View Full Version : Britain's reputation?
Are we happy to be seen by the eyes of the world to be continually harboring terrorists and preventing justice to be carried out? But yet we are too quick to wage a war on terror on other countries? Double speak rules, where are our principles?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20295754
changilass
12-Nov-12, 20:31
To be fair, we have tried to get rid of him.
changilass
12-Nov-12, 20:49
Human rights is all well and good, so long as one person getting theirs, doesn't deprive others of getting theirs.
Are we happy to be seen by the eyes of the world to be continually harboring terrorists and preventing justice to be carried out? But yet we are too quick to wage a war on terror on other countries? Double speak rules, where are our principles?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20295754
And more people have been killed in the Irish troubles than in 9/11 funded by which state do you think?
pig whisperer
12-Nov-12, 22:21
It always amazes me that people live in this country then proceed to spout vicious comments etc, surely if the UK is such a dreadful place to live, emigration is a possible choice,
& no I dont agree with the pointless wars that tony blair took us into.
Are we happy to be seen by the eyes of the world to be continually harboring terrorists and preventing justice to be carried out? But yet we are too quick to wage a war on terror on other countries? Double speak rules, where are our principles?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20295754
We don't have any principles.
War is terror, don't see how it can be fighting itself.
What's he supposed to have done anyway?
Rhegs we are hardly harbouring them when for years sucessive governments have been doing their utmost to get them sent back to their country of origin or to where they have criminal charges to face.
Problem is that they were granted asylum albeit under false pretences and then they become subject not only to our law but to that of The EU.
Whilst we all may have issues with that, if we do not adhere to the law then we loose one of the basic principles that The UK is built on.
I read somewhere that the taxpayer has paid over £1 million to house him here in prison, with no charge.........
How could he be judged an "acceptable" immigrant? if he was being sent to jail would be my first question...........
Think of the ramifications if extradition was too easy. How many British citizens would now be languishing in American jails for minor offences? It is a good thing we have a proper due process and it is adhered to.
Rhegs we are hardly harbouring them when for years sucessive governments have been doing their utmost to get them sent back to their country of origin or to where they have criminal charges to face.
Problem is that they were granted asylum albeit under false pretences and then they become subject not only to our law but to that of The EU.
Whilst we all may have issues with that, if we do not adhere to the law then we loose one of the basic principles that The UK is built on.
Yes I hear what you are saying and you are right of course but other countries will judge this country and the Government by what the courts have done in this case like we do in the case of other countries like the USA and Iran and their judicial findings. We don't differentiate between the two bodies so why should they?
Rhegs we are hardly harbouring them when for years sucessive governments have been doing their utmost to get them sent back to their country of origin or to where they have criminal charges to face.
Problem is that they were granted asylum albeit under false pretences and then they become subject not only to our law but to that of The EU.
Whilst we all may have issues with that, if we do not adhere to the law then we loose one of the basic principles that The UK is built on.
What false pretence would that be?
They claimed asylum on the basis they would face political persecution, unfair trial and a violation of their human rights where they came from.
Yesterday a court looked at the evidence and ruled that that is still the case, despite Jordanian assurances that they have cleaned up their act the actual evidence shows that they haven't.
tonkatojo
13-Nov-12, 10:56
What false pretence would that be?
They claimed asylum on the basis they would face political persecution, unfair trial and a violation of their human rights where they came from.
Yesterday a court looked at the evidence and ruled that that is still the case, despite Jordanian assurances that they have cleaned up their act the actual evidence shows that they haven't.
That's the problem with "human Rights" it is easy to pull the wool over the judges eyes, unfortunately it is the easy burden of proof for the claimant and near impossibility of the country imposed on to contest. My gripe is all the "nearest countries" they pass to get here, or does that rule no longer apply, my guess is it infringes on there human rights to not be able to choose.
That's the problem with "human Rights" it is easy to pull the wool over the judges eyes, unfortunately it is the easy burden of proof for the claimant and near impossibility of the country imposed on to contest. My gripe is all the "nearest countries" they pass to get here, or does that rule no longer apply, my guess is it infringes on there human rights to not be able to choose.
We should just have him knocked, would be much cheaper and easier.
What false pretence would that be?
They claimed asylum on the basis they would face political persecution, unfair trial and a violation of their human rights where they came from.
Yesterday a court looked at the evidence and ruled that that is still the case, despite Jordanian assurances that they have cleaned up their act the actual evidence shows that they haven't.
So Fred, we can take it that you condone this so called cleric Abu Qatada being allowed to stay here, spounting his hate and enticing British Muslims to kill innocent people.
Qatada is not the only unwanted terrorist / murder who is claiming asylum here.
Modeste Keneddy Hakizimana a Rawandan, he allegedly hedlped Hutu soldiers murder Tutsi , he has been here 13 years
Sani Adil Ali a Sudanese, who after being granted asylum was arrested for raping a 12 year old girl, he has been here since 2003.
Cesar Castillo Torres a Hunduran hit man
Muslim Zareen Ahmadazi a Afgahn who admits to killing in the name of the Taliban
I say get rid of them all from the UK
tonkatojo
13-Nov-12, 11:27
We should just have him knocked, would be much cheaper and easier.
Tend to agree with the likes.
So Fred, we can take it that you condone this so called cleric Abu Qatada being allowed to stay here, spounting his hate and enticing British Muslims to kill innocent people.
Qatada is not the only unwanted terrorist / murder who is claiming asylum here.
Modeste Keneddy Hakizimana a Rawandan, he allegedly hedlped Hutu soldiers murder Tutsi , he has been here 13 years
Sani Adil Ali a Sudanese, who after being granted asylum was arrested for raping a 12 year old girl, he has been here since 2003.
Cesar Castillo Torres a Hunduran hit man
Muslim Zareen Ahmadazi a Afgahn who admits to killing in the name of the Taliban
I say get rid of them all from the UK
If he has been enticing British Muslims to kill innocent people I would support him being tried for it in a British court, it is a very serious offence and if found guilty dealt with appropriately.
I would rather like everyone in Britain who supports the killing of innocent people up in court but unfortunately supporting the firing of rockets and dropping bombs on innocent Muslims hasn't been made illegal yet.
These arent human rights specific to this man - just devised to keep him in the UK. They are human rights that belong to all of us. All of us, you, me the man in the street or Abu Qatada. They are there to make sure that NONE of us can be deported to face trial in a country where evidence obtained from torture may be used. If we disregard this rule when it suits us what does that say about us.
Oh we abhor torture and the use of torture in courts but we dont care when its just Abu Qatada. We dont like him anyway!
Either we don't support countries who's legal system includes the use of torture or we do. If we say we dont then we have to maintain that EVEN when it is distasteful or the individual is disgusting. The politicians would like us to swither and turn our heads away and ignore the fact that torture is being used but the LEGAL people - those people who's job it is to uphold the LAW regardless of the howls of politicians or the screams from the media say it is not right to do so.
This man has never been found guilty of any offence whilst living in the UK. We are also crying out about how much money it is costing to feed him and his family but we have locked him up for the majority of the last ten years. He doesnt have any choice other than to rely on the "public purse" really does he?
As for how he got here - well he appears to have got on a plane (according to Wikipedia) from the UAE with a forged passport which landed in the UK. We appear to have been his first stop.
As for having him "knocked" well maybe if we hadnt locked him up without a trial for ten years someone might have done exactly that!
It is an utter mess and the hysteria of the media and the government doesnt make it any better.
And before anyone starts I dont support Abu Qatada nor his views nor his extremism but if we want to "rid ourselves of this turbulent priest" then we need to do it properly and not think we can ride roughshod over everybody's human rights just cos it suits us.
And before anyone starts I dont support Abu Qatada nor his views nor his extremism but if we want to "rid ourselves of this turbulent priest" then we need to do it properly and not think we can ride roughshod over everybody's human rights just cos it suits us.
His human rights haven't been violated imo. He is wanted for violating other peoples human right to life, this Government agrees, the Jordanian Government agrees, the Jordanians have promised he won't be tortured so he should be deported. There is no reason why he can't be deported to face justice.
Do you really think this man should hide cowering behind a system of human rights that he himself despises?
His human rights haven't been violated imo. He is wanted for violating other peoples human right to life, this Government agrees, the Jordanian Government agrees, the Jordanians have promised he won't be tortured so he should be deported. There is no reason why he can't be deported to face justice.
Do you really think this man should hide cowering behind a system of human rights that he himself despises?
Tried to give you a good rep on this post Rheg, but I have to spread myself around a bit allegedly. I am totally in agreement with you
His human rights haven't been violated imo. He is wanted for violating other peoples human right to life, this Government agrees, the Jordanian Government agrees, the Jordanians have promised he won't be tortured so he should be deported. There is no reason why he can't be deported to face justice.
Do you really think this man should hide cowering behind a system of human rights that he himself despises?
I think he lives in this country and should abide by and be protected by our laws like everyone else. Whatever he thinks of them is immaterial. If he violates our laws then he should be tried for his crimes and sentenced as appropriate. If he violates laws in other countries then he should be sent to that country to face the music - however where the two are in conflict then the politicians and the lawyers have to decide. The lawyers have decided that the reassurance from Jordan is not robust enough and so it is up to the politicians to make sure that the reassurances ARE robust enough to satisfy the LAW. It is not the LAW that is at fault here. He is a thoroughly despicable individual but we have a legal principle that we as a society cannot ignore. The last few weeks surely are enough to show us what happens when things are ignored. If we ignore this for this horrible man then we have to ignore it for everyone.
We should just have him knocked, would be much cheaper and easier.
So what you are saying, in effect, is that the killing of someone for political reasons is justified.
Isn't that what they're accusing Abu Qatada of?
I think he lives in this country and should abide by and be protected by our laws like everyone else. Whatever he thinks of them is immaterial. If he violates our laws then he should be tried for his crimes and sentenced as appropriate. If he violates laws in other countries then he should be sent to that country to face the music - however where the two are in conflict then the politicians and the lawyers have to decide. The lawyers have decided that the reassurance from Jordan is not robust enough and so it is up to the politicians to make sure that the reassurances ARE robust enough to satisfy the LAW. It is not the LAW that is at fault here. He is a thoroughly despicable individual but we have a legal principle that we as a society cannot ignore. The last few weeks surely are enough to show us what happens when things are ignored. If we ignore this for this horrible man then we have to ignore it for everyone.
You are not seeing the bigger picture.
In a nutshell, the Jordanians have promised that Qatarda will not be harmed and he will get a fair trial.
We are saying "We do not trust you"
When people are not entrusted then THEY WILL continue to be untrustworthy and Jordan will continue to breach human rights. You do not realise that the Qatarda case would be a watershed in the history of Jordanian justice for the better when the eyes of the civilised world will be watching.
So what you are saying, in effect, is that the killing of someone for political reasons is justified.
Isn't that what they're accusing Abu Qatada of?
Whoa...easy tiger. I never mentioned killing anyone for political reasons.
But if a group of masked kids armed with BB guns were to repeatedly shoot him in the eye then would that be such an outrage?
You are not seeing the bigger picture.
In a nutshell, the Jordanians have promised that Qatarda will not be harmed and he will get a fair trial.
We are saying "We do not trust you"
When people are not entrusted then THEY WILL continue to be untrustworthy and Jordan will continue to breach human rights. You do not realise that the Qatarda case would be a watershed in the history of Jordanian justice for the better when the eyes of the civilised world will be watching.
Thats why it is so important that the politicians go back to the Jordanians and say THIS is what our legal system requires, this is what our legal system needs as a guarantee. The standard MUST be high because that is what we require in our courts and we expect no less of anywhere else. There is no reason for us not to help them achieve the level of guarantee that we require but it negates your point if we say "oh never mind - that will do!"
If we are trying to encourage better adherence of human rights in other countries then we will never do that by ignoring those very same human rights when it suits us.
Thats why it is so important that the politicians go back to the Jordanians and say THIS is what our legal system requires, this is what our legal system needs as a guarantee. The standard MUST be high because that is what we require in our courts and we expect no less of anywhere else. There is no reason for us not to help them achieve the level of guarantee that we require but it negates your point if we say "oh never mind - that will do!"
If we are trying to encourage better adherence of human rights in other countries then we will never do that by ignoring those very same human rights when it suits us.
IMO that has been already fulfilled, the Jordanians have signed the Torture Convention and the Jordanians have promised to give him a fair trial and we have to take them at their word, it is not our business to run their judiciary, that would be colonialism all over again. I do not believe we are just saying "oh never mind - that will do!"
Green_not_greed
13-Nov-12, 13:21
His human rights haven't been violated imo. He is wanted for violating other peoples human right to life, this Government agrees, the Jordanian Government agrees, the Jordanians have promised he won't be tortured so he should be deported. There is no reason why he can't be deported to face justice.
Do you really think this man should hide cowering behind a system of human rights that he himself despises?
Completely agree. If the UK has successfully made the case for deporation, why cant he be deported somewhere else, where he could get a fair trial? Israel, for example.....
IMO that has been already fulfilled, the Jordanians have signed the Torture Convention and the Jordanians have promised to give him a fair trial and we have to take them at their word, it is not our business to run their judiciary, that would be colonialism all over again. I do not believe we are just saying "oh never mind - that will do!"
But it isnt up to you - or me or the politicians - its is the LAW that is in control here. And the law hasnt been met as far as the judges are concerned. Its a British court which made the ruling and the ball is firmly back in Jordan. The Telegraph today quotes an expert who says
"What the judge said, what the court said in terms, was that a simple amendment to the Jordanian criminal code so as to remove an ambiguity that is in it at the moment ought to suffice to make deportation possible."
This is the most serious stuff as I see it. It is about torture and a person's right not to be a victim of that - whether as the person being tortured or as a person at the mercy of evidence gathered by torture. It may be Abu Qatada we are talking about but it could just as well be Joe Bloggs or Susan Smith
And we arent saying "oh never mind that will do" YET but if we ignore the ruling of the courts and stick him on a plane to Jordan anyway then that is what we will be saying and it will damage the standing of the UK in the eyes of the world. There is also a suggestion that the Uk opts out of the ECHR and deports Abu Qatada and then opts back in - thats the same thing - something doesnt suit us so we just disregard it in this case and do it anyway.
If we want to influence other countries positively we do that by being consistent and applying the law fairly and equally to all - not by dropping the bits that we feel like when it suits us.
But it isnt up to you - or me or the politicians - its is the LAW that is in control here. And the law hasnt been met as far as the judges are concerned. Its a British court which made the ruling and the ball is firmly back in Jordan. The Telegraph today quotes an expert who says
"What the judge said, what the court said in terms, was that a simple amendment to the Jordanian criminal code so as to remove an ambiguity that is in it at the moment ought to suffice to make deportation possible."
This is the most serious stuff as I see it. It is about torture and a person's right not to be a victim of that - whether as the person being tortured or as a person at the mercy of evidence gathered by torture. It may be Abu Qatada we are talking about but it could just as well be Joe Bloggs or Susan Smith
And we arent saying "oh never mind that will do" YET but if we ignore the ruling of the courts and stick him on a plane to Jordan anyway then that is what we will be saying and it will damage the standing of the UK in the eyes of the world. There is also a suggestion that the Uk opts out of the ECHR and deports Abu Qatada and then opts back in - thats the same thing - something doesnt suit us so we just disregard it in this case and do it anyway.
If we want to influence other countries positively we do that by being consistent and applying the law fairly and equally to all - not by dropping the bits that we feel like when it suits us.
Ah yes, the Law. How silly of me to think it didn't matter. The fact that you stated that a law expert has pointed out a finer aspect of the Law, ie a technicality to get him to stay here rather than commonsense says a lot about the law and our society and your attitude given your 'safe' angle in this thread.
Qatada will get a fair trial because as Jordan is a signatory to the Torture Convention then any evidence gained through torture will be inadmissible in a Jordanian court so that is not a problem as far as I can see.
So come off it squidge, stop hiding behind this ruling, you know better than this.
When the law gets in between a good judgement call then there is something definitely wrong with the system. 'All laws have to be moral', that is a quote from someone famous and in this case something is definitely not strumming my moral code.
billmoseley
13-Nov-12, 19:47
What i don't understand is why he got in to Britain in the first place. As i understand it he tried to get here with a false passport shouldn't that have rung alarm bells somewhere. He should have been thrown out there and then. Men like him don't deserve anything from us. They support and promote the murder of innocent people. And yes if someone put a bullet in the back of his head i don't thing it would do Britain reputation any harm at all. ( now going to take cover)
Ahmed Agiza, an asylum seeker in Sweden, was expelled in December 2001
based on assurances against torture from the Egyptian government. Swedish
authorities handed over Agiza to U.S. agents and he was transferred to Cairo aboard
a CIA-leased aircraft. He was subsequently beaten and subjected to electric shock in
an Egyptian prison, despite arrangements for post-return monitoring by Swedish
diplomats. In May 2005, the UN Committee against Torture ruled that Sweden had
violated its absolute obligation not to return a person to a risk of torture and stated
that “the procurement of diplomatic assurances, which, moreover, provided no
mechanism for their enforcement, did not suffice to protect against this manifest
risk.”
In October 2002, the U.S. government transferred Maher Arar, a dual Canadian-
Syrian citizen, from New York via Jordan to Syria based on diplomatic assurances of
humane treatment. Arar was released in October 2003. An independent fact-finder
appointed by an official Canadian Commission of Inquiry into Arar’s treatment
concluded in October 2005 that Arar had been tortured in Syrian custody, despite
Syrian assurances to the contrary and several visits from Canadian consular officials.
In September 2006, the Commission of Inquiry itself concluded that Arar’s torture in
Syria is “a concrete example” that diplomatic assurances from totalitarian regimes
have “no value” and do not provide a safeguard against torture.
The U.S. government transferred a Russian man, Rasul Kudayev, from Guantanamo
Bay to Russia in 2004, based on assurances from the Russian authorities that he
would be treated humanely in accordance with Russia’s domestic law and
international obligations In October 2005, Kudayev was unlawfully arrested and
detained, severely beaten and denied necessary medical care, and had his lawyer
arbitrarily removed from his case when she complained about his ill-treatment.
These cases demonstrate that diplomatic assurances do not provide effective
protection and should not be used in cases where there is an acknowledged risk of
torture.
Despite Jordan being a signatory to the International Convention Against Torture there is heaps of evidence they still torture people and diplomatic assurances have been shown to be not worth a light, not binding, not enforceable. They are just legal loopholes the government uses to pretend they are meeting their international commitments when they aren't.
billmoseley
13-Nov-12, 20:39
Despite Jordan being a signatory to the International Convention Against Torture there is heaps of evidence they still torture people and diplomatic assurances have been shown to be not worth a light, not binding, not enforceable. They are just legal loopholes the government uses to pretend they are meeting their international commitments when they aren't.
Fred i think your being a little naive to think torture doesn't go on. i'm not going into the rights and wrongs of it but we have all done it and used the results to affect an outcome. Britain was built on being strong and taking no non sense and at times brutal as were many other countries which i think gained us respect world wide. Take the Falklands War the world was beginning to see us as a soft touch and a push over who didn't mean what they said. When we defended them with full force the world was shocked not least the Russians who up to then was beginning to think that the west had lost their will to fight. being strong and brutal changed their thinking big style.
Fred i think your being a little naive to think torture doesn't go on. i'm not going into the rights and wrongs of it but we have all done it and used the results to affect an outcome. Britain was built on being strong and taking no non sense and at times brutal as were many other countries which i think gained us respect world wide. Take the Falklands War the world was beginning to see us as a soft touch and a push over who didn't mean what they said. When we defended them with full force the world was shocked not least the Russians who up to then was beginning to think that the west had lost their will to fight. being strong and brutal changed their thinking big style.
So you think Abu Qatada was right to preach that Muslims must be strong and brutal so that the world won't see them as a soft touch and walk all over them?
billmoseley
13-Nov-12, 21:12
The Muslim community is very strong and you can be brutal with out killing innocent people. Britain doesn't hide behind women and children if we want to fight we will do so out in the open. Abu Qatada is a terrorist and a coward if he had an ounce of guts and was innocent he would go back and face the charges. It isn't often i feel so strongly about something and am usually light hearted in my comments but men like him make my blood boil.
'All laws have to be moral', that is a quote from someone famous and in this case something is definitely not strumming my moral code.
Torture is not moral and we take the high "moral" ground on torture as a nation and rightly so. We dont do it - we dont condone its use and we dont allow extradition where there is a likelihood of torture being used in any way. Our laws are set to ensure that this moral position is upheld. Laws that prevent people from being extradited to countries where torture is used uphold this moral position and are surely moral laws.
What would be immoral would be to ignore this for political expediency. The Judges making the judgement are applying the law. Abu Qatada is a despicable individual but the law must be applied equally whether it was Abu Qatada or me or you. If it is not then it is corrupt.
Abu Qatada is a terrorist and a coward if he had an ounce of guts and was innocent he would go back and face the charges. It isn't often i feel so strongly about something and am usually light hearted in my comments but men like him make my blood boil.
And mine Bill but if we ignore our laws which are there to protect EVERYONE what does that say about us. That our moral position on torture is worth nothing and if it is worth nothing then we protect no one and we condone torture. If we want to ensure that no one is sent by our society to be a victim of torture directly or indirectly then we have no choice. We have to go back to Jordan and ensure that their assurances are robust enough to meet the requirements of British Law. Anything less is dangerous and immoral
The Muslim community is very strong and you can be brutal with out killing innocent people. Britain doesn't hide behind women and children if we want to fight we will do so out in the open. Abu Qatada is a terrorist and a coward if he had an ounce of guts and was innocent he would go back and face the charges. It isn't often i feel so strongly about something and am usually light hearted in my comments but men like him make my blood boil.
The Muslim community might not see the use of drones to kill innocent women and children as being particularly brave or fighting out in the open, likewise the dropping of bombs or firing rockets from the safety of planes or helicopters. They may see secondary attacks, attacking the rescuers trying to help the women and children injured in an attack as in direct contravention of international law, which it is, but they can do nothing about it.
Read all about it then tell me how the West can realistically call anyone cowards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths
The whole world is in deep doo doo. Our Gov's first and foremost obligation is to protect us. There are more and more people in the world we need protecting from. (Mostly because of the way we have treated them). Personally, I think our experiment with blanket human rights is going to turn into a relatively short term fad.
weezer 316
14-Nov-12, 18:38
What started out as a very intesting question has descended into chaos!
I think what the OP is getting at is how do we feel about sticking to the principles of rule of law in the face of international criticism. The ins and outs of the case may or may not test these principals (I was under the impression the big hoopla was hat evidence had already been obtained under torture for the incidents they wanted to deport him for) but the point surely is that are we willing to stick to these principles, even when it outrages people here or abroad?
And I cant be bothered checking but I am sure I could find some hyocrisy here between people supporting this guys deportation yet arguing against Julian Assange' forced deportation.
billmoseley
14-Nov-12, 18:59
The Muslim community might not see the use of drones to kill innocent women and children as being particularly brave or fighting out in the open, likewise the dropping of bombs or firing rockets from the safety of planes or helicopters. They may see secondary attacks, attacking the rescuers trying to help the women and children injured in an attack as in direct contravention of international law, which it is, but they can do nothing about it.
Read all about it then tell me how the West can realistically call anyone cowards.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/sep/25/study-obama-drone-deaths that report does not impress me at all we can all find reports that suit our own arguments. Me i prefer to read facts and talk to people who have been there and know about life out there. Then you begin to scratch the surface of the problems. Britain,s reputation has been done no harm with the way it has conducted it's self out in Afghanistan alas we are fighting a war and innocent people do get killed. We try to keep this to a minimum. I am proud of Britain and its armed services
that report does not impress me at all we can all find reports that suit our own arguments. Me i prefer to read facts and talk to people who have been there and know about life out there. Then you begin to scratch the surface of the problems. Britain,s reputation has been done no harm with the way it has conducted it's self out in Afghanistan alas we are fighting a war and innocent people do get killed. We try to keep this to a minimum. I am proud of Britain and its armed services
So the investigators went out to Pakistan, three times, interviewed 130 people who were there on the receiving end of drone strikes, local civilians, aid workers, medical workers and you dismiss it out of hand.
So you find it acceptable us fighting a war to invade someone else's country, you find it acceptable us killing innocent women and children while invading and occupying someone else's country. Yet when Abu Qatada says it is acceptable to defend their countries, their religion, their way of life he is an evil terrorist.
You think that those operating the drones, killing innocent women and children by remote control from thousands of miles away are brave soldiers but those living out in the mountains, in real danger of being on the receiving end of a drone attack, ready to put their lives on the line for what they hold dear are a bunch of cowards.
One minute you are saying "you can be brutal with out killing innocent people" and the next you are saying "we are fighting a war and innocent people do get killed".
One minute you are saying "you can be brutal with out killing innocent people" and the next you are saying "we are fighting a war and innocent people do get killed".
Fred your anti American feelings are coming to the foreground again, what about the innocents, who died 09/11/01 in New York, 07/07/05 in London and 11/03/04 in Madrid, all done by supporters of Abu Qatada and his kind.
Fred your anti American feelings are coming to the foreground again, what about the innocents, who died 09/11/01 in New York, 07/07/05 in London and 11/03/04 in Madrid, all done by supporters of Abu Qatada and his kind.
I'm not anti American, it's just that I don't distinguish between a dead Western baby and a dead Muslim baby and feel that someone who condones the murder of one is no different to someone who condones the murder of the other.
I'm not anti American, it's just that I don't distinguish between a dead Western baby and a dead Muslim baby and feel that someone who condones the murder of one is no different to someone who condones the murder of the other.
It is funny that you say that because I don't recall reading comments from you which condemn acts of terrorism by Al Qaeda etc
It is funny that you say that because I don't recall reading comments from you which condemn acts of terrorism by Al Qaeda etc
Read what I said, I don't condone the murder of any baby, as what colour it is.
Now enough about me, let's get back to the subject of the thread.
M Swanson
15-Nov-12, 11:35
May I ask a question, please Fred? Why do you think hundreds and thousands of Muslims, (to include avowed enemies of Britain, like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada,) choose to live in the UK? And why should they have any right to, anyway? If we are indeed, a land of bigots, rascists and 'Little Britons,' why choose here, in the first place. Isn't answering questions such as this the place to start debating from?
May I ask a question, please Fred? Why do you think hundreds and thousands of Muslims, (to include avowed enemies of Britain, like Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada,) choose to live in the UK? And why should they have any right to, anyway? If we are indeed, a land of bigots, rascists and 'Little Britons,' why choose here, in the first place. Isn't answering questions such as this the place to start debating from?
Britain has a high Muslim population because in the 18th century a large British company using mercenary soldiers conquered India so as to make huge profits from things like tea, spices, cotton, salt peter and opium. In the 19th century after a rebellion by Indians against oppression the army was sent in and India came under the direct rule of the British government and those living there became British citizens.
After WWII, as part of a deal with America, Britain dissolved the Empire and pulled out of India leaving a power vacuum, there was a huge civil war and there were a great many displaced people particularly people of the Muslim faith. This coincided with Britain needing to manufacture a great amount of goods for export in order to pay for WWII, which we had fought on credit, and to pay for our imports. Many displaced people from India or what was India came to Britain to work in the factories and mills.
That is one reason why Britain is popular with Muslims fleeing persecution today, because we have a large Muslim population here already.
M Swanson
15-Nov-12, 13:28
Thank you Fred and whilst I can appreciate the points you make, I was thinking more of those Muslim immigrants who arrived, from the Blair years onwards. This ties in much better to the debate on folks such as Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza. It's difficult to find the correct rise in those arriving here for that period, but I have seen the figure of a 110% increase, from Asia in 10 years. It wouldn't surprise me if many were first generation immigrants. So, I'm still left pondering why this country should be such a magnet, if it's as bad as the Britain-haters suggest? Perhaps it may have something to do with Britain being the only country, I know of in the world, which accepted people who are able to gain access to our country without a passport? Maybe, like Qatada, they knew they could breach our borders, when they had no legal entitlement to do so? If their case was legitimate, why the need for deception? I often think that we become bogged-down in complicated debates, when a topic is better served by tackling problems at their source. Just a thought Fred.
Thank you Fred and whilst I can appreciate the points you make, I was thinking more of those Muslim immigrants who arrived, from the Blair years onwards. This ties in much better to the debate on folks such as Abu Qatada and Abu Hamza. It's difficult to find the correct rise in those arriving here for that period, but I have seen the figure of a 110% increase, from Asia in 10 years. It wouldn't surprise me if many were first generation immigrants. So, I'm still left pondering why this country should be such a magnet, if it's as bad as the Britain-haters suggest? Perhaps it may have something to do with Britain being the only country, I know of in the world, which accepted people who are able to gain access to our country without a passport? Maybe, like Qatada, they knew they could breach our borders, when they had no legal entitlement to do so? If their case was legitimate, why the need for deception? I often think that we become bogged-down in complicated debates, when a topic is better served by tackling problems at their source. Just a thought Fred.
If you want to know about Abu Qatada in particular then that is a different story, you see he was born in Palestine, a lowly town of Bethlehem, you may have heard of it. Although he was born in Palestine he is classed as a Jordanian because at the time that part of Palestine was being occupied by the Jordanians. He was living in Kuwait but after Gulf War I Kuwait expelled a load of Palestinians and only having a Jordanian passport he had to go to Jordan. When it became apparent he was going to be persecuted in Jordan he came to Britain on a forged passport, the only way he could get out of Jordan and claimed asylum, which was granted in 1994 and nobody thought any more about it until a wave of Islamophobia swept the country some seven years later.
If you would like to know the history of Palestine, how we shafted them in 1917 and then again in 1947 and why a Palestinian might figure we owed them something then that, as with India, is all in the history books.
After WWII, as part of a deal with America, Britain dissolved the Empire
That is one reason why Britain is popular with Muslims fleeing persecution today, because we have a large Muslim population here already.
I would like more details of this so called "deal" with America. and if the fleeing Muslims like Britain as much as you say, why did they blow up the underground in London, and try to blow up Glasgow Airport? A strange way of showing thanks for saving them from persecution.
There is a very lage Chinese community in Britain, why do we not see any unrest in their community?
I would like more details of this so called "deal" with America. and if the fleeing Muslims like Britain as much as you say, why did they blow up the underground in London, and try to blow up Glasgow Airport? A strange way of showing thanks for saving them from persecution.
There is a very lage Chinese community in Britain, why do we not see any unrest in their community?
I believe those responsible for the London Underground bombings were British, born in Britain, they didn't flee here from anywhere.
So when was the last time Britain invaded a Chinese country?
So when was the last time Britain invaded a Chinese country?
1839 to 1842 the first Opium War & 1860 the second Opium War
1839 to 1842 the first Opium War & 1860 the second Opium War
There you go then, you've answered your own question, that's why there is no unrest in the Chinese community in Britain, we aren't dropping bombs on their relatives.
billmoseley
15-Nov-12, 19:07
[QUOTE=fred;988575]If you want to know about Abu Qatada in particular then that is a different story, you see he was born in Palestine, a lowly town of Bethlehem, you may have heard of it. Although he was born in Palestine he is classed as a Jordanian because at the time that part of Palestine was being occupied by the Jordanians. He was living in Kuwait but after Gulf War I Kuwait expelled a load of Palestinians and only having a Jordanian passport he had to go to Jordan. When it became apparent he was going to be persecuted in Jordan he came to Britain on a forged passport, the only way he could get out of Jordan and claimed asylum, which was granted in 1994 and nobody thought any more about it until a wave of Islamophobia swept the country some seven years later.
Islamophobia i haven't heard such rubbish. Islam is a peace loving and so are their people it is the like of Abu and others that have kiddnapped it and twisted their to fit their murderous ways
Islamophobia i haven't heard such rubbish. Islam is a peace loving and so are their people it is the like of Abu and others that have kiddnapped it and twisted their to fit their murderous ways
I don't know that Abu Qatada has ever murdered anyone, do you have any evidence he has?
AFAIK his crime is saying that it is justifiable for Muslims to use violence, to kill people in defence of Islam. Not something I agree with myself but there are plenty of Christians seem to think that it is justifiable for the west to use violence against Muslims and Christianity is supposed to be a peaceful religion as well.
I still don't see how a Muslim who condones the killing of Christians is any different to a Christian who condones the killing of Muslims.
billmoseley
15-Nov-12, 19:37
Why bring religion into this we are fighting terrorists. War is an awful thing Fred but at time it has to be fought. If you can't see this then i worry for you. i dare say you think we shouldn't have fought the Germans
So when was the last time Britain invaded a Chinese country?
Fred, you asked the question, I answered, you are twisting the facts AGAIN!!
M Swanson
15-Nov-12, 20:16
If you want to know about Abu Qatada in particular then that is a different story, you see he was born in Palestine, a lowly town of Bethlehem, you may have heard of it. Although he was born in Palestine he is classed as a Jordanian because at the time that part of Palestine was being occupied by the Jordanians. He was living in Kuwait but after Gulf War I Kuwait expelled a load of Palestinians and only having a Jordanian passport he had to go to Jordan. When it became apparent he was going to be persecuted in Jordan he came to Britain on a forged passport, the only way he could get out of Jordan and claimed asylum, which was granted in 1994 and nobody thought any more about it until a wave of Islamophobia swept the country some seven years later.
If you would like to know the history of Palestine, how we shafted them in 1917 and then again in 1947 and why a Palestinian might figure we owed them something then that, as with India, is all in the history books.
So, why do you think Abu Qatada chose to live in Britain, instead of returning to his homeland, Palestine, or somewhere far away from the 'enemies,' as described in the history books? What was the attraction? What was his goal? Forgive and forget? Or maybe prosper by working and embracing the people and culture of modern British society, who granted him a sanctuary? Or what, Fred?
Fred, you asked the question, I answered, you are twisting the facts AGAIN!!
I'm twisting nothing, you asked why there was unrest among the Muslim community in Britain and not the Chinese.
The answer is clear, there are people in the Muslim community who's aunts, uncles and cousins are lying in bed at night listening to the drones overhead not knowing if their house is about to be vaporised. There are people in the Muslim community who have lost relatives, innocent civilians, children as a direct result of British foreign policy. This does not apply to the Chinese community, we haven't invaded China for 150 years.
billmoseley
15-Nov-12, 20:56
if they aren't harbouring terrorists then the drones won't vaporise them and they should have anything to worry about. it's not haphazard killing you know. sometimes there are mistakes but by and large they hit what they are aimed at. Or would you prefer to go back 60 years and carpet bomb whole areas and kill 100s per night. But to get back to the threads point and Britain's reputation how much respect would Mrs May get fro the general public if she just put him on a plane and washed her hands of him and any one like him. i suspect a lot
So, why do you think Abu Qatada chose to live in Britain, instead of returning to his homeland, Palestine, or somewhere far away from the 'enemies,' as described in the history books? What was the attraction? What was his goal? Forgive and forget? Or maybe prosper by working and embracing the people and culture of modern British society, who granted him a sanctuary? Or what, Fred?
Return to Palestine? Are you serious? Don't you know that when Abu Qatada came to Britain Palestine was under Israeli military occupation? They are doing their best to kick Palestinians out of Palestine, they certainly weren't letting any back in.
I don't know why he chose Britain, probably because Britain had a large Muslim population he felt he could fit in with. Maybe he had friends or family here.
[QUOTE=squidge;988323]Torture is not moral and we take the high "moral" ground on torture as a nation and rightly so. We dont do it - we dont condone its use and we dont allow extradition where there is a likelihood of torture being used in any way. Our laws are set to ensure that this moral position is upheld. Laws that prevent people from being extradited to countries where torture is used uphold this moral position and are surely moral laws.
What would be immoral would be to ignore this for political expediency. The Judges making the judgement are applying the law. Abu Qatada is a despicable individual but the law must be applied equally whether it was Abu Qatada or me or you. If it is not then it is corrupt.
And mine Bill but if we ignore our laws which are there to protect EVERYONE what does that say about us. That our moral position on torture is worth nothing and if it is worth nothing then we protect no one and we condone torture. If we want to ensure that no one is sent by our society to be a victim of torture directly or indirectly then we have no choice. We have to go back to Jordan and ensure that their assurances are robust enough to meet the requirements of British Law. Anything less is dangerous and immoral[/QUOTE
Torture is not moral and we take the high "moral" ground on torture as a nation . YOU THINK SO.
But the cracks in the system are beginning to show. Clegg’s words came in the wake of a decision by the Criminal Prosecution Service that MI5 and MI6 agents would not be charged with the ill-treatment and torture of UK resident Binyam Mohamed while he was in Pakistan. Nor would they be charged for the torture of another detainee who had been held at Bagram Air Base, Afghanistan
Why bring religion into this we are fighting terrorists. War is an awful thing Fred but at time it has to be fought. If you can't see this then i worry for you. i dare say you think we shouldn't have fought the Germans
I don't know, why did you bring religion into this?
The Germans invaded Poland, like Britain invaded Afghanistan and Iraq.
It looks to me like you are saying the French Resistance movement shouldn't have been fighting the Germans.
The Germans invaded Poland, like Britain invaded Afghanistan .
Britain never invaded Afganistan. Nato was asked by the Afghan government to help put down the Taliban, and as members of Nato, Britain responded with help as did many other Nato countries, I have yet to see you condem the French in this conflict.
Britain never invaded Afganistan. Nato was asked by the Afghan government to help put down the Taliban, and as members of Nato, Britain responded with help as did many other Nato countries, I have yet to see you condem the French in this conflict.
The Taliban were the Afghan government.
Doesn't alter the fact, it was Britain doing the invading in Afghanistan and Iraq. Your excuses don't alter that fact just a Hitler's excuses for invading Poland didn't alter the fact that it was Germany that invaded Poland.
I would be more than happy to condemn the French if it makes you happy, the subject didn't arise before.
I'm twisting nothing, you asked why there was unrest among the Muslim community in Britain and not the Chinese.
The answer is clear, there are people in the Muslim community who's aunts, uncles and cousins are lying in bed at night listening to the drones overhead not knowing if their house is about to be vaporised. There are people in the Muslim community who have lost relatives, innocent civilians, children as a direct result of British foreign policy. This does not apply to the Chinese community, we haven't invaded China for 150 years.
Oops I forgot about the wee stramash that happened from 25th June 1950 to 27th July 1953, now what was it called, of aye the Korean War I believe the Chinese were active in that one as where many Commonwealth troops
Oops I forgot about the wee stramash that happened from 25th June 1950 to 27th July 1953, now what was it called, of aye the Korean War I believe the Chinese were active in that one as where many Commonwealth troops
Well if you bump into the Korean population of Scotland ask him if he still bares a grudge.
Well if you bump into the Korean population of Scotland ask him if he still bares a grudge.
Met quite a lot of Koreans all be it from South Korea when I was a tour guide in Edinburgh, all very nice people, with no grudges against me or the UK
After WWII, as part of a deal with America, Britain dissolved the Empire and pulled out of India leaving a power vacuum, there was a huge civil war and there were a great many displaced people particularly people of the Muslim faith. .
The most famous Indian, Mahatma Ghandi started campaigning for India to become independent as far back as 1921 when he became the leader of the Indian Congress Party, he demanded Britain to quit India in 1942, long before the end of WW2. he advocated a non violence protest, and in 1947 India became Independent, Britain left no power vacuum. Again the word religion creeps in here the Hindu's and the Muslim's fell out, and in 1948 a Hindu dissident shot Mahatma, whom I consider one of the worlds finest men.
billmoseley
16-Nov-12, 19:56
The most famous Indian, Mahatma Ghandi started campaigning for India to become independent as far back as 1921 when he became the leader of the Indian Congress Party, he demanded Britain to quit India in 1942, long before the end of WW2. he advocated a non violence protest, and in 1947 India became Independent, Britain left no power vacuum. Again the word religion creeps in here the Hindu's and the Muslim's fell out, and in 1948 a Hindu dissident shot Mahatma, whom I consider one of the worlds finest men.
well said Golach i agree entirely. Fred here,s an idea why not invite the o so loving Taliban round for tea one day meet your family? ooooooo best not just in cast you have an educated daughter they might just shoot her in the head
The most famous Indian, Mahatma Ghandi started campaigning for India to become independent as far back as 1921 when he became the leader of the Indian Congress Party, he demanded Britain to quit India in 1942, long before the end of WW2. he advocated a non violence protest, and in 1947 India became Independent, Britain left no power vacuum. Again the word religion creeps in here the Hindu's and the Muslim's fell out, and in 1948 a Hindu dissident shot Mahatma, whom I consider one of the worlds finest men.
Some critics allege that British haste led to the cruelties of the Partition.[14] Because independence was declared prior to the actual Partition, it was up to the new governments of India and Pakistan to keep public order. No large population movements were contemplated; the plan called for safeguards for minorities on both sides of the new border. It was a task at which both states failed. There was a complete breakdown of law and order; many died in riots, massacre, or just from the hardships of their flight to safety. What ensued was one of the largest population movements in recorded history. According to Richard Symonds: At the lowest estimate, half a million people perished and twelve million became homeless.
I'd call that one hell of a power vacuum, lowest estimate half a million dead and twelve million homeless, a complete breakdown of law and order.
I'd call that one hell of a power vacuum, lowest estimate half a million dead and twelve million homeless, a complete breakdown of law and order.
It was not Britains fault IMO, but that word religion that caused all the trouble, Muslims against Hindus and Hindus against Muslims. Look at India now one of the wealthiest countrys in the World
It was not Britains fault IMO, but that word religion that caused all the trouble, Muslims against Hindus and Hindus against Muslims. Look at India now one of the wealthiest countrys in the World
Look I was asked why hundreds of thousands of Muslims came to live in Britain and I answered the question.
billmoseley
17-Nov-12, 10:43
i will you what spoils Britains reputation it's people like Fred who go looking for reasons to blame the government for everything no matter weather its con lab or lib.Britain does it's best to conform to international law yes sometimes we do get it wrong but by and large we get it spot on. we have freedom of speech and mostly have everything we need. yes times are hard at the moment but that's not this governments fault or the last ones it's our own. We all wanted things so we borrowed more and more. The bank could maybe have done more to keep an eye on borrowing but at the end of the day it's us who wanted the money.
M Swanson
17-Nov-12, 11:02
Look I was asked why hundreds of thousands of Muslims came to live in Britain and I answered the question.
Yes, indeed you did Fred, but your answer doesn't explain why family members came here in the first place, if our country is as bad as the Britain-haters would have us believe. I feel sure there must be some other incentive, or benefits to be gained. Personally, I don't know of any other country who offer so much to new arrivals, to include friends, or foes. As previously stated, many didn't need passports, a job, a home, savings, or any income whatsoever. Madness if you ask me! Who would be so generous to our people who wish to emigrate? I can't think of one country offhand. Can you, Fred? Abu Qatada and his ilk know where they're well off! :mad:
M Swanson
17-Nov-12, 11:16
I agree Bill, but with one exception. If Blair hadn't invested so much of British taxpayers money into buying votes and creating such a huge deficit by doing so, would the 'cuts' need to be as stringent as they currently are? Yes, those of us who over-extended our credit are culpable, but there was plenty of encouragement from the government, imo. I don't remember them ever warning folks, that an economic downturn follows the rule that bust follows boom! Despite this, I still believe that Britain has much to recommend it. Small wonder millions of immigrants have freely chosen to live here, with many more waiting in the wings. I'm not surprised.
i will you what spoils Britains reputation it's people like Fred who go looking for reasons to blame the government for everything no matter weather its con lab or lib.Britain does it's best to conform to international law yes sometimes we do get it wrong but by and large we get it spot on. we have freedom of speech and mostly have everything we need. yes times are hard at the moment but that's not this governments fault or the last ones it's our own. We all wanted things so we borrowed more and more. The bank could maybe have done more to keep an eye on borrowing but at the end of the day it's us who wanted the money.
Surely that freedom of speech includes the freedom to be critical of government and country? If it doesn't then we do not have freedom of speech, or indeed much freedom at all, just an illusion of freedom.
i will you what spoils Britains reputation it's people like Fred who go looking for reasons to blame the government for everything no matter weather its con lab or lib.Britain does it's best to conform to international law yes sometimes we do get it wrong but by and large we get it spot on. we have freedom of speech and mostly have everything we need. yes times are hard at the moment but that's not this governments fault or the last ones it's our own. We all wanted things so we borrowed more and more. The bank could maybe have done more to keep an eye on borrowing but at the end of the day it's us who wanted the money.
Well I'm reading the international press every day and that's not what I'm seeing.
Want to know what they think of us in Russia?
https://rt.com/news/international-reaction-gaza-assault-736/
Yes, indeed you did Fred, but your answer doesn't explain why family members came here in the first place, if our country is as bad as the Britain-haters would have us believe. I feel sure there must be some other incentive, or benefits to be gained. Personally, I don't know of any other country who offer so much to new arrivals, to include friends, or foes. As previously stated, many didn't need passports, a job, a home, savings, or any income whatsoever. Madness if you ask me! Who would be so generous to our people who wish to emigrate? I can't think of one country offhand. Can you, Fred? Abu Qatada and his ilk know where they're well off! :mad:
Maybe they thought that as Britain had made so much money out of plundering India and oppressing their people we owed them something.
billmoseley
17-Nov-12, 13:25
Well I'm reading the international press every day and that's not what I'm seeing.
Want to know what they think of us in Russia?
https://rt.com/news/international-reaction-gaza-assault-736/
for once Fred you made me laugh you sent me a link to my fav web site lolol. i know very well exactly what the Russians think of us. but Fred i will let you carry on and make an even bigger fool of your self on this point lolol [lol]
weezer 316
17-Nov-12, 13:57
[QUOTE=fred;988575]
Islamophobia i haven't heard such rubbish. Islam is a peace loving and so are their people it is the like of Abu and others that have kiddnapped it and twisted their to fit their murderous ways
Bill Islam is not peace loving. To say such a thing is quite frankly denying reality. The 99% of muslims who dont commit suicide bombings DO show an overwhelming support for their use. Not to mention the fact Jihad is literally the highest obligation for a muslim according to the Koran. It literally gets you a shortcut to heaven for killing infidels and Apostates. Violence really is central is Islam and you can deny it until he cows come home.
In islams defence, christianity would be just as brutal if it was unchecked by secular power. It once was, remember....
I would strongly suggest you educate yourself on these maters before you make pronouncements on them again because you will look like a fool otherwise.
for once Fred you made me laugh you sent me a link to my fav web site lolol. i know very well exactly what the Russians think of us. but Fred i will let you carry on and make an even bigger fool of your self on this point lolol [lol]
Did you also read what the world thinks of David Cameron's recent trip to the Middle East?
http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20427
[QUOTE=billmoseley;988615]
Bill Islam is not peace loving. To say such a thing is quite frankly denying reality. The 99% of muslims who dont commit suicide bombings DO show an overwhelming support for their use. Not to mention the fact Jihad is literally the highest obligation for a muslim according to the Koran. It literally gets you a shortcut to heaven for killing infidels and Apostates. Violence really is central is Islam and you can deny it until he cows come home.
In islams defence, christianity would be just as brutal if it was unchecked by secular power. It once was, remember....
I would strongly suggest you educate yourself on these maters before you make pronouncements on them again because you will look like a fool otherwise.
Complete poppycock.
Islam never tolerates unprovoked aggression from its own side; Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an not to begin hostilities, embark on any act of aggression, violate the rights of others, or harm the innocent. Even hurting or destroying animals or trees is forbidden. War is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Qur'an 2:190-193). Therefore, if non-Muslims are peaceful or indifferent to Islam, there is no justified reason to declare war on them.
Source: http://islam.about.com/od/commonmisconceptions/tp/myths.htm
rich62_uk
17-Nov-12, 15:39
Do you know or mixed with many Muslims Fred ?
Do you know or mixed with many Muslims Fred ?
None of your business.
I discus the issues not myself.
Right now when Britain has such a lousy reputation throughout the world for either committing or supporting human rights abuses I don't see how upholding someone's human rights for a change can do our reputation any harm.
Wanna see what they are saying about us in Iran right now?
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/11/17/272853/uk-abuse-coverup-common-practice/
weezer 316
17-Nov-12, 16:20
[QUOTE=weezer 316;988920]
Complete poppycock.
Islam never tolerates unprovoked aggression from its own side; Muslims are commanded in the Qur'an not to begin hostilities, embark on any act of aggression, violate the rights of others, or harm the innocent. Even hurting or destroying animals or trees is forbidden. War is waged only to defend the religious community against oppression and persecution, because the Qur'an says that "persecution is worse than slaughter" and "let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression" (Qur'an 2:190-193). Therefore, if non-Muslims are peaceful or indifferent to Islam, there is no justified reason to declare war on them.
Source: http://islam.about.com/od/commonmisconceptions/tp/myths.htm
Flynn, have you ever read the qur'an? Have you ever actually checked to see why people blow themselves up by the hundred and condone acts such as stoning, rape, infanticide? I havent tot time not inclination to recount the writing in the Qur'an that support this, but suffice to say buy your own post, you agree that drawing a picture of the prophet Muhammed is either "oppression" or "persecution"?
Its neither, but the violence that it kicked off by muslims in "defence of islam" would appear to be justified not onl;y in tje Qur'an, but by you. Now do you condone this?
Or lets take this paragrapgh from Sam harris:
"Let us take stock of the moral intuitions now on display in the House of Islam: On Aug. 17, 2005, an Iraqi insurgent helped collect the injured survivors of a car bombing, rushed them to a hospital and then detonated his own bomb, murdering those who were already mortally wounded as well as the doctors and nurses struggling to save their lives. Where were the cries of outrage from the Muslim world? Religious sociopaths kill innocents by the hundreds in the capitols of Europe, blow up the offices of the U.N. and the Red Cross, purposefully annihilate crowds of children gathered to collect candy from U.S. soldiers on the streets of Baghdad, kidnap journalists, behead them, and the videos of their butchery become the most popular form of pornography in the Muslim world, and no one utters a word of protest because these atrocities have been perpetrated “in defense of Islam.” But draw a picture of the Prophet, and pious mobs convulse with pious rage. One could hardly ask for a better example of religious dogmatism and its pseudo-morality eclipsing basic, human goodness."
Fund here: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-reality-of-islam
Does this fit with your last post? I do beg an answer......
[QUOTE=Flynn;988931]
Flynn, have you ever read the qur'an? Have you ever actually checked to see why people blow themselves up by the hundred and condone acts such as stoning, rape, infanticide? I havent tot time not inclination to recount the writing in the Qur'an that support this, but suffice to say buy your own post, you agree that drawing a picture of the prophet Muhammed is either "oppression" or "persecution"?
Its neither, but the violence that it kicked off by muslims in "defence of islam" would appear to be justified not onl;y in tje Qur'an, but by you. Now do you condone this?
Or lets take this paragrapgh from Sam harris:
"Let us take stock of the moral intuitions now on display in the House of Islam: On Aug. 17, 2005, an Iraqi insurgent helped collect the injured survivors of a car bombing, rushed them to a hospital and then detonated his own bomb, murdering those who were already mortally wounded as well as the doctors and nurses struggling to save their lives. Where were the cries of outrage from the Muslim world? Religious sociopaths kill innocents by the hundreds in the capitols of Europe, blow up the offices of the U.N. and the Red Cross, purposefully annihilate crowds of children gathered to collect candy from U.S. soldiers on the streets of Baghdad, kidnap journalists, behead them, and the videos of their butchery become the most popular form of pornography in the Muslim world, and no one utters a word of protest because these atrocities have been perpetrated “in defense of Islam.” But draw a picture of the Prophet, and pious mobs convulse with pious rage. One could hardly ask for a better example of religious dogmatism and its pseudo-morality eclipsing basic, human goodness."
Fund here: http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-reality-of-islam
Does this fit with your last post? I do beg an answer......
Are/were IRA terrorists representative of Roman Catholicism? No. And neither are Islamic terrorists representative of Islam.
weezer 316
17-Nov-12, 16:48
Flynn,
These acts are EXCPLICITLY laid out in the Qur'an. Now do you or do you not agree with what I said? is drawing muhammed Oppression or persecution and an acceptabel excuse to murder people? The Qur'an says so......what do you say?
billmoseley
17-Nov-12, 17:06
None of your business.
I discus the issues not myself.
Right now when Britain has such a lousy reputation throughout the world for either committing or supporting human rights abuses I don't see how upholding someone's human rights for a change can do our reputation any harm.
Wanna see what they are saying about us in Iran right now?
http://www.presstv.com/detail/2012/11/17/272853/uk-abuse-coverup-common-practice/ we take that as a know about mixing or knowing any Muslims Fred. Maybe you should get out more and talk to these lovely people ask what they think. Judging by your attitude on here i don't think you would like what they said. I lived in Bradford and weat yorkshire and worked with and have many close Muslim friends and have spent many hours discussing such matters so i reckon i know a bit about the matter. Прежде, чем вы предполагаете, вещи Fred проверить, кто вы оскорбляете
Or lets take this paragrapgh from Sam harris:
I think we would do well to try and understand why people in Iraq feel the need to blow themselves and others up. Or more to the point why they didn't feel the need to blow themselves and others up until 2003. The people were there before 2003, the religion was there before 2003 yet there were no suicide bombers before 2003.
If we could just put our finger on what it was that happened in 2003 that changed things, what made people start blowing themselves and other people up, we may better understand and maybe prevent it happening again.
Flynn,
These acts are EXCPLICITLY laid out in the Qur'an. Now do you or do you not agree with what I said? is drawing muhammed Oppression or persecution and an acceptabel excuse to murder people? The Qur'an says so......what do you say?
The Qur'an says nothing of the sort. It is easy to take passages out of context. We could look at the Bible for example and some of the barbarism that book commands its believers to carry out.
I notice you choose to ignore the attrocities carries out by Roman Catholics. Are all Roman Catholics sworn to violence because a minority carry out violence? No. It is the same with Islam.
I live in an area where there are a great many Muslims, and not one of them would recognise the ill-informed twaddle you are writing about the Qur'an and Islam.
Here is something EXPLICITLY laid out in the Christian Bible regarding non-Christians:
If there be found among you, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that hath wrought wickedness in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing his covenant;
17:3 And hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them, either the sun, or moon, or any of the host of heaven, which I have not commanded;
17:4 And it be told thee, and thou hast heard of it, and enquired diligently, and, behold, it be true, and the thing certain, that such abomination is wrought in Israel;
17:5 Then shalt thou bring forth that man or that woman, which have committed that wicked thing, unto thy gates, even that man or that woman, and shalt stone them with stones, till they die
That's pretty specific. "If you find people who do not believe in the Christian god you must stone them to death".
rich62_uk
17-Nov-12, 17:20
To my mind they are following a leader who is charismatic who makes them believe they will go to a far better place and make their families proud of them. They are normally young and easily brain washed into believing anything.
Any religious book like the Bible etc has scripture that can be twisted to suit your own needs.
weezer 316
17-Nov-12, 17:26
I think we would do well to try and understand why people in Iraq feel the need to blow themselves and others up. Or more to the point why they didn't feel the need to blow themselves and others up until 2003. The people were there before 2003, the religion was there before 2003 yet there were no suicide bombers before 2003.
If we could just put our finger on what it was that happened in 2003 that changed things, what made people start blowing themselves and other people up, we may better understand and maybe prevent it happening again.
Indeed. The reason there were almost no suicide bombings in Iraq prior to 2003 was because there were no targets to wage Jihad against in 2003 in Iraq. I used that example to show though that both Jihad was the foundation of said bombings AND that the target in this instance (other muslims, doctors, people in no way associated with the invasion of Iraq) were and still are largely irrelevant in the face of such fundamental failings as the teachings in the Qur'an.
Or you put your rather feckless point in another light, was the 2003 invasion a just reason for that guy to blow himself up in a hospital and kill fellow iraqi's?
we take that as a know about mixing or knowing any Muslims Fred. Maybe you should get out more and talk to these lovely people ask what they think. Judging by your attitude on here i don't think you would like what they said. I lived in Bradford and weat yorkshire and worked with and have many close Muslim friends and have spent many hours discussing such matters so i reckon i know a bit about the matter. Прежде, чем вы предполагаете, вещи Fred проверить, кто вы оскорбляете
Well now I might have bumped into you in the Karachi Social Club.
It matters not what they or anyone else thinks, I just tell it how it is, if you or they don't like it then that's not my problem. I don't pretend to speak for anyone but myself.
I don't insult others on the forum, I don't call people fools. Maybe you should listen to your own advice.
weezer 316
17-Nov-12, 22:44
The Qur'an says nothing of the sort. It is easy to take passages out of context. We could look at the Bible for example and some of the barbarism that book commands its believers to carry out.
I notice you choose to ignore the attrocities carries out by Roman Catholics. Are all Roman Catholics sworn to violence because a minority carry out violence? No. It is the same with Islam.
I live in an area where there are a great many Muslims, and not one of them would recognise the ill-informed twaddle you are writing about the Qur'an and Islam.
Here is something EXPLICITLY laid out in the Christian Bible regarding non-Christians:
That's pretty specific. "If you find people who do not believe in the Christian god you must stone them to death".
Out on context?? Do explain as you are now in a huge hole! What peaceful context can "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]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." be taken in exactly, other than in the context of whence it is delivered!!
Jihad is central to Islam. The killing of non-believers and particularly apostates is one of the highest and most sacred duties a mulsim can undertake and guarentees heaven. You can spin all the nonsense you want, and bury the head in the sand, but its the case. And hundreds of millions support this.
And why have you quoted the bible at me?!? The bible is an equally monstrous book that fortunately no-one takes as literal any more.
Now can you answer me please, is drawing Muhammed oppression or persecution and an acceptable excuse to murder people? I beg of you to answer
And why have you quoted the bible at me?!? The bible is an equally monstrous book that fortunately no-one takes as literal any more.
Wanna bet?
http://www.creationism.org/
Out on context?? Do explain as you are now in a huge hole! What peaceful context can "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]... but if they desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving and merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah." be taken in exactly, other than in the context of whence it is delivered!!
That means 'defend yourself against persecution'. Doesn't everyone do that?
That means 'defend yourself against persecution'. Doesn't everyone do that?
Apparently Christians turn the other cheek. :roll:
It seems that a British court has ruled that Qatada's human rights would be breached if he is extradited but on closer analysis it shows that they aren't really but the UK government is unprepared to take on the ruling.
But when a higher court in Europe has ruled that thousands of prisoner's human rights have been breached on an obvious issue over the right to vote then the UK government is prepared to defy that court ruling.
There is no consistency.
[QUOTE=weezer 316;988941]
Are/were IRA terrorists representative of Roman Catholicism? No. And neither are Islamic terrorists representative of Islam.
The IRA terrorists fought in the name of republicism, not religion.
Islamic terrorists generally do fight in the name of Islam.
They are not fighting because of religion. They fight and commit terrorist atrocities because of power. Religion is just the tool used by evil people to secure power for themselves. The problem is not with the religion it is with the people that manipulate it for their own ends.
The IRA terrorists fought in the name of republicism, not religion.
Islamic terrorists generally do fight in the name of Islam.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa
The IRA terrorists fought in the name of republicism, not religion.
Islamic terrorists generally do fight in the name of Islam.
'in the name of' is not the same as 'representative of'.
billmoseley
19-Nov-12, 19:53
They are not fighting because of religion. They fight and commit terrorist atrocities because of power. Religion is just the tool used by evil people to secure power for themselves. The problem is not with the religion it is with the people that manipulate it for their own ends. Well said was thinking the same myself
They are not fighting because of religion. They fight and commit terrorist atrocities because of power. Religion is just the tool used by evil people to secure power for themselves. The problem is not with the religion it is with the people that manipulate it for their own ends.
You dismissed their religious reasons for waging war on the west as if Islam did not matter.
OK, you try telling them to their face that Islam does not matter and I'll see how you get on. :roll:
'in the name of' is not the same as 'representative of'.
Of course.
But I fail to see the link between a sect of christianity and the IRA.
What is "representative" of anything is open to the judgment of the observer.
It us surely easy to understand how a terrorist suicide bomber shouting for his god seconds before pressing the red button might provoke the assumption that his motivation is at least partially religious.
It us surely easy to understand how a terrorist suicide bomber shouting for his god seconds before pressing the red button might provoke the assumption that his motivation is at least partially religious.
I knew a girl used to do that in bed but I can assure you she wasn't doing it for her religion.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.