ronthenekred Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 If at all possible then banning anything should be avoided. However in 1939 as war with Nazi Germany became inevitable it was necessary to ban the British Union of Facists. And jail it's members. We are at war with militant islamists, our lads are dying on an almost daily basis at the hands of these ******** so to ban militant islamic groups is entirely in line with British tradition of proclaiming and supporting free speech unless and until it supports those who declare war on us. Then we round them up, rightly. I cannot look in the eyes of any service personel departing for a tour and say I support you but i also support the people who are cheering on your enemies right to encouage the enemy troops to kill you. War is war and it's absolute. I support our troops. Supporting free speech and supporting a bunch of nutters are two completely different things. Nice propaganda though. Why do you think the guys are out there dying...oil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Are you saying that the majority of British Muslims third/second generation are not happy living in the UK? If they weren't here, they'd find it more difficult to turn the UK into an islamic nation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doublesix Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Are you saying that the majority of British Muslims third/second generation are not happy living in the UK? Try reading the post and digesting the information given, it saves all explanations that way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 The problem is that if you ban them, the ideas persist. And you can't ban ideas. Islam4UK begat MAC. MAC will spawn another bunch of nutters. We gain nothing by banning these groups, and every time we do so, a small part of Britishness dies. Erm, what part of Britishness died yesterday then? Sorry to say but that's just meaningless drivel. I agree, they will respawn with a different name, and you can't ban ideas. However the government can ban them (groups) which sends out the message that their behaviour is unacceptable in our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Supporting free speech and supporting a bunch of nutters are two completely different things. Nice propaganda though. Why do you think the guys are out there dying...oil? Supporting the tireless efforts of the US on their incessant crusade to invade and liberate the Oil rich countries from Psychotic dictatorship is not only a British soldiers duty.. it's the British PM's privilege. Similarly, it's the duty of the British government and US congress to send aid to none oil rich countries who's citizens are being systematically raped, tortured and slaughtered by psychotic dictatorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sccsux Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 So if a group decide its ok to.rape.children.and.protest.there insane.views is.that ok? Oh look, another poster with a penchant for comparing apples with oranges. Jeez, you lot must walk around with a sphincter tighter than an arm-lock from Mick Mcmannus. No chance of getting a bomb up your bum then. Aye, at least from the early 1800's any way, well that's as far back as I have traced our family tree. So that's a no then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WeX Posted November 11, 2011 Author Share Posted November 11, 2011 No the records just don't exist any more. The Romans weren't necessarily as keen on bureaucracy as we were and the records that did exist are mostly destryoyed. Records from the time and place do exist and none mention a Jesus as described in the Bible. Suetonius, Josephus and Justus's work is still available. None of them corroborated the existence of a Jesus. So it doesn't prove he doesn't exist at all. OK, well lets put it this way, what proves he existed? Disregard the bible as the gospels of the new testament are all anonymous written in the third person. None of them contains a first-person narrative or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion of an eyewitness. They where given names sometime in the second century. So if we have no tangible evidence that this person existed such as written works, historical accounts how can you prove he existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 The true face of British Justice... Equal For All I DON'T THINK SO...!!! In May 2010 Tohseef Shah spray painted a British War Memorial with "islam will dominate............... Osama is coming" he was fined £50 & walked free from court. In November 2010, Emdadur Choudhury burned a Poppy during the 2 minutes silence. He too was given a fine, £50 and walked free from court. Today, 2 men have been sentenced to 12 months in prison for spray painting a Poppy on a mosque. No they didn't, they got 12 months for a sting of offences including spray painting a poppy on a mosque, criminal damage to shops and assaulting a police officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingjimmy Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 War is war and it's absolute. So you're either with us or against us? What a load of tripe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted November 11, 2011 Share Posted November 11, 2011 Records from the time and place do exist and none mention a Jesus as described in the Bible. Suetonius, Josephus and Justus's work is still available. None of them corroborated the existence of a Jesus. OK, well lets put it this way, what proves he existed? Disregard the bible as the gospels of the new testament are all anonymous written in the third person. None of them contains a first-person narrative or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion of an eyewitness. They where given names sometime in the second century. So if we have no tangible evidence that this person existed such as written works, historical accounts how can you prove he existed? Even if he did exist he was a schizophrenic with voices in his head. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.