Poppy-burning Muslim protesters mar Armistice Day commemorations.

[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 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

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 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

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

[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.