The Abu Hamza deportation thread

[Tony Erikson]

He's not allowed to not be a Muslim either, therefore is he to refuse any non-Muslims?

 

If he follows the teachings of his profit and god then I guess he should yes. Though if he did follow the teachings, he would have likely called a jihad on our nation. I'm not sure if many of us would get Dhimmi status. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi

 

I guess all this points out how out of place with a modern society all religions are.

[Plain Talker]

No-one ever mentions our freedom from religion. It's alright for a religious person to tell a homosexual he/she shouldn't exist, yet if a homosexual were to say religious people shouldn't exist there would be uproar. Yet one of them is genetic and the other just stupidity.

 

You are being very silly, tony. It's quite patently not alright for a religious person to tell a gay person s/he should not exist.

[Closet Guy.]

You are being very silly, tony. It's quite patently not alright for a religious person to tell a gay person s/he should not exist.

 

When one says it its tolerated. When the others say it, its not.

Thats hardly fair.

[stevie1957]

I see someone has been busy with the delete button again.

[HeadingNorth]

But they are not, so they are meaningless. The "rights" are only applicable in the european area, only apply to actions of the state not individuals and thus do not guarentee any of the rights suggested, they merely form a body of get out clauses for criminals seeking to escape punishment for their actions. A terrorist in the UK can drag out human rights appeals for a decade, a terrorist in afghanistan gets shot in the face. All under the same system.

 

The system in Afghanistan is not the same as the system in the UK. They use Afghani law, not British law.

[Tony Erikson]

You are being very silly, tony. It's quite patently not alright for a religious person to tell a gay person s/he should not exist.

 

It seems my previous posts responding to you have been removed. For what reason I'm not sure. I have no way of debating anything with you. You have an unfair advantage.

[medusa]

I see someone has been busy with the delete button again.

 

That would be me.

 

In response to a whole selection of reports.

[HeadingNorth]

That would be me.

 

In response to a whole selection of reports.

 

You should make clear - because someone is bound to infer otherwise - that you don't delete a post because it was reported, but because it broke rules. Reporting a post only means that you go and look at it and make a decision.

[Eric_Collins]

Abu and his cronies got of lightly in all respects of the word lightly. Remember 60 years ago when someone was preaching mass murder And getting other to do it ?

 

They wanted to exterminate an religion and nearly did.

 

They were all hung or shot.

[medusa]

You should make clear - because someone is bound to infer otherwise - that you don't delete a post because it was reported, but because it broke rules. Reporting a post only means that you go and look at it and make a decision.

 

That's a given.

 

A report is just a request from forum users to take a look. Whether the moderator handling the report agrees that a rule has been broken and takes action is another matter though.

 

Lots and lots of reports about the same post or posts is a bit of a red flag though, and means that we do tend to look at the surrounding thread, rather than just looking at the individual post reported.