Religeon Of Peace? Read first

Here are photos put up by Gwaedin on Mes Amis http://mesamisetmoi.forumactif.com/nos-blablas-f1/les-infos-du-net-t24-900.htm these are photos of a recent manifestation held in London. When , I have no exact date. What is eye-opening are the texts on the posters. And the Islam religeon is supposed to be peacefull and loving? Is this really happening in England? And how come British people are letting it happen. These people come to England, Are clothed and fed better than natural English people and they have the right to shout things like this? Come on the Governement and the Police ? Where are you?

Of course I realise that it is perhaps a natural method of thought, but I think it's a shame that you generalise so readily, it makes discussion difficult ... Just as an example, if I were to apply the values of the Westboro Baptist church to all Christians, or those of the White nationalist Movement to all Caucasians, or even mine to my family I would dramatically skew reality. Working from inaccurate preconceptions is beyond useless, it's entirely counter-productive.

To take your questions in order we would have to start with Islam as a peaceful religion. Massively complicated. However, I think it's quite easy to summarise. Religion is interpretation and as such not absolute, if it were we wouldn't have Buddhists, Sikhs, Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc let alone Baptists, Roman Catholics, Methodists, etc; People are people, perception and opinions differ...

Second, is it happening in England. I'd suggest that you clarify what you mean by 'this'. Were these pictures taken in London? To be honest, I have no idea; Are there extremist elements in London (and all over the country and, in fact, the world)? Most definitely.

The next two kind of merge into one. Firstly, what makes you think that 'these people' came to England and how do you define nationality ... 'natural English' as you put it? I'm also curious as to why you think 'these people' are clothed and fed better ... but lastly, Freedom of expression... where do you draw the line?

.tUrniP wrote:

Second, is it happening in England. I'd suggest that you clarify what you mean by 'this'. Were these pictures taken in London? To be honest, I have no idea; Are there extremist elements in London (and all over the country and, in fact, the world)? Most definitely.

This sort of thing certainly does happen in England....

It happens quite often when troops are returning home, these sorts of placards are waved by admittedly tiny minority groups of Muslims at soldiers as they march through their own towns after a tour of duty in iraq/Afghanistan ....

Quite how they get out alive is beyond me to be honest because their placards say things like murderers, child killers etc etc....

In short those images, some were prosecuted others let be.

Do the english put up with it, yes the poltiticans do as they are as blind as justice is. Do the english in question accept this, they accept fair play, they do not accept injustice but with out hands tied and are demoralised what is the point in shouting about the wrongs when nobody hears or hears but will not do anything because from fear of being called a RACIST or worse.

Is islam violent, no more so, or less so than other religions. Would you say the Spanish inquisition was any less violent in its nature or the holy crusades or the Irish conflicts between the warring religious sides?

Fanatics, fundamentalist, extremeist in all religions exsist it is those who cause these outbursts.

A question may be answered how come they are allowed into england, an answer could be as France lets them slip through while it looks the other way.

England is a mess, and its people hung dogged with apathy.

This'll get you posting ...

Soldiers are murderers and children have died as a direct result of military action... can anyone really object to the truth?

.tUrniP wrote:

This'll get you posting ...

Soldiers are murderers and children have died as a direct result of military action... can anyone really object to the truth?

Yes they are known as casulties of war. Same as those killed inthe UK in our war with Germany etc, A targetted responce to a perceived threat. Those killed by those who were in active service are exempt from being held accountable under the laws as they stand, unless it is proven that those acts were committed on purpose. A very fine line to walk on.

Whereas, Terroists, fundamentalists, extremists et al, also murder children, women and men but those are committed indiscrimainate acts of autrocities in the name of religion.

If you are asking is any killing worth the 'perceived' cause.. my personal answer is no. But that kill is a sad part of being human. It comes with the genetic and social makeup. Kill or be killed. Die or survive, the strong over the weak, religion is the root of all evil. Money funds the violence, egos ruin the world. The list in extensive.

Is killing permittable that question is a triple edged sword.

i always hear how they hate this country so much but here they are !

"...If they do it it's terrorism, if we do it it's counter-terrorism..."

By the way, I'm surprised somebody seemingly so critical of 'the law' would use it to sugar coat such an awful act. I realise that maybe you were just trying to be accurate but 'murder' doesn't necessarily mean 'unlawful killing' and even if it did, which law is up for interpretation; For law to be law it must be acknowledged as such...

Which brings me onto your next point...

In the words of Ayn Rand (of all people), "there is no society, it's just you and me". Something so simple, yet powerful. Societal structures are of our own making, they're not some inescapable prison. You may think I'm naive (you'd probably be right) but I personally believe that, rather than religion, these structures are far more worthy of blame.

Don't take this the wrong way but I absolutely understand 'anti-west' sentiment.

2 wrongs do not make a right.

My armchair back soapbox rider, says, look back at your own posts and re-read what you have written. Is is no surprise that the UK is like it is. If it wasn't for the namby pamby fraternity pandering to all things fluffy with their head firmly buried in the sand, the UK or its people would not be in the state it is in.

Explain why and what you understand of the anti west sentiment?

Also, are you naive, perhaps you are, perhaps you are not.

As for the law, it is simplistic as it is complicated. Rules govern rules as do the revolving door philosphy.
Under the banner of WAR! those who commit acts of war are governed by the Geneva Convention. Any act of hostilites commited that exceeds the convention are subject to trial as, war crimes, just the same as any murder etc commited in general society.

Unlike those extremeist fractions who commit terroism and do not follow the set down rules of engaging in war.

War has rules, clear and set. Terroism commits atrocities for no reason than a miconcived notion that Allah says they can enter paradise by doing so. Yet the Quran does not actually state Paradise is gained by the killing of the innocent. It states that those who kill the innocent will never enter Paradise.

As for Alisa Rosenbaum... Much like the UK government lived in cloud cuckoo land where all things are fluffy and bright and layed on pavements of gold. I have crossed swords with Rand and know how far removed from reality she was. While her condemnation of captialism was commendable, yet she still floated around on an insular bubble removing herself from what was actually really happening on terra firma.

I am critical of the law as I know how it works, how it is supposed to work and who it works for and who it doesn't. As for sugar coating anything, I didn't.

Most of that went straight over my head, especially the first two paragraphs, sorry...

For a start, however, I have to disagree with your buck passing. The state of the UK, and the world in fact, is our fault ... all of us. We, as a species, are responsible for so much pain, so much suffering and it's unnecessary ... senseless ... ridiculous. Misanthropy is often considered a foolish prejudice, a madness based on feelings of isolation, but just look at what we have done and continue to do; Surely the misanthrope has seen sense in madness, not the other way around?

I know that I am naive, I lack experience, I sure as hell lack knowledge and understanding but I also know that things are not right ( for me ); I doubt they will be without revolution ( if ever ) but, if I'm honest, I cannot bear it, neither can I shed it ... it overwhelms and defeats me.

... I'm such a drama queen

Anyway, the law is irrelevant ... because I said so ... Really though, you said yourself that killing is worthless, surely that is the beginning, middle and end of it. To make a distinction between, those that abide by some arbitrary rules and those that do not is just a deception. There is no honour in killing.

My definition of terrorism is "the use, or threat, of violence as means of coercion"; However, it seems it must be wrong since we're not the terrorists, right?

About Ayn Rand, I'm not really sure why I mentioned her, are we talking about the same woman though?

That stirred up a hornets nest. Will have to get to replying or else I will have Gris Gris coming down the line at me!
Lots of points were made and I will try to answer as best as I can .
Turnip, it is not that I generalise quickly, I know full well that all are not to be put in the same basket. However many of them follow the few who shout the loudest or those who "lay down" their law! There are and exist basic rules to every religeon, these are mainly love and respect of the "other". Which those portrayed in the photos obviously do not! The basic precepts of Islam is towards compassion and understanding. But as you say it is all down to how one perceives this .
These photos were taken in England, I said London , when and where exactly I do not know. Possibly some-one could come up with a date and a place. however let it be said that if they were to do this against the governements of their own country then they would be for the chopping block !
An example, a workmate has his family still around the Bradford area. A while ago in the lead up to the World Cup, English people were proudly showing the flag. In a big shopping center near there , one day the store manager came on over the P.A sytem and asked people to take down any english flags on their cars etc cos as the major party of his employées were of a certain religeon and country , they found this distastefull. Needless to say , the english people present for one, instantly refused. Two, all those who had not then paid for the shopping they had done, or were waiting at the cash desks, left everything as it was and walked out of the shop! They told the store manager what he could do in no uncertain terms. one of his nephews , was driving through town with a small St Georges cross flag, the English Flag! on his car. A van came up to his car and the passengers in it, of a rather dark colour , pointed at the flag, then him and made the sign of cutting his throat!
Do you want more? these are the same sort of people as in the photos!
Nationality as I define it is being born of national parents in the country of that name. Natural English , for me are , white, English born or otherwise of english descent, born in another country. or having come from the British colonies, West India, etc.
Freedom of expression is free up to the point where it becomes agressive and against national interests. where it is hatefull and calling to murder or maim people. Whether it be religeous or not. inciting people to racial hatred. if we as English people were to say the same thing then we would be treated as racists and brought before the courts!
A lot of them are on handouts and social aide often putting them financially in no difficulties as is not the case of British nationals. Do you want examples? I feel that the english governement is responsable for that in being too open .
When you say that "We " are responsable, who do you mean by "We"? Us as individual people , due to our inactivity on not bringing pressure to bear on the governement. or "We" as a nation and the power bearers saying "We" and "England" etc. In which case you should make the distinction. Many people do not agree to governement actions , such as war etc. or by them giving us lessons which they do not follow. they can sit in their homes comfy as can be while the soldiers are fighting and loosing their lives. Which ever country they come from and which ever side they are on. the problems of the world are more of the doings of those in power wanting more or the financial people wanting more money and playing poker with our money and ressources. the latest crisis was brought on by bankers wanting more money, until the bottom fell out and as usual the poor people pay the price with prices going up, job lose etc.
In all wars , as said , there are casualities; either amongst the troops or civilians caught up in the fighting. this is a hard fact of war and something which a lot of people can not do anything about. In the normal course of war this is to be expected. What is not is the wanton killing of innocents , just for the sake of killing or as "examples". Those who commit these crimes should be punished but where is the line you do not cross? Can you condone revenge killings? How would you feel if you saw friends or family killed ? i know I would search for revenge.
However there is a difference to be made with terrorist killings. These are indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations just because they belong to such and such a nation or religeon. Irrespective of whether they are responsable or not. These are to be openly condonned and fought. They do not in any way help the terrorists cause, it only helps to push them further away from any sort of recognition or sympathy.

If this sort of thing happens in England, in France as well but in different ways, then it is the governements fault by letting things get out of hand. true people have the right to exprime themselves and their point of view. But not to prone racial hatred and openly threatening people with murder. The English governement has for too long gone on the basis of different cultures and that mixity is a good thing. however this is not the case. They have for too long let power seekers and so called religeous leaders have their own way and let them do as they wish.
Note that I say the English governement and not the english people!
Some of them hate the west or believe they do but are quite willing to profit from its riches. If they hate it here so much, as has been said , why are they still here? If they do not want to go back to their countries of origine then kick them out. They will soon realise how easy things were here for them. they would not be allowed to talk out against their own governements as they do here.
Gaz pointed out that when the troops come back home from a tour of duty and march through the streets, then this sort of thing happens. Luckily for them , I feel, that the troops are restrained from intervening. If they cannot then the police should!

I personally dislike flags too, but as a symbol of division more than anything else. They sadden me. The concept of nationality confuses me. However, I agree, of course, that to demand that the flag is not flown is unacceptable, a breach of freedom. Threats of violence too, it goes without saying really. Having said that, you say 'asked', not demanded; I think that to deny their right to ask is just as oppressive as being forced to take them down. Semantics, maybe.

I don't see the jump from these specific incidents though. What 'sort' of people?

I find it disheartening that you reference skin colour in relation to nationality but if I understand correctly there is a distinction between citizenship and actual belonging.A third generation immigrant can call themselves British but are not truly? However, I believe that the most commonly accepted origin of our species is Africa, coupled with your definition nobody is really English. I hope I haven't misunderstood because that would suit me fine.

Your ideas on the limit of Freedom of expression are fair enough but isn't your implication invalid since ( I'm taking GG's word for it ) some were prosecuted?

Anyway, by 'we' I mean as a species. Hitchens says, "... our pre-frontal lobes are too small. And our adrenal glands are too big. And our thumb finger opposition isn't all what it might be. And we're afraid of the dark, and we're afraid to die ..." We are flawed and arrogant with it but the common theme is "we". There is no us and them, not really. I believe a mix of cultures to be a great thing. I'd much prefer to work on the troubles we have than the oppression you suggest. That's just me though; I believe that the "if you don't like it then fuck off" attitude is part of what dumped us in this mess.

One thing that could be done is not to go to war; I find it disturbing that you're trying to normalise killing...

I have to say though - not in defence of terrorism ( although, in truth, it's an age old and effective strategy of conflict ) - the military are civilians with guns and a short stay at boot camp, not some extraneous force. When a nation declares war the nation is at war. This is a problem in our society, autonomy is given up and all the while we are forced to fund it.

I've said before I do not believe there to be a moral equivalence in "an eye for an eye", what purpose does revenge serve? I propose a scenario: You killed my friend, I killed you. Now you're dead but so is my friend and I still feel like shit; In fact, more so because I've forsaken my values...

I'm not and never will justify killing of or by anyone and that is kind of my point.

it takes the piss when asked to take down the english flag down
its an english flag being waved around in england
but now the english flag owners are loosing there right to fly there flag in England
this country is filling up to fast cause the goverment left the doors open just to be seen to be nice
well good old england lol except now they cant shut the doors cause then they will be called racist
nothing to do with the fact that this country is to full and the fact that its overloaded
puts a strain on the countrys finances at all
so yes this is happening in england and it will continue to happen cause the goverment
has to be seen to be nice if they dont it will probabally end in war

Hitchen as in Christopher Hitchen the Marxist and supporter of Che Guevara. The very same man of 2 tongues who loved the the 60's but then slagged it off for being Hedonistic? The proud to be English man that defected and became an American. That one?

Those Photos were taken in London 2006, they were 'protesting' as result of the Danish cartoon depicting the prophet Muhammad and us English were given the same scorn and threats as though we had done it. The ones prosecuted were those who had far worse written on the placards than that what is shown.


A teacher in the African Muslim provinces was oustriczed after a teddy was given the same name by a child with the same name and she was put on trial because of it. She also had death threats and again England got the same treatment.

Yet.... England is not allowed to celebrate Christmas festivities with its trimmings because the Muslims find it distasteful.

Yet they are happy to issue fatwa's, write their death threats etc and any that complain are RACISTS.


Terroists choose random innocent targets, with the maximum impact to frighten the Government and force it to do as the terroists will. The same government that deems its people expendable as it does with its armed forces and does not negotiate with terroists.


As for true English... If there was it would be a miracle given the amount of invaders to our shores.

What makes somebody English... Born in the country or nationalised into it. Who speaks and acts in the given Native English ways, while obseving and conforming to its social structure rules and etiquetts.

What is not English, is refusing to speak or learn its language, fails to observe the English laws etc and uses its native own; like for example Halal and Sharia law of stoning a woman who may or may not have committed adultry. Who wil take a child that is disabled and take it back to its native country and leave it for tiger bait.


To be English you act in accordance with that countrys ways.

If I was to go to France I would follow there rules, laws and social arrangements, If i was to go to China likewise, Eygpt etc etc.

I agree with the Australians, if you cannot support or refuse to act or intergrate yourself as an Australian in their ways and language, then don't go there or be prepared to be slung out. Ruthless but it is correct.


And yes Rand is the same one we were discussing Turnip.

If you want to fly a flag of course you should be allowed to, British or otherwise but I'm having trouble understanding why you are so offended by a request. If I dislike something surely I have the right to ask for it to be stopped; Just as you have the right to say no?

I suppose it takes a nationalist mindset to see it ...

From my point of view, Britain is a couple of rocks ( as beautiful as they are ) surrounded by water, occupied by millions of people that I don't know and probably never will. I haven't necessarily got anything more in common with a man from Basingstoke than a man from Cairo but I'm supposed to hold him in higher regard simply because he was born in the same region of the planet? I'm supposed to love my country when my country couldn't care less about me? I'm supposed to support the national team and say 'we' won this, 'we' won that, when, in fact, I had nothing to do with it? Why and how can I be proud of a nation or it's heritage ( does it even really make linguistic sense )?

The blood, sweat and tears of people from far and wide created and sustain Britain, what gives me or anyone else the right to deny them? Regardless, surely the sense of belonging to the world and a species capable of such great things is far grander than that of nationality? ...

... But that's irrelevant.

The Union Jack and St George's cross ( which arguably isn't even of English origin ) have long been symbols of power and authority, wealth, segregation, elitism, imperialism, piracy and now have been hijacked by those that wish for it to remain as such. They do not belong to the mild, kind and peaceful but to the oppressive and selfish ( largely because of the media ).

I propose a scenario: If you were a third generation Ghanaian immigrant working all the hours you can in order to provide for your family ( like anybody else ) but were derided and blamed for seemingly everything by those that generally feel that they have to flaunt the flag in your face and deny your belonging; Wouldn't your view of that symbol be skewed?

Else: If you were a first generation Iraqi immigrant working all the hours you can ( like anybody else ) in order to provide for your family but were derided and blamed for seemingly everything and everywhere you look is that symbol, a flaunted reminder that people you know, family, friends are in mortal danger from the nation you are now a part of; Wouldn't you feel oppressed, wouldn't you protest?

Even: If you'd just made some new friends at school and they were to bully an old friend you'd stick up for that friend, wouldn't you?

Poor examples and, of course, still no reason not to fly your flag ( hell, paint a 30ft cross on your house if you want ) but be aware that people are allowed to be offended and often are; Is flaunting your patriotism/jingoism worth it?

I can't really comment on financial strain and overloading since I don't know of any. Examples are welcomed.

I'm not really sure what bearing Christopher Hitchens the man has on the point, so unless there is something specific I'm not sure how to reply, although my impression of him is one of a proud hedonist. The same applies to Ayn Rand but I will say it must be my mistake in her case since I believed she was pro capitalism; didn't she say, "... Capitalism is the system of the future, if mankind is to have a future ..." ?

Anyway, I know little of the two incidents you mention save that they happened, some people were offended and some people showed it ( some going too far ). Aniconism is a big thing for some people.
I'm not sure what you mean about celebrating Christmas either; Who is saying what? If you mean the word itself being omitted and replaced ( by terms like "winter light festival" ) on banners and such like ( I think I remember reading that ) then I am surprised that someone 'non-religious' such as yourself objects. Renaming the Christian hijacked pagan holiday is more inclusive of you too. Don't misunderstand, it's not a criticism and I am not saying that Christmas doesn't matter it's just that surely those that want to be inclusive have just as much right to be as those that don't not to be? Either way what difference does it really make to you? Let people call it whatever they want to.

Quite a large proportion of people against fundamentalism and extremism in the name of Islam are moderate Muslims. Neither they, nor I, are condoning the behaviour but in the past you objected to being pigeon-holed ( and rightly so ), yet are you not doing just that? I know I'm just repeating myself but we are all in this together, codependent even.

I don't really understand why anybody should just conform to anything if they do not agree either, whether that's social structure, law, economic policy, anything really, it's oppressive isn't it? I think people should be free to speak out and, within reason, act as they wish - all people. I'm English by law and I disagree with a lot of it so maybe I'm just selfishly empathetic.

I guess I'm really just saying that people are people, similar and different; A definitive line must be drawn in order to exclude some and I don't know where, or even why, anyone would do so. Let's stop passing the buck, have a proper look at ourselves ( as a species ) and a proper conversation. There's a hell of a lot to sort out.

I am not offended, you have the right to not notice my flag, just as I have the right not to take notice of yours. But I do expect you to behave, be tolerant as I have to in my own country


There lies the problem, don't do as I do but I have to do as you do. That is incorrect and the crux of many battles and antagonisms.

well of course i would be offended by the request not to fly the flag
especially as i would be flying the English flag in England
and as for your scenario there not the people in discussion unless
there in one of the pictures on the first page
and considering how much them people hate this country
i dont see them leaving in a hurry

I cannot know the circumstances of the people pictured with any more accuracy than you, but, whether my examples apply or not, my aim was only to suggest another side to the argument. I felt that in your post you had either overlooked the possibility of offence being taken or blatantly disregarded it, I chose to reply to the former since I'd like to think that most people at least consider others. Maybe I just misinterpreted it.

I must say that your strength of feeling comes across loud and clear but I get no real sense of ... well ... anything else really. Of course it's not your responsibility to make me understand but I'd like to, can you give more detail?

For a start, why "of course"?

what. why would i be offended
im in england flying the english flag i should be allowed
not told not to fly my countries flag
if i was in some other country that request wouldnt bother me
i dont go around tell others not to fly there flag they can fly it if they want
its up to them and it should be the same for me not told not to

What I really want to know is what the flag(s) really mean to you and how they evoke such emotion?

You seem to imply that I should already know but I don't. Sorry.

i show people pictures of my kids cause im proud of them
even though they are little devils (and my pets too) and if he takes part in a sports comp
im am there with a banner to suport him
same as i am proud of my country and will fly the flag to support them too

Sorry, I'm still none the wiser. What are you actually proud of?

this country the goverment the nhs service stuff like that
even though im dissapointed with some of the things it does like war
it is still my country and where i live
just like my kids im proud of even though i get dissapionted with some
of the things they do like farting burping lol (2 boys eh )lol
are you not proud of your country
and you wouldnt see me going to to a country getting clothed an fed there a
roof over my head free dental and hospital treatment
and then stand there with posters and banners like the people in the pictures

You were born and live here essentially by chance. In the words of George Carlin ( of course replace Irish with your nation ) "... pride should be reserved for something that you achieve or attain on your own, not something that happens by an accident of birth ... being Irish isn't a skill so why the fuck would you be proud to be Irish? ... but if you're happy with it that's fine ...".

I'm grateful that I live in a country with a National health service ( however efficient it is ), I'm saddened by it being one of the few. However, to my mind it was set up and is run by individuals that deserve to be proud; It doesn't boost my self-esteem or self-respect because I had nothing to do with it. I suppose you could argue that you pay taxes to fund it but taxes also fund war and the whim of the powers that be, I hardly think it's the same thing.

Although I personally think it's a bit unhealthy to seek validation of one's self through the actions of your child, i.e pride in them winning a race at sports day, with children it is more understandable because you've had a direct impact on their mentality whether your a biological parent or not.

I wouldn't threaten anybody with violence in placard form either, regardless of country or standard of living.