Britain First

Status
Not open for further replies.
StewartR said:
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.
Click to expand...

It doesn't get any more 'hard coded' than written down in the unalterable word of god, that's one of the biggest problems. I don't think Islam is unique given it is an obvious plagiarism. Who decides who is a Muslim and who isn't? This is the problem when people are saying IS aren't anything to do with Islam when they are justifying themselves with exactly what is written in the Koran.

Militant Islam doesn't exist in some vacuum away from 'moderate' Islam. The teachings of Islam are fertile ground for these sort of extreme views to flourish given a lot of the teachings aren't very 'moderate' to begin with. Taking these disenfranchised people's views and turning them into violent actions seems to be a leap too many are willing to take. Something that is rare with most other religions these days.
 
Steve Smith said:
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.
Click to expand...

There are people working 24 hours a day 365 days a year to foil attacks. It is completely different to an accident.
 
norters said:
She didn't say that.
Click to expand...

Ha, how very perceptive. Seeing as how you quoted me it was evidently me wot said it guv. There are no flies on you.
 
Laudrup said:
It doesn't get any more 'hard coded' than written down in the unalterable word of god.
Click to expand...

Is that the one that's been altered, interpreted and reinterpreted many times over the years?
 
cambsno said:
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.
Click to expand...


France has far higher numbers of refugees claiming asylum then we do. I'm interested as to what gates it will open. It doesn't set precedent at all. But I'm not saying let them in willy nilly. Those that have a genuine claim to asylum stay, those that don't receive any immediate medical care and get sent home.

BTW they are not breaking any laws
 
I'm not going to believe any of The Bible until I see a first edition signed by the author and a certificate of authentication from Bonham's.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
Steve Smith said:
No point being paranoid about it and letting it control your life though.


Steve.
Click to expand...

The threat of violence and attack at home or abroad is very real. A massacre was only prevented by some brave men on that French train the other day. Being eternally vigilant to these threats is the price of peace.
 
Laudrup said:
Of course it has been altered, but tell that to the devout.
Click to expand...


just out of interest if you conducted a straw poll amongst TP members what % do you think would say Christianity has no place in the modern world? An actual answer would be good. Rather then some misguided rants
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
The threat of violence and attack at home or abroad is very real. A massacre was only prevented by some brave men on that French train the other day. Being eternally vigilant to these threats is the price of peace.
Click to expand...

Vigilance is good.
Mind numbing paranoia isn't.
Live your life in constant fear and you've already let them win.
 
another interesting fact ( I limited it to 20th century and up - but if you count the 18th and 19th century the stats are even more skewed to angry catholics)

bombs planted in london by islamic terrorists or those who cite islam as part of their identity = 11

Bombs planted in london by christian terrorists/ those who cite christianity as part of their identity = well over 100 ( I stopped counting at 1979)

Bombs planted in london by aetheist terrorists / those who cite aetheism as part of their identity (principally but not limited to the angry brigade) = 24

Bombs planted in london by those motivated by extreme rightwing views = 5

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London

Just to preempt the tiresome 'oh but the IRA arent motivated by religion thats about the 'occupation' of 'their teritory'... what do you think the Islamic terrorists state as one of their prime motivations ?
 
Last edited:
In his book 'Dude, Where's My Country?', Michael Moore points out that the number of deaths by terrorism is miniscule when compared with the number of deaths by suicide. So statistically, you are more at risk from yourself than you are from a terrorist.


Steve.
 
boyfalldown said:
just out of interest if you conducted a straw poll amongst TP members what % do you think would say Christianity has no place in the modern world? An actual answer would be good. Rather then some misguided rants
Click to expand...

What is that supposed to prove or disprove?
 
Steve Smith said:
In his book 'Dude, Where's My Country?', Michael Moore points out that the number of deaths by terrorism is miniscule when compared with the number of deaths by suicide. So statistically, you are more at risk from yourself than you are from a terrorist.


Steve.
Click to expand...

indeed - or the number of deaths in car crashes - so you are also more at risk from those that drive like a penis. I vote we arm the police helicopters with hellfires, and give them authority to take out dangerous divers with extreme predjudice ... its for the good of society.. :whistling:
 
Steve Smith said:
In his book 'Dude, Where's My Country?', Michael Moore points out that the number of deaths by terrorism is miniscule when compared with the number of deaths by suicide. So statistically, you are more at risk from yourself than you are from a terrorist.


Steve.
Click to expand...

Again that hasn't anything to do with Islamic terrorism and the ongoing 24/7 attempts trying to thwart it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Laudrup said:
What is that supposed to prove or disprove?
Click to expand...


that you're incapable of answering a straight question. Wait we already know that. Oh yes, that there isn't actually a link between believing a religion has no place in a society and killing people.
 
big soft moose said:
another interesting fact ( I limited it to 20th century and up - but if you count the 18th and 19th century the stats are even more skewed to angry catholics)

bombs planted in london by islamic terrorists or those who cite islam as part of their identity = 11

Bombs planted in london by christian terrorists/ those who cite christianity as part of their identity = well over 100 ( I stopped counting at 1979)

Bombs planted in london by aetheist terrorists / those who cite aetheism as part of their identity (principally but not limited to the angry brigade) = 24

Bombs planted in london by those motivated by extreme rightwing views = 5

Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_terrorist_incidents_in_London

Just to preempt the tiresome 'oh but the IRA arent motivated by religion thats about the 'occupation' of 'their teritory'... what do you think the Islamic terrorists state as one of their prime motivations ?
Click to expand...

You are under a severe misconception. The IRA were about territory and national identity, not religion which is what drives Islamic extremism. People from all religious persuasions fought for Irish independence, so no, it isn't like Islamic terrorists at all.

Islamist terror attacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

They all speak for themselves, and the global threat is very real. The world doesn't end at the White Cliffs of Dover.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Laudrup said:
Again that hasn't anything to do with Islamic terrorism and the ongoing 24/7 attempts trying to thwart it.
Click to expand...

nor has this thread - Britain first arent doing anything useful to thwart islamic terrorisim - instead they are helping the terrorists by encouraging discrimination against a whole religion rather than acting intelligently to marginalise the few malcontents from their potential popular support.

to put it simply for the hard of thinking among us , the majority of british muslims are currently loyal citizens who oppose the actions of IS (etc) , if we respond to the occasional IS atrocity with widespread discrimination and treating muslims as second class citizens then this may change ... would you remain loyal to a regime that discriminated vigorously against you ?

Also as Lenin said the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise , so in addition to helping IS/AQ achieve their end goal groups like BF are also handing them a propoganda victory by helping build them up as a big bad bogey man we should all be scared of , rather than a piffling irrelevance to be ignored or mocked (exactly contrary to the 'these colours don'r run/ we are not afraid' campaigns after 7/7)

So in essence BF and other similar groups and their fellow travellers are essentially giving aid to our enemy , which is not the action of a patriot
 
Last edited:
boyfalldown said:
that you're incapable of answering a straight question. Wait we already know that. Oh yes, that there isn't actually a link between believing a religion has no place in a society and killing people.
Click to expand...

IS would disagree with you there.
 
@Laudrup I cannot even imagine living life consumed by such fear as yours.
You have my pity.
These extremists don't have to lift a finger to harm you.
They've already got you.
 
Laudrup said:
You are under a severe misconception. The IRA were about territory and national identity, not religion which is what drives Islamic extremism. People from all religious persuasions fought for Irish independence, so no, it isn't like Islamic terrorists at all.

Islamist terror attacks:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Islamist_terrorist_attacks

They all speak for themselves, and the global threat is very real. The world doesn't end at the White Cliffs of Dover.
Click to expand...

I see you didn't read my post properly ,

a) whilst its true that some protestants fought for republicanism (wolfe tone being the famous one) , the IRA and the INLA most charecterise themselves as catholic , because that's where their popular support lies

b) a lot of the actions on you list are also motivated by territory and national identity - the islamic groups are broadly split into those who are motivated by the israel/palestine issue , those motivated by the allied occupation of iraq/afganistan , and those motivated by the desire to establish a caliphate centred on mecca and medina - all three of these are territorial issues (also the pakistan vs india issue, and desire for independence from communist regimes but those arent really germane here)

Pretty much all the trouble in the world is about money/power/territory - religion and politics are just the excuses

It is you that is under the severe misconception , because you don't understand your enemy at all (you don't even understand who the enemy is and more importantly who it isnt) nor do you understand their tactics or what it takes for a terrorist organisation to beat an alliance of nation states... in short you have no idea what you are talking about and your ill conceived rantings are actually helping the aims of the groups you despise..

( I really CBA to do the whole history lesson , but in short look at why the US lost in vietnam, then look at why the Uk won in malaysia... in essence the difference is which side had the hearts and minds of the potential supporters... applied to modern day matters , the way you (and BF) want to treat muslims as a whole is the analogue of how the US and the RVN treated their peasants... that being the proximate cause of their defeat,)
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
@Laudrup I cannot even imagine living life consumed by such fear as yours.
You have my pity.
These extremists don't have to lift a finger to harm you.
They've already got you.
Click to expand...

In January:

Britain has faced four major terrorist plots in the past year, three of them in the past few months alone, the head of MI5 has disclosed as he warned that the lethal threat from Islamist extremists, including those home-grown, has continued to grow at an unprecedented rate.
Click to expand...

You can be ignorant if you like, doesn't mean I have to be.
 
boyfalldown said:
You've still failed to answer I note
Click to expand...

As you may have noted before hugh , attempting a debate with Laudrup and steve is like attempting a game of chess with a pigeon
 
Laudrup said:
In January:



You can be ignorant if you like, doesn't mean I have to be.
Click to expand...

I'm not being ignorant. I'm aware of threats, and risks.
But, I'm certainly not going to spend my life hiding petrified behind the sofa because the "big bad brown man shouting Allah'u Akbar" might come and get me.
You sound like a very frightened person, and I find that very sad.
 
Laudrup said:
You can be ignorant if you like, doesn't mean I have to be.
Click to expand...

The Irony of that remark is remarkable - especially as you appear completely ignorant of what motivates and drives these plots, and indeed who the potential terrorists are, or what actions worsen or lessen the threat

No one is saying that islamic extremism isnt a threat - what we are saying is that

a) not every muslim is a potential terrorist
b) that treating them as though they are worsens the situation
c) the threat is not so severe it should dominate our lives (if we let it the terrs are winning)
d) that the threat from the IRA was far worse at the height of the troubles... but no one thought that persecuting all catholics or all irish was a good idea
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
I see you didn't read my post properly ,

a) whilst its true that some protestants fought for republicanism (wolfe tone being the famous one) , the IRA and the INLA most charecterise themselves as catholic , because that's where their popular support lies

b) a lot of the actions on you list are also motivated by territory and national identity - the islamic groups are broadly split into those who are motivated by the israel/palestine issue , those motivated by the allied occupation of iraq/afganistan , and those motivated by the desire to establish a caliphate centred on mecca and medina - all three of these are territorial issues (also the pakistan vs india issue, and desire for independence from communist regimes but those arent really germane here)

Pretty much all the trouble in the world is about money/power/territory - religion and politics are just the excuses

It is you that is under the severe misconception , because you don't understand your enemy at all (you don't even understand who the enemy is and more importantly who it isnt) nor do you understand their tactics or what it takes for a terrorist organisation to beat an alliance of nation states... in short you have no idea what you are talking about and your ill conceived rantings are actually helping the aims of the groups you despise..
Click to expand...

They characterise themselves as Irish, that was the whole point. If they were the Catholic Republican Army you might have a point, but they weren't. It was national identity and territory, not religion that was the driving force the way it is with Islamic State. Read the third paragraph.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/troubles

Second paragraph:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/topics/troubles_paramilitaries

You using terms like 'moderate Muslim' when you don't know what it means or asking how many Muslims someone knows and staunch belief the IRA were some religiously motivated crusaders just isn't understanding the most fundamentals of the past, present or likely future.
 
boyfalldown said:
You've still failed to answer I note
Click to expand...

Your vague question about what hypothetical percentage of TP members think Christianity has no place in the modern world makes no sense and has no relevance. Even if I said 50% think that, so what? What is it proving or disproving? What relation does it have to Islam and extremism?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Laudrup said:
Your vague question about what hypothetical percentage of TP members think Christianity has no place in the modern world makes no sense and has no relevance. Even if I said 50% think that, so what? What is it proving or disproving? What relation does it have to Islam and extremism?
Click to expand...


yawn.......the only vague thing is your ability to avoid a straight question
 
Last edited:
ST4 said:
Wasn't Mohammed a P**** with a child bride?
Click to expand...
big soft moose said:
not by the standards of the time
Click to expand...

ISTR that King Richard II of England married Isabella of Valois when she was only six years old. 32 years older than her, Richard had the misfortune to die only three years later.

Several of her predecessors as Queen had been 12 or 13 when they married (such as Eleanor of Provence who married Henry III in 1236). Margaret of France was only three years old when she was married to Henry the Young King in 1160 and King John married Isabella of Angoulême when she was just 12 years old.

In 1455, Lady Margaret Beaufort married to Edmund Tudor at the age of 12 and was only 13 years old when she gave birth to his son, the future King of England, Henry VII. She was already on her second marriage by then, BTW, having previously been wed to John de la Pole at the age of 7.

The Royal houses of Europe are littered with such cases: In 1180, Isabella of Hainault married Phillip II of France aged 10 and was publicly repudiated by him barely four years later for failing to provide him with an heir.

ST4 said:
No but [the Qur'an is] a text vociferously taken word for word in the western world, and one that's causes division and discontent where we don't need it.
Click to expand...

Nobody will cite the Qur'an on this point. The reference to Aisha's age at the time of her marriage isn't found in the Qur'an, it's from the Hadith
 
big soft moose said:
As you may have noted before hugh , attempting a debate with Laudrup and steve is like attempting a game of chess with a pigeon
Click to expand...

I am dealing with fractal wrongness with your arguments. If you can't understand widely known and documented history, like that of the Troubles, and decide to make up your own version to fit your argument then any debate is going to be a slog to untangle your misconceptions.
 
big soft moose said:
Also as Lenin said the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise , so in addition to helping IS/AQ achieve their end goal groups like BF are also handing them a propoganda victory by helping build them up as a big bad bogey man we should all be scared of , rather than a piffling irrelevance to be ignored or mocked (exactly contrary to the 'these colours don'r run/ we are not afraid' campaigns after 7/7)

So in essence BF and other similar groups and their fellow travellers are essentially giving aid to our enemy , which is not the action of a patriot
Click to expand...
Indeed.

I think mockery is the best approach. Check out Billy Connolly and Frankie Boyle speaking about the terrorist attack on Glasgow airport. Or terrorists in general.

"They're always going, don't deal with terrorists. Let's deal with them. What's Allah offering you boys, 100 virgins? We'll give you 50 slags."
 
Musicman said:
ISTR that King Richard II of England married Isabella of Valois when she was only six years old. 32 years older than her, Richard had the misfortune to die only three years later.

Several of her predecessors as Queen had been 12 or 13 when they married (such as Eleanor of Provence who married Henry III in 1236). Margaret of France was only three years old when she was married to Henry the Young King in 1160 and King John married Isabella of Angoulême when she was just 12 years old.

In 1455, Lady Margaret Beaufort married to Edmund Tudor at the age of 12 and was only 13 years old when she gave birth to his son, the future King of England, Henry VII. She was already on her second marriage by then, BTW, having previously been wed to John de la Pole at the age of 7.

The Royal houses of Europe are littered with such cases: In 1180, Isabella of Hainault married Phillip II of France aged 10 and was publicly repudiated by him barely four years later for failing to provide him with an heir.

Nobody will cite the Qur'an on this point. The reference to Aisha's age at the time of her marriage isn't found in the Qur'an, it's from the Hadith
Click to expand...

Richard II didn't consummate the marriage I don't think, but Royal history is full of these marriages for diplomacy or to consolidate power. Mohammed was 54 and had sex with a 9 year old supposedly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Laudrup said:
You using terms like 'moderate Muslim' when you don't know what it means or asking how many Muslims someone knows and staunch belief the IRA were some religiously motivated crusaders just isn't understanding the most fundamentals of the past, present or likely future.
Click to expand...

its barely worth arguing - but just to point out that I know exactly what moderate means (and I've answered that i think 4 times already) - it is the antonym of extremist

I never said the IRa were religiously motivated - i said that it was part of how they identified themselves ... you seem to struggle to even understand english.

pop quiz what do you think motivates Hamas - is it islam , or is it the palestine issue with Islam used as a rallying point for their supporters ... how is that different to the IRA - but Hamas/PLO/Black september etc are on your list of islamist groups.

As to your not knowing any muslims - that goes to your complete ignorance of the faith .. have you ever read the Quran or had it explained to you by an Imam ? (this is a rhetorical question as it is clear that you don't have the humility required to even engage in a rational conversation with someone of another faith, let alone listen to an explanation and think about it.)

Returning to the point of the thread could you please explain the following

1) what actions have BF taken that lessen the threat of muslim extremisim ?

and

2) how would you feel about a country that discriminated against you because of your beliefs ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top