purely brain dead individuals. It's like me claiming the moon is made of cheese and I should be allowed to have any information regarding the moon to be changed, 'cos I am angry and like burning my extensive copy of Wikipedia articles regarding cheese and the moon. It'd be stupid.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I occasionally agree with your posts but this baffles me. Surely if we're living in a society where everyone is allowed to start fires and burn whatever their please, we're going to be living in a very offensive, very hurtful and extremely unruly environment. While some rules go over the top (Safety guidelines in particular), we shouldn't simply throw them all out of the window.

But there is no such right not to be offended, how can you make a thought/an opinion a crime? only the most despotic people in history have ever done so/strived to do so.

If we believe they are wrong then we debate them/challenge their views, we don't go and ban them.


Paragraph 1: You seem to have changed your argument. You said that freedom of speech only exists if I agree with it, now you've changed that argument because my original post suggested no such thing. I conclude that you misread what I wrote and therefore I have won that argument.

I haven't changed anything, more so you are changing the point. You have said to me basically that freedom of speech should be regulated, and why do you think it should be regulated? because you obviously don't agree with certain views being aired - which means you disagree with points of opinion. I disagree with points of opinion too as we disagree right now, but just because I disagree with you does not mean I think it should be regulated/controlled in any manner.


Paragraph 2: They're constantly proven wrong. If they can't form rational arguments (i.e. their points are clearly invalid and extreme to the point exaggerations are added to prove an invalid point, therefore a waste of time and air), then they shouldn't be arguing at all claiming they have freedom of speech, when what they have to speak about is pure vomit. "DEATH TO BRITISH SOLIDERS" in Britain is clearly ignorant and stupid thing to say, when the country they're in would be totally different if these soldiers fought no wars. Same as the imbesiles burning the Qu'ran to somehow prove a point that Muslim is generically bad and evil, when actually it's a minority. If I was against Muslim extremism, I'll burn pictures or idols of their god - the extremist leader(s) - which could be Osama Bin Laden or another leader, because burning the Qu'ran makes no point and will not make people listen, seeing as extremists do not appear to be following their "religion" anyway, or not to the extent the majority do anyway.

But you say proven wrong, who says they are proven wrong? you and me because we don't agree with them? see now we are trying to quash another opinion right there. Here is one example, say socialism is proven wrong (which I believe it has been proven wrong time and time again with the likes of the Third Reich, USSR, Khamer Rogue and so on) - well just because I see it as proven wrong doesn't mean that socialism or socialist views should be outlawed now does it?


Paragraph 3: No, because it proves nothing. What did burning the poppies do? Buggar all, sweet "F.A.". If anything, they've just lowered their credibility. And you don't seem to have an example of an argument, though if you did it would probably be well constructed, unlike some of these clearly ignorant and purely brain dead individuals.

Then they've lowered their credibility and thats that. It doesn't mean they should be banned from airing these views just because you, me and the majority of people disagree with them.

I believe genuinely and honestly believe that the European Union is an absolute disaster and does absolutely nothing for this country. However I don't propose that people who disagree with me have their opinions banned, if I disgaree with them or they disagree with me - then we can debate it and if they dont want to debate it then they just loose credibility - the same if I refused to debate it.

Freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular speech.

[Mathew]

But there is no such right not to be offended, how can you make a thought/an opinion a crime? only the most despotic people in history have ever done so/strived to do so.

If we believe they are wrong then we debate them/challenge their views, we don't go and ban them.
While I see where you're coming from and it looks like a good idea on paper, it's simply impractical.
If you have someone burning the Bible on one side of the street and someone burning the Koran on the other; do you honestly think they're going to have a mass debate over the road?

No, of course not. They're going to get on the phone to their friends and have a riot. No, an opinion shouldn't be a crime and personally, I couldn't care less about what people say unless it's directly relating to me - but in the society we've been brought up in, you can't trust people to openly share and debate views in a civilized environment.

[-:Undertaker:-]

While I see where you're coming from and it looks like a good idea on paper, it's simply impractical.
If you have someone burning the Bible on one side of the street and someone burning the Koran on the other; do you honestly think they're going to have a mass debate over the road?

No, of course not. They're going to get on the phone to their friends and have a riot. No, an opinion shouldn't be a crime and personally, I couldn't care less about what people say unless it's directly relating to me - but in the society we've been brought up in, you can't trust people to openly share and debate views in a civilized environment.

Well one of the reasons we get so 'offended' or worked up nowadays is because people now see it as a right to not be offended, and that others don't have a right to have an opinion that is differing to that of their own. We did afterall have this system not that long ago, until ridiculous modern-style law and European-type law became the new fashion with politicians falling over themselves right, left and centre to protect minoritys from becoming offended at anything which disagreed with their lifestyle/way of life/opinions in general.

In terms of violence, of course it will occur at times - and if it does reach that stage in circumstances then the regular law will step in when needed, although I do accept sometimes it will lead to nasty circumstances - but thats what comes with life generally just like if you allow people to drive cars then you'll end up with horrific pile ups now and again on the motorway. I would argue that these laws lead to more trouble than they are worth, just look at the outrage that bottles up over issues such as this;- why are muslims allowed to burn poppies/our flags, but old aged pensioners cant even voice opposition to homosexuality as an example.

Its ridiculous, people need to get a bloody good grip before this leads down a very dangerous road (or it already has done you could argue).

[Mathew]

Before I reply again, I agree with you on all accounts, but I simply don't think it will ever happen and it can't ever happen. People cannot accept the drastic change.

I couldn't agree with you more about the petiness of society; and yes, I'd love to shove the blame on Labour for introducing so many laws, trying to do what's best for the country, keeping us safe... but in reality, taking away much of our freedom. As I keep saying, people are trying so hard to avoid being racist, that they end up being racist to their own people. And that's the problem.

While you can't ban someone from burning a book on the grounds of it being offensive, you have to look at what is really best for people. It is inevitable that it would turn to uproar (as it did, burning the poppy). Are you really saying that the group of maniacs should have been allowed to burn the poppy? a) the fire is dangerous. b) it's a threat to themselves and c) it's disrespectful to the country for which they live in. I am failing to see why the police should sit back with a cup of tea and warm their hands on the fire, admiring any fights which may arise from it.


Well one of the reasons we get so 'offended' or worked up nowadays is because people now see it as a right to not be offended, and that others don't have a right to have an opinion that is differing to that of their own. We did afterall have this system not that long ago, until ridiculous modern-style law and European-type law became the new fashion with politicians falling over themselves right, left and centre to protect minoritys from becoming offended at anything which disagreed with their lifestyle/way of life/opinions in general.

In terms of violence, of course it will occur at times - and if it does reach that stage in circumstances then the regular law will step in when needed, although I do accept sometimes it will lead to nasty circumstances - but thats what comes with life generally just like if you allow people to drive cars then you'll end up with horrific pile ups now and again on the motorway. I would argue that these laws lead to more trouble than they are worth, just look at the outrage that bottles up over issues such as this;- why are muslims allowed to burn poppies/our flags, but old aged pensioners cant even voice opposition to homosexuality as an example.

Its ridiculous, people need to get a bloody good grip before this leads down a very dangerous road (or it already has done you could argue).

[GommeInc]

I haven't changed anything, more so you are changing the point. You have said to me basically that freedom of speech should be regulated, and why do you think it should be regulated? because you obviously don't agree with certain views being aired - which means you disagree with points of opinion. I disagree with points of opinion too as we disagree right now, but just because I disagree with you does not mean I think it should be regulated/controlled in any manner.
I didn't say it should be banned, I said freedom of speech should be reserved to people who know what they're talking about or have made a good argument, in the sense of use and how those views are expressed. You assume that I base freedom of speech as only being useful if I agree with it, which is far from the truth. It's more a matter of constructing a good argument than constructing an argument with little substance. For example:

- The student protests. Some of the points raised I do not strongly agree with, but they've at least done the research to fight their cause and do not necessary create these arguments to offend or cause destruction or unnecessary hatred. I am of course focusing on the students and teachers who were not throwing things of buildings. That's assuming they were there to protest for their cause, as they do appear to of gone just to cause havoc.

- Calling all Christians or Muslims evil, or simply burning symbols of a religion to spite a particularly sub-group within that group e.g. extremist Muslims. It's pointless and holds no substance. Surely you'd find freedom of speech useful and a "right" if there is actually some thought going behind it? Hating a particular type of person, but going on to hate everyone mildly associated just annoys me and lowers any credibility.


But you say proven wrong, who says they are proven wrong? you and me because we don't agree with them? see now we are trying to quash another opinion right there. Here is one example, say socialism is proven wrong (which I believe it has been proven wrong time and time again with the likes of the Third Reich, USSR, Khamer Rogue and so on) - well just because I see it as proven wrong doesn't mean that socialism or socialist views should be outlawed now does it?
You seem to have proven my point. Socialism and views associated with it do not reflect the entirity of socialism, therefore I won't quash socialism. But saying all socialism is wrong is about as useful as saying capitalism is good, when there are bad and good aspects. It's only useful if you target specific issues that cause problems, it's useless if you attack the whole community associated, which is why I think poppy burning hypocrites do not deserve the freedom of expression or speech, because the very thing they're burning means more than just the soldiers who thought in Iraq or Afghanistan which it is mildly associated with, but service men and women who have lost their lies for those very freedoms they are attempting but failing to use. It's the same as with the Qu'ran burning ignoramuses who are attacking Islam in general, claiming that Islam is evil, when actually it's extremism they're angry with, not Islam as there is a wider target with that. Of course, extremism may not necessary be evil, but if they can't form an argument stating that then they've lost the opinion of their audience.


Then they've lowered their credibility and thats that. It doesn't mean they should be banned from airing these views just because you, me and the majority of people disagree with them.
I'd rather have useful, factual information hurled at me than information that is far from the truth, or made up, or exaggerated without reason. If they make up information then the only support they'll get are from people who know very little or angry people who do not understand their cause (as in, do not know what they're arguing for or against).


I believe genuinely and honestly believe that the European Union is an absolute disaster and does absolutely nothing for this country. However I don't propose that people who disagree with me have their opinions banned, if I disgaree with them or they disagree with me - then we can debate it and if they dont want to debate it then they just loose credibility - the same if I refused to debate it.

Freedom of speech is there to protect unpopular speech.
You misunderstood my point dear ;) Of course you disagree with the EU, and opposite views exist, but my point is that information which is far from the truth and hasn't been researched is useless. The arguments for the EU, for example, are at least well thought out and at least counter-argue points put against the EU. My point is this; freedom of speech and expression is only useful if your arguments are valid and do not sit in the seat of extremism gone mad. Being told that British soldiers are evil, when the people voicing these opinions actually mean "... who have killed hundreds of people in Iraq/Afghanistan" is misleading and invalid, therefore useless. Like the "God Hates ****" people in America who clearly do not understand any part of Christianity, nor war, nor America but love posting faecal matter, their views are so misled and wrong it's irritating, and only exists so to annoy or to troll, as they clearly do not have any, if not, very little arguments to back up their claims and are easily proven wrong, and most likely know this.

However, I can kind of see a flaw in my argument, as this only really invovles those who over-exaggerate their claims and know their views are wrong, which I again reflect on the GHF Americans.

[alexxxxx]

What could you do under the nazi regime? I think this is quite a silly comment - I can almost say for a fact, the British soldiers would hate to see this.

---

It is also interesting that if it wasn't for the allied soldiers (British etc) the muslims probably wouldn't even be alive now.

No, that's what i meant. The Soldiers fought for everybody's freedom, not just a select few. This would not have been tolerated in a totalitarian or authoritarian regime, no?

And anyone saying 'omg i carnt believe EDL peepol got arrestid' well yes, one got arrested for assaulting a police officer and 2 muslim protesters got arrested for public order offenses.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-11751268

[Apple]

After doing a lot of research into the Qur'an and discovering how violent some of the verses actually are, my opinion on Muslims has changed significantly.

I also found this very interesting, straight out of the Qur'an:


O YOU who have attained to faith! Do not take the Jews and the Christians for your allies: they are but allies of one another and whoever of you allies himself with them becomes, verily, one of them; behold, God does not guide people who are unjust. (Quran 5:51)

Islam is far from a religion of peace.

Look how we are treated in their countries. What would happen to me as a Christian in an Islamic country? Why is it that in nearly all Islamic countries that Christians are persecuted? Tolerance isn't a one way road. We bend over backwards for muslims to fit into our countries yet they give nothing our way. It's just all take take take, and give nothing back.

[Nemo]

After doing a lot of research into the Qur'an and discovering how violent some of the verses actually are, my opinion on Muslims has changed significantly.

I also found this very interesting, straight out of the Qur'an:



Islam is far from a religion of peace.

Look how we are treated in their countries. What would happen to me as a Christian in an Islamic country? Why is it that in nearly all Islamic countries that Christians are persecuted? Tolerance isn't a one way road. We bend over backward for muslims to fit into our countries yet they give nothing our way. It's just all take take take, and give nothing back.
Hahahahahahaha, oh my god i dont even know if i should take you seriously anymore or if you're just a troll

[GommeInc]

After doing a lot of research into the Qur'an and discovering how violent some of the verses actually are, my opinion on Muslims has changed significantly.

I also found this very interesting, straight out of the Qur'an:



Islam is far from a religion of peace.

Look how we are treated in their countries. What would happen to me as a Christian in an Islamic country? Why is it that in nearly all Islamic countries that Christians are persecuted? Tolerance isn't a one way road. We bend over backwards for muslims to fit into our countries yet they give nothing our way. It's just all take take take, and give nothing back.
Pfft, that's nothing. If you read the Bible (specifically the old testament), you'll understand that what you just quoted is foreplay in comparison ;)

[Apple]

Pfft, that's nothing. If you read the Bible (specifically the old testament), you'll understand that what you just quoted is foreplay in comparison ;)

The quote from the Quran in my previous post wasn't aimed to show how violent the religion is but to show that they are not allowed to befriend Christians/Jews. However the following shows violence in this so called "religion of peace".


The Quran:
Quran (2:191-193) - "And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution [of Muslims] is worse than slaughter [of non-believers]...and fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." There is a good case to be made that the textual context of this particular passage is defensive war, even if the historical context was not. However, there are also two worrisome pieces to this verse. The first is that the killing of others is authorized in the event of "persecution" (a qualification that is ambiguous at best). The second is that fighting may persist until "religion is for Allah." The example set by Muhammad is not reassuring.

Quran (2:244) - "Then fight in the cause of Allah, and know that Allah Heareth and knoweth all things."

Quran (2:216) - "Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not." Not only does this verse establish that violence can be virtuous, but it also contradicts the myth that fighting is intended only in self-defense, since the audience was obviously not under attack at the time. From the Hadith, we know that Muhammad was actually trying to motivate his people into raiding caravans with this verse.

Quran (3:56) - "As to those who reject faith, I will punish them with terrible agony in this world and in the Hereafter, nor will they have anyone to help."

Quran (3:151) - "Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers, for that they joined companions with Allah, for which He had sent no authority". This speaks directly of polytheists, yet it also includes Christians, since they believe in the Trinity (ie. what Muhammad incorrectly believed to be 'joining companions to Allah').

Quran (4:74) - "Let those fight in the way of Allah who sell the life of this world for the other. Whoso fighteth in the way of Allah, be he slain or be he victorious, on him We shall bestow a vast reward." The martyrs of Islam are unlike the early Christians, led meekly to the slaughter. These Muslims are killed in battle, as they attempt to inflict death and destruction for the cause of Allah. Here is the theological basis for today's suicide bombers.

Quran (4:76) - "Those who believe fight in the cause of Allah…"

Quran (4:89) - "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks."

Quran (4:95) - "Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and receive no hurt, and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah with their goods and their persons. Allah hath granted a grade higher to those who strive and fight with their goods and persons than to those who sit (at home). Unto all (in Faith) Hath Allah promised good: But those who strive and fight Hath He distinguished above those who sit (at home) by a special reward,-" This passage criticizes "peaceful" Muslims who do not join in the violence, letting them know that they are less worthy in Allah's eyes. It also demolishes the modern myth that "Jihad" doesn't mean holy war in the Quran, but rather a spiritual struggle. Not only is the Arabic word used in this passage, but it is clearly not referring to anything spiritual, since the physically disabled are given exemption. (The Hadith reveals the context of the passage to be in response to a blind man's protest that he is unable to engage in Jihad and this is reflected in other translations of the verse).

Quran (4:104) - "And be not weak hearted in pursuit of the enemy; if you suffer pain, then surely they (too) suffer pain as you suffer pain..." Is pursuing an injured and retreating enemy really an act of self-defense?

Quran (5:33) - "The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides or they should be imprisoned; this shall be as a disgrace for them in this world, and in the hereafter they shall have a grievous chastisement"

Quran (8:12) - "I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve. Therefore strike off their heads and strike off every fingertip of them" No reasonable person would interpret this to mean a spiritual struggle.

Quran (8:15) - "O ye who believe! When ye meet those who disbelieve in battle, turn not your backs to them. (16)Whoso on that day turneth his back to them, unless maneuvering for battle or intent to join a company, he truly hath incurred wrath from Allah, and his habitation will be hell, a hapless journey's end."

Quran (8:39) - "And fight with them until there is no more persecution and religion should be only for Allah" From the historical context we know that the "persecution" spoken of here was simply the refusal by the Meccans to allow Muhammad to enter their city and perform the Haj. Other Muslims were able to travel there, just not as an armed group, since Muhammad declared war on Mecca prior to his eviction. The Meccans were also acting in defense of their religion, since it was Muhammad's intention to destroy their idols and establish Islam by force (which he later did). Hence the critical part of this verse is to fight until "religion is only for Allah." According to Ibn Ishaq (324), Muhammad justified the violence further by explaining that "Allah must have no rivals."

Quran (8:57) - "If thou comest on them in the war, deal with them so as to strike fear in those who are behind them, that haply they may remember."

Quran (8:59-60) - "And let not those who disbelieve suppose that they can outstrip (Allah's Purpose). Lo! they cannot escape. Make ready for them all thou canst of (armed) force and of horses tethered, that thereby ye may dismay the enemy of Allah and your enemy."

Quran (9:5) - "So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them." According to this verse, the best way of staying safe from Muslim violence is to convert to Islam. Prayer (salat) and the poor tax (zakat) are among the religions Five Pillars.

Quran (9:14) - "Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace..."

Quran (9:20) - "Those who believe, and have left their homes and striven with their wealth and their lives in Allah's way are of much greater worth in Allah's sight. These are they who are triumphant." The "striving" spoken of here is Jihad.

Quran (9:29) - "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." "People of the Book" refers to Christians and Jews. This was one of the final "revelations" from Allah and it set in motion the tenacious military expansion, in which Muhammad's companions managed to conquer two-thirds of the Christian world in just the next 100 years. Islam is intended to dominate all other people and faiths.

Quran (9:30) - "And the Jews say: Ezra is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah destroy them; how they are turned away!"

Quran (9:38-39) - "O ye who believe! what is the matter with you, that, when ye are asked to go forth in the cause of Allah, ye cling heavily to the earth? Do ye prefer the life of this world to the Hereafter? But little is the comfort of this life, as compared with the Hereafter. Unless ye go forth, He will punish you with a grievous penalty, and put others in your place." This is a warning to those who refuse to fight, that they will be punished with Hell.

Quran (9:41) - "Go forth, light-armed and heavy-armed, and strive with your wealth and your lives in the way of Allah! That is best for you if ye but knew." See also the verse that follows (9:42) - "If there had been immediate gain (in sight), and the journey easy, they would (all) without doubt have followed thee, but the distance was long, (and weighed) on them" This contradicts the myth that Muslims are to fight only in self-defense, since the wording implies that battle will be waged a long distance from home (in another country and on Christian soil, in this case, according to the historians).

Quran (9:73) - "O Prophet! strive hard against the unbelievers and the hypocrites and be unyielding to them; and their abode is hell, and evil is the destination." Dehumanizing those who reject Islam, by reminding Muslims that they are merely firewood for Hell, makes it easier to justify slaughter. It also explains why today's devout Muslims have little regard for those outside the faith.

Quran (9:88) - "But the Messenger, and those who believe with him, strive and fight with their wealth and their persons: for them are (all) good things: and it is they who will prosper."

Quran (9:111) - "Allah hath purchased of the believers their persons and their goods; for theirs (in return) is the garden (of Paradise): they fight in His cause, and slay and are slain: a promise binding on Him in truth, through the Law, the Gospel, and the Quran: and who is more faithful to his covenant than Allah? then rejoice in the bargain which ye have concluded: that is the achievement supreme."

Quran (9:123) - "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness."

Quran (8:65-81) - This parable lays the theological groundwork for honor killings, in which a family member is murdered because they brought shame to the family, either through apostasy or perceived moral indiscretion. The story, which is not found in any Jewish or Christian source, tells of Moses encountering a man with "special knowledge" who does things which don't seem to make sense on the surface, but are then justified according to later explanation. One such action is to murder a youth for no apparent reason (74). However, the wise man later explains that it was feared that the boy would "grieve" his parents by "disobedience and ingratitude." He was killed so that Allah could provide them a 'better' son.

Quran (21:44) - "We gave the good things of this life to these men and their fathers until the period grew long for them; See they not that We gradually reduce the land (in their control) from its outlying borders? Is it then they who will win?"

Quran (25:52) - "Therefore listen not to the Unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness..." "Strive against" is Jihad - obviously not in the personal context. It's also significant to point out that this is a Meccan verse.

Quran (33:60-62) - "If the hypocrites, and those in whose hearts is a disease, and the alarmists in the city do not cease, We verily shall urge thee on against them, then they will be your neighbors in it but a little while. Accursed, they will be seized wherever found and slain with a (fierce) slaughter." This passage sanctions the slaughter (rendered "merciless" and "horrible murder" in other translations) against three groups: Hypocrites (Muslims who refuse to "fight in the way of Allah" (3:167) and hence don't act as Muslims should), those with "diseased hearts" (which include Jews and Christians 5:51-52), and "alarmists" or "agitators who include those who merely speak out against Islam, according to Muhammad's biographers. It is worth noting that the victims are to be sought out by Muslims, which is what today's terrorists do. If this passage is meant merely to apply to the city of Medina, then it is unclear why it is included in Allah's eternal word to Muslim generations.

Quran (47:3-4) - "Those who reject Allah follow vanities, while those who believe follow the truth from their lord. Thus does Allah set forth form men their lessons by similtudes. Therefore when you meet in battle those who disbelieve, then smite the necks until when you have overcome them, then make (them) prisoners," Those who reject Allah are to be subdued in battle. The verse goes on to say the only reason Allah doesn't do the dirty work himself is in order to to test the faithfulness of Muslims. Those who kill pass the test. "But if it had been Allah's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of Allah,- He will never let their deeds be lost."

Quran (47:35) - "Be not weary and faint-hearted, crying for peace, when ye should be uppermost (Shakir: "have the upper hand") for Allah is with you," This very important verse asserts that the Religion of Peace is not to grant peace to the broader society until Islamic rule has been established.

Quran (48:17) - "There is no blame for the blind, nor is there blame for the lame, nor is there blame for the sick (that they go not forth to war). And whoso obeyeth Allah and His messenger, He will make him enter Gardens underneath which rivers flow; and whoso turneth back, him will He punish with a painful doom." Contemporary apologists sometimes claim that Jihad means 'spiritual struggle.' Is so, then why are the blind, lame and sick exempted?

Quran (48:29) - "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah. And those with him are hard (ruthless) against the disbelievers and merciful among themselves" Islam is not about treating everyone equally. There are two very distinct standards that are applied based on religious status.

Quran (61:4) - "Surely Allah loves those who fight in His way" Religion of Peace, indeed! This is followed by (61:9): "He it is who has sent His Messenger (Mohammed) with guidance and the religion of truth (Islam) to make it victorious over all religions even though the infidels may resist."

Quran (61:10-12) - "O ye who believe! Shall I lead you to a bargain that will save you from a grievous Penalty?- That ye believe in Allah and His Messenger, and that ye strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah, with your property and your persons: That will be best for you, if ye but knew! He will forgive you your sins, and admit you to Gardens beneath which Rivers flow, and to beautiful mansions in Gardens of Eternity." This verse was given in battle. It uses the Arabic word, Jihad.

Quran (66:9) - "O Prophet! Strive against the disbelievers and the hypocrites, and be stern with them. Hell will be their home, a hapless journey's end." The root word of "Jihad" is used again here. The context is clearly holy war, and the scope of violence is broadened to include "hypocrites" - those who call themselves Muslims but do not act as such.

[Nemo]

The quote from the Quran in my previous post wasn't aimed to show how violent the religion is but to show that they are not allowed to befriend Christians/Jews. However the following shows violence in this so called "religion of peace".
Im guessing you don't speak arabic, which leads me onto the point that is never made clear enough to naive and ignorant people such as yourself. The Qu'ran can be interpretated in many different ways, some (extremists) choose to interpret it in the way that you've said, however the majority (99.9% of them) choose to interpret it in the peaceful way that it was meant to be.

If you're going to do 'research' try to do it properly and either learn the language and read it for yourself (HAHAHA), or don't JUST read websites that are obviously against islam.

[GommeInc]

Kinda proved my point, the Bible has far worse quotes and ideologies, some of which affect human beings in general, rather than non-believers e.g. women given the pain and suffering of child birth. I think ripping out of eyes is also involved, and the fact Christ died on a cross in a vile and disgusting way pretty much leaves Islam to shame. Besides, the Bible and the Qu'ran vary considerably due to mistranslations. Real muslims understand that Christianity and Judaism aren't a threat, and vice versa. The real threats are those who are generally bad people who commit bad deeds like kill, rather than people who pray and worship on a Sunday. It makes far more sense, thus killing and attacking people for something trivial is seen exactly as I described - trivial.

Heck, the majority of muslims thrown upon extremism.

[Inseriousity.]

Honor each other: "O mankind! We created you from a male and a female and made you into nations and tribes that you may know and honor each other (not that you should despise one another). Indeed the most honorable of you in the sight of God is the most righteous." Chapter 49, Verse 13

God loves the kind: "God does not forbid you to be kind and equitable to those who have neither fought against your faith nor driven you out of your homes. In fact God loves the equitable." Chapter 60, Verse 8

About Jesus: "And in their [the earlier prophets] footsteps We sent Jesus the son of Mary, confirming the law that had come before him. We sent him the Gospel, therein was guidance and light and confirmation of the law that had come before him, a guidance and an admonition to those who fear God." Chapter 5, Verse 46

Good and evil: "Whoever recommends and helps a good cause becomes a partner therein, and whoever recommends and helps an evil cause shares in its burden." Chapter 4, Verse 85

Reaction to evil: "Repel (evil) with what is better. Then will he, between whom and thee was hatred, become as it were thy friend and intimate. And no one will be granted such goodness except those who exercise patience and self-restraint." Chapter 41, Verse 34 and 35

Do good: "Be quick in the race for forgiveness from your Lord, and for a Garden (paradise) whose width is that of the heavens and of the earth, prepared for the righteous - Those who spend (freely), whether in prosperity or in adversity, who restrain (their) anger and pardon (all) men - for God loves those who do good." Chapter 3, Verses 133-134

Reward for righteousness: "Whoever works righteousness, man or woman, and has faith, verily, to them will We give a new Life, a life that is good and pure, and We will bestow on such their reward according to the best of their actions." Chapter 16, Verse 97

Acts of compassion: "And what will explain to you what the steep path is? It is the freeing of a (slave) from bondage; or the giving of food in a day of famine to an orphan relative, or to a needy in distress. Then will he be of those who believe, enjoin fortitude and encourage kindness and compassion." Chapter 90, Verses 12-17

God is light: "God is the Light of the heavens and the earth. The parable of His Light is as if there were a Niche, and within it a lamp; the Lamp enclosed in Glass; the glass a brilliant star, lit from a blessed Tree, an Olive neither of the East nor of the West whose Oil is well-nigh luminous though fire scarce touched it. Light upon Light! God doth guide whom He will to His Light." Chapter 24, Verse 35

Even the birds praise God: "Seest thou not that it is God whose praises all beings in the heavens and on earth do celebrate, (even) the birds (of the air) with wings outspread? Each one knows its own (mode of) prayer and praise." Chapter 24, Verse 41

Love and mercy: "And among His signs is this that He created for you mates from among yourselves, that ye may dwell in tranquility with them, and He has put love and mercy between your (hearts); verily in that are signs for those who reflect." Chapter 30, Verse 21

Forgiveness and justice: "Show forgiveness, speak for justice and avoid the ignorant." Chapter 7, Verse 199Revelation: "Say ye: 'We believe in God and the revelation given to us and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) Prophets from their Lord. We make no difference between one and another of them, and we bow to God.' " Chapter 2, Verse 136

About the virgin Mary: "Relate in the Book (the story of) Mary, when she withdrew from her family to a place in the East. She placed a screen (to screen herself) from them: then We sent to her Our angel and he appeared before her as a man in all respects. She said: 'I seek refuge from thee to (God) Most Gracious: (come not near) if thou dost fear God.' He said: 'Nay I am only a messenger from thy Lord (to announce) to thee the gift of a holy son.' 1 She said: 'How shall I have a son seeing that no man has touched me and I am not unchaste?' He said: 'So (it will be): thy Lord saith "That is easy for Me: and (We wish) to appoint him as a Sign unto men and a Mercy from Us:" it is a matter (so) decreed.' " Chapter 19, verses 16-21.
Honor one's parents: "Thy Lord hath decreed that ye worship none save Him, and show kindness to your parents. If one or both of them attain old age with thee, say not 'Fie' unto them or repulse them, but speak unto them a gracious word." Chapter 17, Verses 23-24



http://www.religioustolerance.org/isl_qura.htm

In other words, extremeists can interpret their twisted message from any holy book. In the Bible, for example, it says something about homosexuals but on the same page it also says do not eat seafood. Westboro Baptist Church use passages like this to promote their GOD HATES GAYS placards but that doesn't mean the whole religion of Christianity is against homosexuals. God nowadays has moved from an angry God which all humans should fear into a more loving and forgiving one.

Islam is the same. While those extremists and suicide bombers would be able to find passages to justify their actions, they ignore all the passages about tolerance and forgiveness.

PS. Islam believes Jesus to be a prophet so they're not completely seperate from Christianity themselves.

just found some more on the site:

"If anyone harms (others), God will harm him, and if anyone shows hostility to others, God will show hostility to him." Sunan of Abu-Dawood, Hadith 1625.

"Those who believe (in the Quran), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians...and (all) who believe in God and the last day and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve." The Qur'an, 2:62

"Jim Jones, David Koresh and Meir Kahane do not typify Christianity and Judaism in the eyes of the civilized West, but those same eyes are prone to see Osama bin Laden and Mullah Muhammad Omar as typifying Islam," Richard Bulliet

[HotelUser]

The logical assertion were would be to acknowledge that sacred scripts were composed thousands of years ago, and in their time made perfectly logical sense to abide by. The mere fact that there's people trying to live by their interpretations today is shocking and alarming. Obviously some elements of the script are still logical in today's international society, like not killing. However when you get extremists trying to make flesh and blood revolve around every aspect of the script it's just utterly ridiculous.

And you Dan! Unfortunately we can't grant godmode to everyone through justifying free speech. If free speech existed to the degree you're implying then surly I should also be entitled to live in Iran and openly slate the United States and everything it stands for and then expect NORAD to let me through its borders. Oh-- but the world doesn't work like that. You can justify free speech until you're blue in the face but everyone else is still allowed to interprut and conceive what they wish about what you're saying. Bad feelings circulate around foreign lifestyles and I'm going to say sometimes they're justified just fine. Sometimes, they're not.

If we look at which structure of society causes the least death and war, most stability, best life quality we sure as hell aren't going to be looking at any countries in the middle East. So when someone tells me we're forcing our society onto them I just laugh. Of course we're trying to force our society onto them, or, atleast the elements of our society which route for the best quality of life.

And then if you compare our society hundreds of years ago to their society of today you're going to find very similar adaptations of civilization. So you could also justify that they're not a different form of a society at all, just an older, more unstable one, where given time would assimilate into a society like ours anyway even if we didn't interfere.

So should a group of people be allowed to keep their thoughts to themselves about how much they love Hitler and how they think the Holocaust didn't happen? Yes. People keep their dirty little secrets to themselves all the time. Should they be allowed to put such views into action? Hell no. If these people pose a threat to our way of life in such a way that they wish to diminish its quality they should be punished for their actions. Just like any other criminal.

There is an immense difference between McCarthyism and making genuine accusations against others in the name of public safety based upon logical facts. There's nothing wrong with the latter.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I didn't say it should be banned, I said freedom of speech should be reserved to people who know what they're talking about or have made a good argument, in the sense of use and how those views are expressed. You assume that I base freedom of speech as only being useful if I agree with it, which is far from the truth. It's more a matter of constructing a good argument than constructing an argument with little substance. For example.

So again, you want to regulate and thus ban opinions that conflict with yours/that conflict with mass opinion.


- The student protests. Some of the points raised I do not strongly agree with, but they've at least done the research to fight their cause and do not necessary create these arguments to offend or cause destruction or unnecessary hatred. I am of course focusing on the students and teachers who were not throwing things of buildings. That's assuming they were there to protest for their cause, as they do appear to of gone just to cause havoc.

But maybe I am deeply offended by their argument, maybe I think people should pay more for university - maybe I think people who are against raising fees shouldn't be allowed to air their opinion. Now do you see how ridiculous that argument is? Where do you draw the line? who draws the line? the government?


- Calling all Christians or Muslims evil, or simply burning symbols of a religion to spite a particularly sub-group within that group e.g. extremist Muslims. It's pointless and holds no substance. Surely you'd find freedom of speech useful and a "right" if there is actually some thought going behind it? Hating a particular type of person, but going on to hate everyone mildly associated just annoys me and lowers any credibility.

Then it lowers credibility in your eyes, my eyes and the eyes of most other people. That doesn't justify banning it or regulating it. If I struck up an argument with you on the bus with the European Union for example and you put good points to me for the UK staying within the EU, and I turned around and started swearing/shouting my gob off - then i've lowered my own argument. Let people make that choice for themselves rather than the government/police making it for them.


You seem to have proven my point. Socialism and views associated with it do not reflect the entirity of socialism, therefore I won't quash socialism. But saying all socialism is wrong is about as useful as saying capitalism is good, when there are bad and good aspects. It's only useful if you target specific issues that cause problems, it's useless if you attack the whole community associated, which is why I think poppy burning hypocrites do not deserve the freedom of expression or speech, because the very thing they're burning means more than just the soldiers who thought in Iraq or Afghanistan which it is mildly associated with, but service men and women who have lost their lies for those very freedoms they are attempting but failing to use. It's the same as with the Qu'ran burning ignoramuses who are attacking Islam in general, claiming that Islam is evil, when actually it's extremism they're angry with, not Islam as there is a wider target with that. Of course, extremism may not necessary be evil, but if they can't form an argument stating that then they've lost the opinion of their audience.

Alright so for example, if I believe all socialism is bad - what do you propose doing to me?


I'd rather have useful, factual information hurled at me than information that is far from the truth, or made up, or exaggerated without reason. If they make up information then the only support they'll get are from people who know very little or angry people who do not understand their cause (as in, do not know what they're arguing for or against).

I would too - but i'm not them, I don't regulate free speech and I wouldn't ever want to do so.


You misunderstood my point dear ;) Of course you disagree with the EU, and opposite views exist, but my point is that information which is far from the truth and hasn't been researched is useless. The arguments for the EU, for example, are at least well thought out and at least counter-argue points put against the EU. My point is this; freedom of speech and expression is only useful if your arguments are valid and do not sit in the seat of extremism gone mad. Being told that British soldiers are evil, when the people voicing these opinions actually mean "... who have killed hundreds of people in Iraq/Afghanistan" is misleading and invalid, therefore useless. Like the "God Hates ****" people in America who clearly do not understand any part of Christianity, nor war, nor America but love posting faecal matter, their views are so misled and wrong it's irritating, and only exists so to annoy or to troll, as they clearly do not have any, if not, very little arguments to back up their claims and are easily proven wrong, and most likely know this.

So again, who has the god given right to regulate what is a right opinion and what is a wrong opinion. If you dismiss somebodies opinion, that is an opinion in its own right.


However, I can kind of see a flaw in my argument, as this only really invovles those who over-exaggerate their claims and know their views are wrong, which I again reflect on the GHF Americans.

But they really believe that - they are exercising their democratic right to free speech, and if you disagree with them you can either ignore them or go and debate it with them. That is afterall how the western world moved on from the dark ages where anything which challenged the consensus was banned.


And you Dan! Unfortunately we can't grant godmode to everyone through justifying free speech. If free speech existed to the degree you're implying then surly I should also be entitled to live in Iran and openly slate the United States and everything it stands for and then expect NORAD to let me through its borders. Oh-- but the world doesn't work like that. You can justify free speech until you're blue in the face but everyone else is still allowed to interprut and conceive what they wish about what you're saying. Bad feelings circulate around foreign lifestyles and I'm going to say sometimes they're justified just fine. Sometimes, they're not.

But Iran isn't a free country and i'm arguing for free speech in the United Kingdom, not Iran. I would like free speech all over the planet, but that doesn't mean i'm going to get it because the affairs of the likes of Iran, North Korea or any other country for that matter are none of my business and are not the business of the United Kingdom.


If we look at which structure of society causes the least death and war, most stability, best life quality we sure as hell aren't going to be looking at any countries in the middle East. So when someone tells me we're forcing our society onto them I just laugh. Of course we're trying to force our society onto them, or, atleast the elements of our society which route for the best quality of life.

So you support the likes of the Iraq war? well your young, go and pick up a gun and get over there to fight for freedom (freedom which is appears you wish to regulate as you only just above were arguing against free speech).


So should a group of people be allowed to keep their thoughts to themselves about how much they love Hitler and how they think the Holocaust didn't happen? Yes. People keep their dirty little secrets to themselves all the time. Should they be allowed to put such views into action? Hell no. If these people pose a threat to our way of life in such a way that they wish to diminish its quality they should be punished for their actions. Just like any other criminal.

Who judges them as dirty though? you and me? because we disagree with them? you are wanting to regulate free speech and that is wrong. I may believe the Labour Party is evil and causes this country to go bankrupt everytime is gains office, however I don't propose banning it now do I? Sorry but you can't threaten a way of life with free speech, unless people start agreeing with the point thats being made - and thats the great thing about free speech, government and the police don't decide whether its right or wrong - the people do.

[HotelUser]

So again, you want to regulate and thus ban opinions that conflict with yours/that conflict with mass opinion.



But maybe I am deeply offended by their argument, maybe I think people should pay more for university - maybe I think people who are against raising fees shouldn't be allowed to air their opinion. Now do you see how ridiculous that argument is? Where do you draw the line? who draws the line? the government?



Then it lowers credibility in your eyes, my eyes and the eyes of most other people. That doesn't justify banning it or regulating it. If I struck up an argument with you on the bus with the European Union for example and you put good points to me for the UK staying within the EU, and I turned around and started swearing/shouting my gob off - then i've lowered my own argument. Let people make that choice for themselves rather than the government/police making it for them.



Alright so for example, if I believe all socialism is bad - what do you propose doing to me?



I would too - but i'm not them, I don't regulate free speech and I wouldn't ever want to do so.



So again, who has the god given right to regulate what is a right opinion and what is a wrong opinion. If you dismiss somebodies opinion, that is an opinion in its own right.



But they really believe that - they are exercising their democratic right to free speech, and if you disagree with them you can either ignore them or go and debate it with them. That is afterall how the western world moved on from the dark ages where anything which challenged the consensus was banned.



But Iran isn't a free country and i'm arguing for free speech in the United Kingdom, not Iran. I would like free speech all over the planet, but that doesn't mean i'm going to get it because the affairs of the likes of Iran, North Korea or any other country for that matter are none of my business and are not the business of the United Kingdom.



So you support the likes of the Iraq war? well your young, go and pick up a gun and get over there to fight for freedom (freedom which is appears you wish to regulate as you only just above were arguing against free speech).



Who judges them as dirty though? you and me? because we disagree with them? you are wanting to regulate free speech and that is wrong. I may believe the Labour Party is evil and causes this country to go bankrupt everytime is gains office, however I don't propose banning it now do I? Sorry but you can't threaten a way of life with free speech, unless people start agreeing with the point thats being made - and thats the great thing about free speech, government and the police don't decide whether its right or wrong - the people do.

Yes, I support NATO involvement in the Middle East. I suppose I have more of an international scope of citizenship than you do.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes, I support NATO involvement in the Middle East. I suppose I have more of an international scope of citizenship than you do.

Go and pick your gun up and get over there then and fight for freedom.

Then after that we can finish off China (nuclear-armed), Cuba, Kazakhstan (backed by nuclear-armed Russia), Zimbabwe + many more. You up for that? or are you just all for picking on the weak countries you know we can win?

Although Afghanistan is giving us a bloody nose isn't it, go over and help the war effort.

[HotelUser]

Go and pick your gun up and get over there then and fight for freedom.

Then after that we can finish off China (nuclear-armed), Cuba, Kazakhstan (backed by nuclear-armed Russia), Zimbabwe + many more. You up for that? or are you just all for picking on the weak countries you know we can win?

Although Afghanistan is giving us a bloody nose isn't it, go over and help the war effort.

Well I think the fact that countries like North Korea and China have massive massive armies and nuclear weapons means it's impossible to demolish their corrupt governments-- maybe you've heard about the Soviet Union?

In a sort of layman's terms:
Just because we can't accomplish everything we would like to, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to accomplish what we can fix. Our soldiers save lives, they're not there to pillage and plunder and they're not they're for imperialism or to make Canada, or for you, Britain look great. Your average every day soldier who's putting his life on the line doesn't give a damn about international politics. S/he sees the destruction infront of them and just cares about fixing it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well I think the fact that countries like North Korea and China have massive massive armies and nuclear weapons means it's impossible to demolish their corrupt governments-- maybe you've heard about the Soviet Union?

In a sort of layman's terms:
Just because we can't accomplish everything we would like to, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to accomplish what we can fix. Our soldiers save lives, they're not there to pillage and plunder and they're not they're for imperialism or to make Canada, or for you, Britain look great. Your average every day soldier who's putting his life on the line doesn't give a damn about international politics. S/he sees the destruction infront of them and just cares about fixing it.

North Korea could easily have her nuclear weapons disabled should the United States/NATO ever want to invade.. or is it a case of "we don't dare touch that" because a) North Korea won't take a beating laying down & b) China might get involved and show us up as a bunch of cowardly bullies?

You can still go for Burma, Cuba, Kazakhstan or will it end up a quagmire like Vietnam did where boys came home with limbs missing and for what exactly? or how about Saudi Arabia? (oh sorry forgot, we sell them weapons!) The difference between the sitution now and back in the British Empire is a) we live in a different world where imperial is supposed to be wrong in the modern day & b) at least Britain had the guts to stand upto other strong and large countries such as France, the Mughal Empire, Great Qing - the best we can do at the moment is invade little crackpot countries which don't stand a chance such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pillage and plunder, you mean like the destruction of the poppy crops in Afghanistan, the sales of arms to regimes we seem to invade every other time (whats the difference between Iraq/Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? Saudi buys our weapons and plays ball), the oil contracts in Iraq of which the same can be said for the first Gulf War which only started because Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves, the vast deposits of Lithium in Afghanistan.. I mean the list goes on and on. At least when us British had an Empire we actually built something in each colonial outpost to show for it & we didn't pretend that it wasn't for financial gain.

So again I put it to you, why don't you pick up a gun and go and enroll?

[HotelUser]

North Korea could easily have her nuclear weapons disabled should the United States/NATO ever want to invade.. or is it a case of "we don't dare touch that" because a) North Korea won't take a beating laying down & b) China might get involved and show us up as a bunch of cowardly bullies?


Yes I think you've summed it up nicely. Strategically speaking causing war to better the lives of North Koreans and to nullify the North Korea threat to South Korea it would result in, undoubtably, a massive international war. And no you can't diplomatically disable North Korea's nukes through politics. That's ridiculous.



You can still go for Burma, Cuba, Kazakhstan or will it end up a quagmire like Vietnam did where boys came home with limbs missing and for what exactly? or how about Saudi Arabia? (oh sorry forgot, we sell them weapons!) The difference between the sitution now and back in the British Empire is a) we live in a different world where imperial is supposed to be wrong in the modern day & b) at least Britain had the guts to stand upto other strong and large countries such as France, the Mughal Empire, Great Qing - the best we can do at the moment is invade little crackpot countries which don't stand a chance such as Iraq and Afghanistan.


The Cuba and Vietnam wars had a clear Cold War affiliation and were more about making a political statement to either side of the iron curtain more than they were about helping anyone. Again, research McCarthyism.



Pillage and plunder, you mean like the destruction of the poppy crops in Afghanistan, the sales of arms to regimes we seem to invade every other time (whats the difference between Iraq/Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia? Saudi buys our weapons and plays ball), the oil contracts in Iraq of which the same can be said for the first Gulf War which only started because Kuwait was slant drilling into Iraqi oil reserves, the vast deposits of Lithium in Afghanistan.. I mean the list goes on and on. At least when us British had an Empire we actually built something in each colonial outpost to show for it & we didn't pretend that it wasn't for financial gain.

But it was for imperialism and financial gain. Basically every major city in North America was colonized originally by the major European powers of the time but almost every major city was inhabited by natives where, you know, explorers like Edward Cornwallis encouraged native scalping. The British Empire's legacy is genocide. Don't pretend like it was anything else because it wasn't.




So again I put it to you, why don't you pick up a gun and go and enroll?

Because as you said, aren't I just a kid?

[Mr.Gentle]

Before I start, let me quote what a MUSLIM friend of mine posted on fb:


[name removed] raa just heard some ****** up muslims burnt poppies in rememberance day ! wtf ! *** guys like that man honestly ! n tbh dnt even see them as muslims, so any small headed people who will now obv make racists remarks towards 'ALL' muslims , grow up and realise not every muslim is like that. some of us actualy took the mi...n of silence and respect those who died ! but burning poppies wtf! gone for those *** ups




******* kick them out of britain

I agree.


DO THEY KNOW HAVE MUCH BLOODY SACRIFICE THOSE SOLDIERS WENT THROUGH :@ OMG THEY SHOULD BE SERIOUSLY PUNISHED :@

They do it because they are angry that British people are in their country killing people. Iraq was better off with Saddam. Atleast people weren't scared of going out.

Thing is, people see a minority do it and blame all asians. Its a small group of ********s who do it and if they did it in my country I would want them out too.

[GommeInc]

So again, you want to regulate and thus ban opinions that conflict with yours/that conflict with mass opinion.
Where did I say that? I'm saying: If you cannot form an argument and literally come off as throwing your toys out of a pram, your arguments become less valid and no-one will listen, people like these imbesiles do not deserve the use of freedom of speech in a metaphorical sense, because they clearly are just ranting for the sake of ranting. It's not about opinion, it's about fact, and facts make an argument more convincing than an angry group of individuals who know little of what they're arguing about - again, arguments against extremist Muslims which attack Islam as a whole, rather than the extremists, which the twits who thought burning Qu'rans thought were justifed. It's not my opinion conflicting with someones free speech, it's fact conflicting with an imbesile (or group of) whom know very little with their pathetic opinions. If someone has a problem with something, it's fine provided you actually get your facts right, and the poppy burning teets and the Qu'ran buring twits were far from being truthful and seem to of been happy just slam Islam or British soldiers in general.


But maybe I am deeply offended by their argument, maybe I think people should pay more for university - maybe I think people who are against raising fees shouldn't be allowed to air their opinion. Now do you see how ridiculous that argument is? Where do you draw the line? who draws the line? the government?
You miss my point again. Provided you've got an argument, it's fine, but chucking your toys out of your pram isn't a good use of freedom of speech. It doesn't support any sort of cause, other than your own invalid and probably grossly incorrect opinions. The student protests in general were quite valid, for and against the rises as there are facts and figures in the mix, but burning poppies for the sake of someones silly opinion is useless, when they cannot get their facts right and lack any sort of common sense and judgement.



Then it lowers credibility in your eyes, my eyes and the eyes of most other people. That doesn't justify banning it or regulating it. If I struck up an argument with you on the bus with the European Union for example and you put good points to me for the UK staying within the EU, and I turned around and started swearing/shouting my gob off - then i've lowered my own argument. Let people make that choice for themselves rather than the government/police making it for them.
I didn't suggest banning it, so I agree. I just said that freedom of speech really should be reserved for people who have rational thought, because the gobby/clueless ones tend to not have an argument and go ignored, especially when they talk rubbish.


Alright so for example, if I believe all socialism is bad - what do you propose doing to me?
Nothing, as it is your opinion. What is your point? I am attacking individuals who have little to no common sense and/or brain cells, who make up claims to back their cause. As we know each other, I know you would have valid arguments to back up your claim. Baseless arguments reflected in expression, like burning the Qu'ran to attack Muslim Extremists is an incredibly ignorant thing to do. The Qu'ran isn't reserved for extremists, but any followers of Islam - such expression is baseless and incredibly stupid. I am saying freedom of expression/speech is only useful if you actually know what you're doing, and these two cases show individuals who don't know what they're doing, thus they're wrong in every respect and should be ignored. Yeah, they can have their opinions aired if they want, but no-one with more than 3 brain cells is going to listen, because the majority of people know what the arguments are and will hopefully strike them off as invalid. What's the point arguing/protesting when you're (or they're, in this case) wrong?


I would too - but i'm not them, I don't regulate free speech and I wouldn't ever want to do so.
Good, we're agreed. It's a matter of self-regulation if anything. If you're going to go out and blabble false information, then you're only belittling yourself and those around you also fighting a lost cause.


So again, who has the god given right to regulate what is a right opinion and what is a wrong opinion. If you dismiss somebodies opinion, that is an opinion in its own right.
Depends if facts are involved, and the two cases we mention lack any factual knowledge or foundation. They're wrong opinions - that's a fact.


But they really believe that - they are exercising their democratic right to free speech, and if you disagree with them you can either ignore them or go and debate it with them. That is afterall how the western world moved on from the dark ages where anything which challenged the consensus was banned.
That's my point :P They're going to be ignored wittering on to themselves and others who follow false ideologies. If they want to be heard, be factual and not demean everyone involved, it's why these poppy burning extremists failed their argument and why the Qu'ran burning idiots caused problems - because their opinions were blanket attacking, rather than supporting anti-terrorism and extremism, although the poppy burning twits were coming off ironic, seeing as they were burning symbols of past wars which made this country a free and safe haven, allowing them into the country :P

My point is: Freedom of speech is only useful IF you actually know what you're talking about. Some people make it tough to use freedom of expression and free speech because they make such irrational and silly claims that it makes any sort of idea of freedom invalid. It's like the Student Protests, they were successful despite the damage, because many argued within reason their cause, while some just started getting angry without stating why. The poppy burning wasn't useful as it wasn't really arguing against anything, because the poppies have a more diverse meaning than British soldiers fighting in Iraq killing muslims. The Qu'ran burning was useless and invalid because the Qu'ran is a holy scripture followed by a diverse range of muslims, most of which are acceptable.

[StefanWolves]

You know what makes me really sad, it takes *******s like these for the people of Wales, Englad, Scotland and NI to unite, when normally we don't associate ourselves as being 'British', what makes me even more angry is that if only the police on that day had used common sense and STOPPED the protests, there wouldn't have been a problem. What kind of a country do we live in.

In the words of Enoch Powell:


'Here is a decent, ordinary fellow-Englishman, who in broad daylight in my own town says to me, his Member of Parliament, that the country will not be worth living in for his children. I simply do not have the right to shrug my shoulders and think about something else. What he is saying, thousands and hundreds of thousands are saying and thinking – not throughout Great Britain, perhaps, but in the areas that are already undergoing the total transformation to which there is no parallel in a thousand years of English history.

We must be mad, literally mad, as a nation to be permitting the annual inflow of some 50,000 dependants, who are for the most part the material of the future growth of the immigrant descended population. It is like watching a nation busily engaged in heaping up its own funeral pyre. So insane are we that we actually permit unmarried persons to immigrate for the purpose of founding a family with spouses and fiancées whom they have never seen.

This does not mean that the immigrant and his descendants should be elevated into a privileged or special class or that the citizen should be denied his right to discriminate in the management of his own affairs between one fellow-citizen and another or that he should be subjected to an inquisition as to his reasons and motives for behaving in one lawful manner rather than another.

For reasons which they could not comprehend, and in pursuance of a decision by default, on which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country. They found their wives unable to obtain hospital beds in childbirth, their children unable to obtain school places, their homes and neighbourhoods changed beyond recognition, their plans and prospects for the future defeated; at work they found that employers hesitated to apply to the immigrant worker the standards of discipline and competence required of the native-born worker; they began to hear, as time went by, more and more voices which told them that they were now the unwanted. On top of this, they now learn that a one-way privilege is to be established by Act of Parliament; a law which cannot, and is not intended to, operate to protect them or redress their grievances, is to be enacted to give the stranger, the disgruntled and the agent provocateur the power to pillory them for their private actions.

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman, I seem to see "the River Tiber foaming with much blood". That tragic and intractable phenomenon which we watch with horror on the other side of the Atlantic but which there is interwoven with the history and existence of the States itself, is coming upon us here by our own volition and our own neglect. Indeed, it has all but come. In numerical terms, it will be of American proportions long before the end of the century. Only resolute and urgent action will avert it even now. Whether there will be the public will to demand and obtain that action, I do not know. All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.'

Enoch Powell 1968

If only we had listened to Enoch Powell. It will happen, one day.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yes I think you've summed it up nicely. Strategically speaking causing war to better the lives of North Koreans and to nullify the North Korea threat to South Korea it would result in, undoubtably, a massive international war. And no you can't diplomatically disable North Korea's nukes through politics. That's ridiculous.

So the deaths of around 1 million Iraqis and American/British are ok are they? where do you draw the line? you can't, you have to draw it based on the cause as the appear to be making as the argument.

When I said you can disable North Koreas nuclear arsenal, I didn't say politics - I stated that the United States would most likely be able to prevent North Korea from launching the nuclear missiles in the first place in the event of a war on the Korean penninsula either by a preemptive nuclear strike or by heat seeking/cruise missiles attacking the numerous war heads North Korea would send out over the NATO forces in the South.

..and in any case, why shouldn't North Korea have a nuclear arsenal?


The Cuba and Vietnam wars had a clear Cold War affiliation and were more about making a political statement to either side of the iron curtain more than they were about helping anyone. Again, research McCarthyism.

Address my point, I know they were part of the Cold War, just as you now support this 'freedom crusade' against the 'axis of evil'. So I will ask again, why not go into the following; Burma, Cuba, Kazakhstan and Saudi Arabia.

Is it the case that you don't support an invasion of any of these countries because our politicians have not yet cooked up enough reasons for us to all fear them raining missiles down on London, Paris, Washington and the cities of the western world? and if that is the case, you should rethink your stance on this issue as its very clear we have all been decieved and you still plainly believe in it.


But it was for imperialism and financial gain. Basically every major city in North America was colonized originally by the major European powers of the time but almost every major city was inhabited by natives where, you know, explorers like Edward Cornwallis encouraged native scalping. The British Empire's legacy is genocide. Don't pretend like it was anything else because it wasn't.

So what about operation shock and awe? the bombing of southern Europe by NATO forces. The strikes that NATO forces conducted over Iraq in before the Ba'ath regime was brought down. Genocide occured in the British Empire, of course it did - you have bad eggs in every basket not to mention the fact that many of these former regimes that the British toppled were even more barbaric than the cracked British generals who ordered these examples you give.

However as I stated before, the difference between the British Empire and the American 'Empire' is the fact that the British Empire left a legacy of overall good; with schools being built, hospitals, roads, railways, electric, water, irrigation - which lifted millions out of serfdom to their pre-British leaders. Had the British and other Europeans not come over to Asia and Africa in particular, they would still be mere slaves.


Because as you said, aren't I just a kid?

So I presume when you turn 16/18 (whatever the Canadian armed forces require) you'll be marching over to Afghanistan to fight for freedom? because thats what you support isn't it, so instead of expecting other kids to go out and die for it you yourself should go over there and commit yourself to the cause.


Where did I say that? I'm saying: If you cannot form an argument and literally come off as throwing your toys out of a pram, your arguments become less valid and no-one will listen, people like these imbesiles do not deserve the use of freedom of speech in a metaphorical sense, because they clearly are just ranting for the sake of ranting. It's not about opinion, it's about fact, and facts make an argument more convincing than an angry group of individuals who know little of what they're arguing about - again, arguments against extremist Muslims which attack Islam as a whole, rather than the extremists, which the twits who thought burning Qu'rans thought were justifed. It's not my opinion conflicting with someones free speech, it's fact conflicting with an imbesile (or group of) whom know very little with their pathetic opinions. If someone has a problem with something, it's fine provided you actually get your facts right, and the poppy burning teets and the Qu'ran buring twits were far from being truthful and seem to of been happy just slam Islam or British soldiers in general.

But again, i'm not arguing that their point of view is correct or that they are right - i'm arguing that they have a right, and if we don't like it then we can decide for ourselves rather than government deciding for us.


You miss my point again. Provided you've got an argument, it's fine, but chucking your toys out of your pram isn't a good use of freedom of speech. It doesn't support any sort of cause, other than your own invalid and probably grossly incorrect opinions. The student protests in general were quite valid, for and against the rises as there are facts and figures in the mix, but burning poppies for the sake of someones silly opinion is useless, when they cannot get their facts right and lack any sort of common sense and judgement.

What about this example then, i'm arguing say on Question Time with a Europe Minister and I come out with "the EU costs the United Kingdom £500bn a year" (which is a false figure i've just picked out of the air) - would you then, under your system, have the police come around and have a 'talk' with me/arrest me because I made that argument? because in the view of the political establishment (who happen to be right in this example) is so?


I didn't suggest banning it, so I agree. I just said that freedom of speech really should be reserved for people who have rational thought, because the gobby/clueless ones tend to not have an argument and go ignored, especially when they talk rubbish.

Well reserved to me seems like wanting to restrict freedom of speech which is naturally banning it, but if you don't support any restrictions on freedom of speech/the right to protest then we agree afterall.


Nothing, as it is your opinion. What is your point? I am attacking individuals who have little to no common sense and/or brain cells, who make up claims to back their cause. As we know each other, I know you would have valid arguments to back up your claim. Baseless arguments reflected in expression, like burning the Qu'ran to attack Muslim Extremists is an incredibly ignorant thing to do. The Qu'ran isn't reserved for extremists, but any followers of Islam - such expression is baseless and incredibly stupid. I am saying freedom of expression/speech is only useful if you actually know what you're doing, and these two cases show individuals who don't know what they're doing, thus they're wrong in every respect and should be ignored. Yeah, they can have their opinions aired if they want, but no-one with more than 3 brain cells is going to listen, because the majority of people know what the arguments are and will hopefully strike them off as invalid.

Then we agree, you've just summed up why freedom of speech is what it is - why its so important never to allow it to fall into the hands of some government regulatory body, although sadly these liberties are slipping away.


What's the point arguing/protesting when you're (or they're, in this case) wrong?

Because they think they are right, another virtue of freedom of speech/freedom of protest.


Good, we're agreed. It's a matter of self-regulation if anything. If you're going to go out and blabble false information, then you're only belittling yourself and those around you also fighting a lost cause.

Totally agreed.


Depends if facts are involved, and the two cases we mention lack any factual knowledge or foundation. They're wrong opinions - that's a fact.

But their still opinions and should be permitted.


That's my point :P They're going to be ignored wittering on to themselves and others who follow false ideologies. If they want to be heard, be factual and not demean everyone involved, it's why these poppy burning extremists failed their argument and why the Qu'ran burning idiots caused problems - because their opinions were blanket attacking, rather than supporting anti-terrorism and extremism, although the poppy burning twits were coming off ironic, seeing as they were burning symbols of past wars which made this country a free and safe haven, allowing them into the country :P

I agree, but I guess the reason why they are burning poppies is to draw attention to the issue.


My point is: Freedom of speech is only useful IF you actually know what you're talking about. Some people make it tough to use freedom of expression and free speech because they make such irrational and silly claims that it makes any sort of idea of freedom invalid. It's like the Student Protests, they were successful despite the damage, because many argued within reason their cause, while some just started getting angry without stating why. The poppy burning wasn't useful as it wasn't really arguing against anything, because the poppies have a more diverse meaning than British soldiers fighting in Iraq killing muslims. The Qu'ran burning was useless and invalid because the Qu'ran is a holy scripture followed by a diverse range of muslims, most of which are acceptable.

The Qu'ran burning though did show the hypocrisy in the political class.

[Zak]

Sorry but it makes me want to burn a big model Qur'an.

Why do they have to be so disrepectful? and the only way they'll actually care is if we do it back.

I know it's stooping to their level but this, in my opinion, is the only way to get back at them.

[StefanWolves]

id love for a group such as the edl to react and burn qur'ans etc. but that is what these protestors want, a reaction. it pains me to say it but its best to just ignore it, show that it doesnt bother us and take the morale high ground. (by the media not really bothering about it, you could say the public in general didnt react which is good)

[Apple]

Send them back to the ****-hole of a country they all came from.

[GommeInc]

Send them back to the ****-hole of a country they all came from.
So true, if they fail to realise the stories behind the poppies then they have no right to be here. They are afterall burning symbols of changes and freedoms in Europe. If they don't look up the history, then it makes you wonder why they are here :P

[Jin]

If I were the prime minister and I had unlimited assassination coupons....

Unfortunately it is this narrow minded group that the daily mail so loves to report that gives a bad name to the majority. Oh and these people are the muslim equivalent of a chav.

[Camy]

Really can't be bothered reading through 13 pages, so yeah, I'll just say what i think.
I really don't understand these people, if they hate the country and its people/soldiers so much, why are they here? I think the governments far too lenient towards these kinds of people, if it was the other way around, extremists in their country would be locked up, or stoned or whatever. They give normal muslims a bad name too.

[Conservative,]

If I were in charge of this country (unfortunately I'm not) those people would not be alive right now.