Britain First

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

As Phil said earlier , how old do you think Mary, mother of jesus, was when she married Joseph ?
 
StewartR said:
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."
Click to expand...

yep I don't get the attraction of spending eternity being ministered too by a bunch of self aware girls who have no idea what they are doing in bed ;)
 
Last time i looked out of the 53 deaths in the UK from Muslim extremists attacks, zero were killed by immigrants.
 
Last edited:
rjbell said:
Last time i looked out of the 53 deaths in the UK from Muslim extremists attacks, zero were killed my a immigrants.
Click to expand...

No don't use facts - that just confuses the issue ... :LOL:

(though to be fair BF and its fellow travellers want to expell all muslims, not just those that weren't born here)
 
Laudrup said:
Mohammed was 54 and had sex with a 9 year old supposedly.
Click to expand...


doubtless you think the Islam was the only religion this ever happened in. I know you'll come up with a stream of [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER] as an answer, but remind me what year the Vatican City raised the age of consent from 12? or the state of Delaware from 7? or the UK from 10.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
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 ?
Click to expand...

You use the term moderate incorrectly, the views that supposed 'moderate Muslims' hold on matters mentioned earlier would be extreme to society in the west. As I said ask about Jews, Israel, USA, apostasy, honour etc. See what even an Imam says. You need the information more than me.

The Hamas charter sets their stall out from point one:

Definition of the Movement

Ideological Starting-Points

Article One:

The Islamic Resistance Movement: The Movement's programme is Islam. From it, it draws its ideas, ways of thinking and understanding of the universe, life and man. It resorts to it for judgement in all its conduct, and it is inspired by it for guidance of its steps.
Click to expand...

The preamble:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

So unless the IRA had a charter whose programme in article one was Catholicism and was at war with Protestants and didn't recognise the right of the UK to exist then it isn't the same.
 
Last edited:
Laudrup said:
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.
Click to expand...

And you wonder why what happened in Rotherham happened. Yes you get nonces in all walks of life but only one religion that has a nonce on a pedestal. And Western European too afraid to act in case it offends them.

rjbell said:
Last time i looked out of the 53 deaths in the UK from Muslim extremists attacks, zero were killed by immigrants.
Click to expand...


Just the children or grandchildren of them...
 
Last edited:
so you don't think hamas are motivated by the ocupation of palestine (as they see it) ? Seriously

I'm not aware of the IRA publishing a charter (what with them being an illegal organisation) but they did see themselves as being at war with protestants in ulster and the UK security forces - the sectarian violence was proof enough of that , they also didnt recognise the right of the Ulster to exist as part of the UK.

On the moderate thing - you thinking my definition was wrong means less than nothing since you've already demonstrated a total lack of understanding, and i don't need to ask my muslim friends what they think about apostasy, adultery, the isreal issue etc , I already know - and yes some of them have view with which i don't agree. However in the Uk we have a freedom of thought, and their thinking does not make them potential terrorists, any more than ST4s idea that various factions of society should be shot in the face, means that hes actually going to do it.

Again for the hard of thinking an extremist is someone who holds radical views and allows them to dictate his actions - e. g Abu Hamza , Hitler, Stalin , etc

If you hold radical views yet remain loyal to the Uk then you are not an extremist who is a danger to society... which in your case is just as well
 
ST4 said:
And you wonder why what happened in Rotherham happened. Yes you get nonces in all walks of life but only one religion that has a nonce on a pedestal..
Click to expand...

are you sure about that ?
 
Laudrup said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your whattabouterry is astounding. It's been put to you that a LOT of those who have ruled have had xhild brides yet all you can come back with is 'well Mohammed....'.

You are a total parody.
 
norters said:
Your whattabouterry is astounding. It's been put to you that a LOT of those who have ruled have had xhild brides yet all you can come back with is 'well Mohammed....'.

You are a total parody.
Click to expand...

The catholic church dosnt have a great record on paedophillia tbh
 
Laudrup said:
Bit of a difference between immaculate conception and an old man marrying a young girl. One is implausible, the other very plausible.
Click to expand...

Harry Potter is implausible.
Patriot Games is plausible (ish).
Still both fiction.
 
norters said:
Your whattabouterry is astounding. It's been put to you that a LOT of those who have ruled have had xhild brides yet all you can come back with is 'well Mohammed....'.

You are a total parody.
Click to expand...

Mohammed's marriage was brought up by someone in a thread where Islam was being mentioned. It has more relevance than Richard II and his marriage which Canon law decreed that such marriages should not be consummated until both parties were of age, at least twelve for a girl and fourteen for a boy.

So the whataboutery charge is more applicable for those bringing up dead Royalty, not Mohammed in a thread about Islam. Try and think a bit more.
 
Bloody moose limbs coming over here with their shakira law and hips that dont lie! Bring back truthful British hips!
 
This is getting laughable now.
Theoretical paedophiles vs theoretical virgins et al.

Let's face it...What Laudrup and Steve really crave is some good old fashioned ethnic cleansing.
 
Last edited:
viv1969 said:
This is getting laughable now.
Theoretical paedophiles vs theoretical virgins et al.

Let's face it...What Laudrup and Steve really crave is some good old fashioned ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...

I preferred your pig-ignorant sniping from the side style to this trying to work out the argument and being hilariously wrong style. Go back to that.
 
Laudrup said:
I preferred your pig-ignorant sniping from the side style to this trying to work out the argument and being hilariously wrong style. Go back to that.
Click to expand...

Please.
Your fear and lack of reasoned argument is making you angry.
Calm down.
 
Laudrup said:
Canon law decreed that such marriages should not be consummated until both parties were of age, at least twelve for a girl
Click to expand...

'cause shagging a 12 year old is somehow so much more acceptable. Jeez. And that raising of the age of consent in the Vatican (from 12 years old). Happened in 2013
 
viv1969 said:
Let's face it...What Laudrup and Steve really crave is some good old fashioned ethnic cleansing.
Click to expand...

A classic hysterical statement to shut down any meaningful discussion on a serious issue in Western Europe today.

It's ok to pour scorn on your own roots including Christianity but one must not speak ill of Islam in case someone very precious takes exception. Hell, the police were too scared to investigate allegations of child abuse in case it upset Muslim communities.

It seems tolerance (which means put up with) is not enough these days, we must "bend over backwards"
 
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...

If a dog is born in a house does it make it human?
 
ST4 said:
If a dog is born in a house does it make it human?
Click to expand...


A lot of dogs are more human than a lot of humans on this earth, that's for sure.
 
ST4 said:
As I've found out in this thread...I am not a dog person but after seeing lefties in action I rather think I prefer dogs to a lot of people.
Click to expand...

I certainly do. They are cleaner and smell better too;)
 
ST4 said:
A classic hysterical statement to shut down any meaningful discussion on a serious issue in Western Europe today.

It's ok to pour scorn on your own roots including Christianity but one must not speak ill of Islam in case someone very precious takes exception. Hell, the police were too scared to investigate allegations of child abuse in case it upset Muslim communities.

It seems tolerance (which means put up with) is not enough these days, we must "bend over backwards"
Click to expand...

Incorrect Steve.
I scorn all religion equally.
Bit I won't condemn 1.6bn peaceful Muslims for the actions of a few thousand nutters.
If that's what gets you off, feel free, just don't expect to be taken seriously any time soon.

ST4 said:
If a dog is born in a house does it make it human?
Click to expand...

And now you're labelling them as dogs.
 
boyfalldown said:
'cause shagging a 12 year old is somehow so much more acceptable. Jeez. And that raising of the age of consent in the Vatican (from 12 years old). Happened in 2013
Click to expand...

The 'whatbout King ABC marrying XYZ 800 years ago' isn't really that relevant today. Mohammed's marriage was brought up and in the context of wider Islamic State fundamentalism and their fighters marrying and raping children, then that is relevant as it is happening right now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
Laudrup said:
The 'whatbout King ABC marrying XYZ 800 years ago' isn't really that relevant today. Mohammed's marriage was brought up and in the context of wider Islamic State fundamentalism and their fighters marrying and raping children, then that is relevant as it is happening right now.
Click to expand...

Its no more, or less relevant then Mohammed's marriage. Christianity and kids don't have a great record either. But when will you realise IS is not the entirety of Islam?
 
ST4 said:
If a dog is born in a house does it make it human?
Click to expand...


tell you what, next time your in London come round, I'll make you a coffee (or buy you a beer). You can meet my immigrant Islamic wife, whom I'm betting pays more tax then you earn, and immigrant dog (ok he came from Guildford, but his Dad came from foreign parts) and then I'd be interested in your opinions.
 
Right. Enough with it starting to get personal. This thread hopefully won't be the reason why we bring back the politics and religion ban.

Also "dog born into a house..." is being used as an analogy. Not a racial slur.
 
boyfalldown said:
Its no more, or less relevant then Mohammed's marriage. Christianity and kids don't have a great record either. But when will you realise IS is not the entirety of Islam?
Click to expand...

It is pretty relevant if IS, the biggest global terrorist threat, are living by what Mohammed did in the 7th century. I don't think anyone is saying it is the entirety of Islam, but it is a threat and is very Islamic and its narrative has to be countered.
 
Laudrup said:
Bit of a difference between immaculate conception and an old man marrying a young girl. One is implausible, the other very plausible.
Click to expand...
So let's make it plausible, if we don't accept immaculate conception, who shagged Mary?
My guess would be her husband.
So your plausible answer to both points, both Joseph and Mohammed are nonces.

Or they both existed at a time when there was no concept of nonce, where there was no legal line between an adult and childhood, and all they did is what everyone else did.

I'm not condoning it, but I'm intelligent enough to not condemn it.
 
So how old was Mary when she was/wasn't shagged then? Was she as young as nine as well? I've always seen her depicted as a woman not a child. Then again Ann Widdecombe is allegedly a virgin too.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: ST4
BRASH said:
So how old was Mary when she was/wasn't shagged then? Was she as young as nine as well? I've always seen her depicted as a woman not a child. The again Ann Widdecombe is allegedly a virgin too.
Click to expand...

..............and I ain't volunteering neither.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top