Britain First

Status
Not open for further replies.
ST4 said:
Or you could answer his question. Are they moderate?
Click to expand...

that was already answered about 8 posts back - his percentages are wrong , but no the (actually 9 or 7 depending on which poll you look at) % who believe terrorism to be justified and who do not feel loyalty to the UK or believe they should adhere to its laws are not moderates - as i said before that is so obvious it shouldn't need saying.

So a question in return - would you find it acceptable for a bunch of extremist muslims to burst into a church and disrupt the ongoing service ?

Assuming that answer to that is 'no' , why is it okay for a bunch of BF followers to do the same in a mosque ? ( also bearing in mind that BFs founder left because he felt the Mosque invasions were unjustfied, disrespectful and counter productive" )

Also assuming we all agree that the attacks on Charlie Hebdo were unjustfied how do you and your mini me feel about the murder of Alan Berg by the Order ?
 
Last edited:
i get lots of britian first posts shared and end up on my facebook feed... they are a source of amusment as with any of these organisations... none of them seem to understand the difference beteween English and British... they certainly dont understand what being british is.. so every post they make is a mockery...


for example.. a picture of three women wearing burkhas and the text saying british people are offended by this... haha completly ignoring the fact that the three women wearing burkhas are probably british themselves.



Like most racists (butter it up anyway you want but lets face it.. racists they are) they are too thick to understand that just about anyone on this planet can come to this country... stay here for x amount of time and bingo! they are british/... thus most of the people they are attacking in the name of britain are in fact... british..

Anyone can be british... jeeze even the welsh are british...

But you have to be born here to be English .... I class myself as english not british.. it doesnt mater what colour your skin is. what religion you stupidly beliebe in or whtever you choose to think or believe.. born here and your englih....
 
KIPAX said:
i get lots of britian first posts shared and end up on my facebook feed... they are a source of amusment as with any of these organisations... none of them seem to understand the difference beteween English and British... they certainly dont understand what being british is.. so every post they make is a mockery...


for example.. a picture of three women wearing burkhas and the text saying british people are offended by this... haha completly ignoring the fact that the three women wearing burkhas are probably british themselves.



Like most racists (butter it up anyway you want but lets face it.. racists they are) they are too thick to understand that just about anyone on this planet can come to this country... stay here for x amount of time and bingo! they are british/... thus most of the people they are attacking in the name of britain are in fact... british..

Anyone can be british... jeeze even the welsh are british...

But you have to be born here to be English .... I class myself as english not british.. it doesnt mater what colour your skin is. what religion you stupidly beliebe in or whtever you choose to think or believe.. born here and your englih....
Click to expand...
Hmmm interesting, so you class yourself that but what does it actually say in your passport when you have to demonstrate your nationality?

Surely it is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and as your nationality it would then most likely say (since you were born in England) British Citizen. I'm sorry pal, but that makes you officially British. As far I know there is no such nationality as English.

But even if there is/was, how far back do you go? My family left Wales in 1647 to make their fortunes elsewhere. I could hazard a guess that with such bloodline that could make me more British than some ;)
 
KIPAX said:
Like most racists (butter it up anyway you want but lets face it.. racists they are) they are too thick to understand that just about anyone on this planet can come to this country... stay here for x amount of time and bingo! they are british
Click to expand...

Like those Angle and Saxon immigrants who moved here in the 5th century!


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
Like those Angle and Saxon immigrants who moved here in the 5th century!


Steve.
Click to expand...
It's one of my favourite 'immigrant' issues.

As 'Anglo Saxon' as a race is already 'mixed race' and it's a mixed race of immigrants.

My people (my ancestry goes back to Wales) have been allowing immigrants in for hundreds of years, I object to those immigrants telling me that I should now stop letting other immigrants in.

I feel a bit like that Aboriginal bloke protesting at the 'immigration' protests in Australia.
 
Steve Smith said:
Like those Angle and Saxon immigrants who moved here in the 5th century!
Steve.
Click to expand...

Plus a fair number of Scandinavians who arrived a bit later and briefly ruled the country, and Normans who ruled for a lot longer...:D
 
Phil V said:
It's one of my favourite 'immigrant' issues.

As 'Anglo Saxon' as a race is already 'mixed race' and it's a mixed race of immigrants.

My people (my ancestry goes back to Wales) have been allowing immigrants in for hundreds of years, I object to those immigrants telling me that I should now stop letting other immigrants in.

I feel a bit like that Aboriginal bloke protesting at the 'immigration' protests in Australia.
Click to expand...
Several of the people my wife works with have very strong views about immigration. The usual stuff - too many immigrants, needs some controls, etc.

The thing is, they're all second generation - their parents came here from India. Ironic or what?
 
StewartR said:
Several of the people my wife works with have very strong views about immigration. The usual stuff - too many immigrants, needs some controls, etc.

The thing is, they're all second generation - their parents came here from India. Ironic or what?
Click to expand...

Would you say needing controls on immigration is a strong view? I wouldn't. Of course we need controls and look at who is coming in and what they can offer. That is called common sense.
 
Phil V said:
I feel a bit like that Aboriginal bloke protesting at the 'immigration' protests in Australia.
Click to expand...

There is also a good bit of video on Youtube showing a native American at a US anti immigration rally telling the speakers that they are the immigrants!

MartynK said:
Plus a fair number of Scandinavians who arrived a bit later and briefly ruled the country, and Normans who ruled for a lot longer.
Click to expand...

And the Romans. What did they ever do for us?!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Take it back far enough and everyone currently outside of Africa hails from black migrant stock, even the shaven headed snow white card carrying neanderthal members of racist/xenophobic nationalist groups.
 
Phil V said:
My people (my ancestry goes back to Wales) have been allowing immigrants in for hundreds of years, I object to those immigrants telling me that I should now stop letting other immigrants in.
.
Click to expand...

not forgetting of course that the celtic people came out of the east and dispossessed the stone age british who were here before them. At the end of the day if you go far enough back we all originated in africa regardless of the colour of our skin or which sky pixie (if any) we worship
 
viv1969 said:
Take it back far enough and everyone currently outside of Africa hails from black migrant stock, even the shaven headed snow white card carrying neanderthal members of racist/xenophobic nationalist groups.
Click to expand...

Yeh coz skinheads are all like that.
 
KIPAX said:
i get lots of britian first posts shared and end up on my facebook feed... they are a source of amusment as with any of these organisations... none of them seem to understand the difference beteween English and British... they certainly dont understand what being british is.. so every post they make is a mockery...


for example.. a picture of three women wearing burkhas and the text saying british people are offended by this... haha completly ignoring the fact that the three women wearing burkhas are probably british themselves.



Like most racists (butter it up anyway you want but lets face it.. racists they are) they are too thick to understand that just about anyone on this planet can come to this country... stay here for x amount of time and bingo! they are british/... thus most of the people they are attacking in the name of britain are in fact... british..

Anyone can be british... jeeze even the welsh are british...

But you have to be born here to be English .... I class myself as english not british.. it doesnt mater what colour your skin is. what religion you stupidly beliebe in or whtever you choose to think or believe.. born here and your englih....
Click to expand...

My mate came to the UK from Hong Kong in the 70s he is a British citizen, his children were born in the UK. His children are now adults and they consider themselves British even English maybe. My mate says they are Chinese, but they are more English than Chinese. If you hear them on the phone, they sound very eloquent and posh.
 
viv1969 said:
Is that what I said?
No. Didn't think so.
Click to expand...

Inferred that having a shaved head is a prerequisite to be part of one of these groups.
 
Last edited:
cambsno said:
Would you say needing controls on immigration is a strong view? I wouldn't. Of course we need controls and look at who is coming in and what they can offer. That is called common sense.
Click to expand...

don't we have controls on immigration now then? Or do you mean you'd like to see the EU's policy on open borders tightened up? The one that benefits the UK greatly you mean.The ones who've provided £9bn more to the economy then they've taken out over the last 20 years and who actually have no impact on British employment or unemployment. Common sense suggests we should get rid. o_O:whistle:

or do you mean the refugees and asylum seekers at Calais. We'd get over whelmed if they all got in. All 5,000 of them.They've made a remarkably long, difficult journey from fairly unpleasant, wartorn parts of the world. Don't you think that letting them see a doctor rather then suggesting military involvement might be a better approach. The reality is we have less refuges then most of Europe and far less then their neighbouring countries have. Some compassion, rather then describing them as a swarm........
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
Inferred that having a shaved head is a prerequisite to be part of one of these groups.
Click to expand...

Not a prerequisite, but certainly not a rarity.
 
Dear TP.....double post occurance :-)
 
Last edited:
BRASH said:
Inferred that having a shaved head is a prerequisite to be part of one of these groups.
Click to expand...
No she never, there's definitely a Venn diagram of racists and skinheads and the overlap would be significant.
So that stereotype exists, but you're dealing with people who are intelligent enough to differentiate between a stereotype and an absolute fact.

There's a small number of people in this thread who reckon if some Muslims are bad all Muslims are not to be trusted.
There are others who dislike all lefties and hippies.

I'm sure Viv isn't guilty of similar behaviour.
 
BRASH said:
Inferred that having a shaved head is a prerequisite to be part of one of these groups.
Click to expand...
Sorry, that's a logical fallacy. Some X are Y does not imply that all X are Y.
 
Apology accepted.
 
big soft moose said:
and how many muslims do you know personally ? ( I seem to recall the answer is slightly less than 1)

I'm not using the term moderate as a synonym for liberal or tolerant - i'm using it in the way it is intended to be used as the antonym of extremist.

The difference you seem to be failing to grasp is that thinking something is justified is not the same as actually doing it... by way of illustration personally I'm fairly happy that kneecapping nonces or indeed shooting them in the face could be justified in some circumstances... but that doesn't imply that i'm about to go on a vigilante murder spree. If 93% of Muslims feel loyalty to the UK and believe they should adhere to its laws then those people are not dangerous extremists regardless of what they may personally believe can be justified in some circumstances.

The other point about "certainly not to be confused with christians" shows how ignorant you are on the subject - do you really believe that there aren't christians with extremist views on homosexuality, adultery, etc - try reading up on the "army of god" "eastern Lightning" "the Lords Resistance Army" "The Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord" " The Phineas Priesthood" "the Concerned Christians" or "the Order"

I'm sure you like most christians will say that these people are headcases and not representative of your faith - this is true, but thats also exactly how most muslims feel about IS/AQ/Boko Haram etc
Click to expand...

I didn't think your stories about your mate Javid or whoever else are relevant last time or this time. 24% think violence can be justified against those who publish cartoons. 27% have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attack. 20% polled think Islam will never be compatible with western society. 45% think clerics who preach violence against the west are in touch with mainstream Muslim opinion. This isn't small single figure percents here. It is a significant minority with these views and if you went to the Middle East these figures would most certainly rise.

Your justification of extreme views is against someone committing the most heinous crimes. The 'moderate Muslim' extreme views are against people who publish cartoons or criticise religion, things that offend.

Are you going through a lot of security checks at airports because authorities are worried about the Lords Resistance Army? Taking your shoes off because of The Phineas Priesthood? Bag searched because of The Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord followers going to blow up the plane? No. Trying to equate these tiny and defunct fringe groups to 'Christians and Muslims basically being the same' isn't credible in terms of size, finance or scope. Militant Islam is far more dangerous than all those groups put together.
 
Laudrup said:
I didn't think your stories about your mate Javid or whoever else are relevant last time or this time. 24% think violence can be justified against those who publish cartoons. 27% have some sympathy for the motives behind the Charlie Hebdo attack. 20% polled think Islam will never be compatible with western society. 45% think clerics who preach violence against the west are in touch with mainstream Muslim opinion. This isn't small single figure percents here. It is a significant minority with these views and if you went to the Middle East these figures would most certainly rise.

Your justification of extreme views is against someone committing the most heinous crimes. The 'moderate Muslim' extreme views are against people who publish cartoons or criticise religion, things that offend.

Are you going through a lot of security checks at airports because authorities are worried about the Lords Resistance Army? Taking your shoes off because of The Phineas Priesthood? Bag searched because of The Covenant, Sword and Arm of the Lord followers going to blow up the plane? No. Trying to equate these tiny and defunct fringe groups to 'Christians and Muslims basically being the same' isn't credible in terms of size, finance or scope. Militant Islam is far more dangerous than all those groups put together.
Click to expand...

You're not going through all of those security checks purely because of militant islamists either.
Security measures didn't begin on September 12th 2001.
 
Laudrup said:
20% polled think Islam will never be compatible with western society.
Click to expand...

They're wrong. Simple as that. Show us you understand, what would you say the key differences between Islam and Christianity are? Not that many really
 
big soft moose said:
that was already answered about 8 posts back - his percentages are wrong , but no the (actually 9 or 7 depending on which poll you look at) % who believe terrorism to be justified and who do not feel loyalty to the UK or believe they should adhere to its laws are not moderates - as i said before that is so obvious it shouldn't need saying.

So a question in return - would you find it acceptable for a bunch of extremist muslims to burst into a church and disrupt the ongoing service ?

Assuming that answer to that is 'no' , why is it okay for a bunch of BF followers to do the same in a mosque ? ( also bearing in mind that BFs founder left because he felt the Mosque invasions were unjustfied, disrespectful and counter productive" )

Also assuming we all agree that the attacks on Charlie Hebdo were unjustfied how do you and your mini me feel about the murder of Alan Berg by the Order ?
Click to expand...

The question in the poll:

Acts of violence against those who publish images of the Prophet Mohammad can never be justified:

68% Agree
24% Disagree
1% Refused
6% Don't Know

24% think violence over the publication of a cartoon can be justified. Is that an extreme view to hold? You don't seem to think so because you would 'kneecap nonces'. To me one is a terrible crime and the other not a crime, but the violent punishment meted out is the same and justifiable by you.

I don't think a murder 31 years ago by a tiny and defunct group is relevant when we are talking about oil rich Muslim theocracies pumping out anti-Jew, anti-Christian and anti-west propaganda to tens of millions, corrupting the minds of kids, silencing critics and financing terror groups or funding proxy wars to hopefully return to the golden age of the caliphate. These Islamic fundamentalists are operating on a different level compared to any white supremacist groups.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Laudrup said:
Militant Islam is far more dangerous than all those groups put together.
Click to expand...
You're changing the subject. The discussion is not whether "militant Islam" is dangerous. I think everybody here agrees that there are some hot-headed extremists, who would describe themselves as Islamic, who have committed horrendous acts in the name of their supposed faith.

But we were actually discussing things like:
- the extent to which those views are hard coded into the religion;
- the extent to which those kinds of views are unique to Islam;
- whether those people would be recognised as Islamic by the much large number of Islamic people who don't agree with such violence.

Your post doesn't really contribute to that discussion, in my opinion.
 
viv1969 said:
You're not going through all of those security checks purely because of militant islamists either.
Security measures didn't begin on September 12th 2001.
Click to expand...

Post 9/11 airport security, yes you are.
 
Sympathetic views do not = extremism.

Sympathy for a motive and sympathy for the terrorist act spurred by that motive are worlds apart. I personally agree with the former but not with the latter (I would hope that would be obvious).
 
boyfalldown said:
don't we have controls on immigration now then? Or do you mean you'd like to see the EU's policy on open borders tightened up? The one that benefits the UK greatly you mean.The ones who've provided £9bn more to the economy then they've taken out over the last 20 years and who actually have no impact on British employment or unemployment. Common sense suggests we should get rid. o_O:whistle:

or do you mean the refugees and asylum seekers at Calais. We'd get over whelmed if they all got in. All 5,000 of them.They've made a remarkably long, difficult journey from fairly unpleasant, wartorn parts of the world. Don't you think that letting them see a doctor rather then suggesting military involvement might be a better approach. The reality is we have less refuges then most of Europe and far less then their neighbouring countries have. Some compassion, rather then describing them as a swarm........
Click to expand...

I was picking up on the post I quoted which implied that wanting controls is a strong view on immigration. I don't believe it is.

As long as there is an economic case for immigration then only a fool would oppose that as you point out. Where would the nhs be without the staff from overseas? Calais is different. There are controls and policies to come to the country. They are breaking the law. Some may come from war torn areas but why not stay in France? Not war torn there. Also by letting 5k in sets a precedent, it will open the gates.

We may well have less than other countries but we are one of the most populated countries in Europe.
 
boyfalldown said:
They're wrong. Simple as that. Show us you understand, what would you say the key differences between Islam and Christianity are? Not that many really
Click to expand...

That is 20% of British Muslims who were polled, can you imagine going to Tehran where they chant 'death to America!' or to Palestine where they were dancing on the streets at 9/11 and asking them? Given Islam is a plagiarism of The Bible then you wouldn't expect many differences in scripture. The problem seems to be people saying 'moderate' when the devout beliefs that are being held aren't moderate at all.

Ask a 'moderate Muslim' their opinion on Jews, Israel, Hindus, Christians, equality, honour, miscegenation, gender segregation, the west, sharia, apostasy etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Laudrup said:
That is 20% of British Muslims who were polled, can you imagine going to Tehran where they chant 'death to America!' or to Palestine where they were dancing on the streets at 9/11 and asking them? Given Islam is a plagiarism of The Bible then you wouldn't expect many differences in scripture. The problem seems to be people saying 'moderate' when the devout beliefs that are being held aren't moderate at all.

Ask a 'moderate Muslim' their opinion on Jews, Israel, Hindus, Christians, equality, honour, miscegenation, gender segregation, the west, sharia, apostasy etc.
Click to expand...


No then...you cant
 
Laudrup said:
Militant Islam is far more dangerous than all those groups put together.
Click to expand...

Yet you're still more likely to be run over by a bus or struck by lightning than you are to be killed by an Islamic (or any other) terrorist.


Steve.
 
viv1969 said:
Take it back far enough and everyone currently outside of Africa hails from black migrant stock, even the shaven headed snow white card carrying neanderthal members of racist/xenophobic nationalist groups.
Click to expand...

One of those groups turned up in Liverpool the other week sayingthey were going to burn down the city and that only bullets would stop them! Turned out a bunch of vegerarians throwing bananas and eggs scared them so much that they hid in the lost luggage room at Lime St until they begged the police to escort them back on the trains!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top