Poppy-burning Muslim protesters mar Armistice Day commemorations.

[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?