View Full Version : It's not the Moslems, honest guv!
InsaneApache
02-04-2008, 09:17
Maybe I'm getting a bit senile in my middle age but this does seem a bit ridiculous.
Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/homeaffairs/story/0,,2251965,00.html
OK, not all Moslems are terrorists, as not all terrorists are Moslems but to imply that the 9/11 jokers or the 7/7 retards were not Moslem or influenced by Islam is disingenuous.
Having lived through the bombings of the 70s and 80s, curtesy of the IRA, this would be akin to saying that a little old lady from Bognor was as much a terrorist threat as that guy in DPM and balaclava speaking in a soft Ulster brogue.
It does hurt their case though, to not recognize them as muslims..
InsaneApache
02-04-2008, 09:22
Aye, make 'em blush, that'll teach the buggers. :skull:
What was it called nowadays, 'anti-aslimic activity' wasn't it? That's gonna be usefull.
Aye, make 'em blush, that'll teach the buggers. :skull:
It'll be worth a little more than blushing when they're willing to blow themselves up for the case.
InsaneApache
02-04-2008, 11:22
It does hurt their case though, to not recognize them as muslims..
It'll be worth a little more than blushing when they're willing to blow themselves up for the case.
Somehow I can't see the opinion of 'infidels' causing the boomskis much loss of sleep about their Moslem status. After all, who decides what or who a Moslem is?
I'd put money on it that it's not Gordon Brown. :laugh4:
Somehow I can't see the opinion of 'infidels' causing the boomskis much loss of sleep about their Moslem status. After all, who decides what or who a Moslem is?
Ya, zero effect and boom is boom whatever you call it. What makes it even more hilarious it the implication that terrorism exists because of the way the west percieves them.
A government telling people what they should say?
:inquisitive:
The existence of a guide written by the government, telling people how they should talk about a certain issue is frightening. Very frightening.
What happens if a civil servant keeps talking about "Muslim terrorists" in a certain case because, well, in that certain case the terrorists were Muslim? Are they going to put him/her in jail? Will he/she get fired?
Somehow I can't see the opinion of 'infidels' causing the boomskis much loss of sleep about their Moslem status. After all, who decides what or who a Moslem is?
I'd put money on it that it's not Gordon Brown. :laugh4:
It could very well have its effects.
A government telling people what they should say?
:inquisitive:
The existence of a guide written by the government, telling people how they should talk about a certain issue is frightening. Very frightening.
What happens if a civil servant keeps talking about "Muslim terrorists" in a certain case because, well, in that certain case the terrorists were Muslim? Are they going to put him/her in jail? Will he/she get fired?
It's a guide after all. Tis not an attack on freedom of speech.
It's a guide after all. Tis not an attack on freedom of speech.
Yeah, a guideline on what people should say...
It makes me feel uncomfortable.
Guess it's just me being paranoid when it comes to interference by the government :shrug:
It's a guide after all. Tis not an attack on freedom of speech.
It is in a way, it is a set of rules, might not be a limitation on the raw freedom of speech but it is enforced etiquete. And once again it places the responibility on the wrong because it's basicly saying that being 'rude' to muslims leads to terrorism. If all the british government is capable of is spamming eufenisms they are clearly too terrified for the job, any eufenism blows up in your face, all this will do is make people more sarcastic, I love using their eufenisms because they are so utterly rediculous. 'Anti islamic activity', the latest. Not only is it a linguistical atrocity it's also just not true, it's anti western activity, or has england's government already accepted becomming a islamic country? Sounds like it to me.
Pannonian
02-04-2008, 13:10
Reflecting the government's decision to abandon the "aggressive rhetoric" of the so-called war on terror, the guide tells civil servants not to use terms such as Islamist extremism or jihadi-fundamentalist but instead to refer to violent extremism and criminal murderers or thugs to avoid any implication that there is an explicit link between Islam and terrorism.
What's the problem here? Governments of any day and any age have been trying to reconcile their employees' language with current policy. Go back far enough, and one could probably find Roman governors who were removed for being a tad insensitive for central government's liking. Whether or not that policy is right or wrong is another matter, but there is no issue with free speech here - whatever one's occupation, one does not have absolute free speech when acting in an official capacity. Unless, that is, one is willing to back it up by quitting one's job to exercise that right. If you're your own boss, then you can have all the free speech you like. But if you're working for someone, you're subject to their policy.
These are fine, this one isn't though
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=508901&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
Pannonian
02-04-2008, 13:26
Once again, one can argue whether or not it is right to call it that, but one can't argue that they have the right to call it whatever they want. Call it idiocy if you will, but don't call it an infringement on free speech, for there is no free speech in this matter. Not during working hours, anyway.
macsen rufus
02-04-2008, 13:31
The existence of a guide written by the government, telling people how they should talk about a certain issue is frightening.
Why do you hate the NewSpeak Dictionary? :clown:
Call it idiocy if you will, but don't call it an infringement on free speech
Well I did't, do call it idiotic, and it's simply a turd of a term, I mean common, an attack on english soil would be ant-islamic? What the?
Pannonian
02-04-2008, 13:37
Well I did't, do call it idiotic, and it's simply a turd of a term, I mean common, an attack on english soil would be ant-islamic? What the?
Well, Andres raised that point, so I'll apologise for replying to that point to you.
Actually, I take that back. I originally made a post replying to no-one in particular, which you then replied to, so I'll just weasel out of my apology in grand Backroom style by saying that I was merely clarifying my point. Anyway, you won't find me arguing with you over the idiocy of this.
InsaneApache
02-04-2008, 13:42
Perhaps we should adjust our rhetoric accordingly. Now what should we call Shrub and Bliars Eyerack policy?
Anti-Western activity?
See, it makes perfect sense now. :laugh4:
Andres - the civil service is part of government, it is the central governments job to offer guides and direction, as to how things should be combated. I think you are blowing this up uneccesarily by saying it is somehow an attack on free speech - the civil servants can say whatever they want when not working, but when they are working and part of the government, they have been asked not to use those certain phrases - I am sure it is the same in the case of not calling Germans, those ex Nazi pigs, or Israelis Zionist scum....
As for the reasons the government have done this, it is perfectly simple and understandable. We do not have to alienate and jump up and down screaming about 'those Muslims', to combat the terrorist threat. By proxy, the nature of the language we have been using in the 'war on terror' has had a tinge of 'they are all the same', whether you like it or not, and it is rubbish. Any toning down in language should be welcomed, in my opinion.
InsaneApache
02-04-2008, 13:50
Andres - the civil service is part of government.
It wasn't until those crypto-Stalinists, Nu Lab got their mucky mits on the levers of power. The civil service was traditionally considered neutral.
Nice example of newthink though JAG. :2thumbsup:
So, they don't carry out government policy?
http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/index.asp
The UK Civil Service supports the government of the day, by helping them develop and carry out their policies and administer the public services for which they are responsible.
The Civil Service has been headed by Sir Gus O'Donnell since 1 August 2005. He is supported by the Permanent Secretaries and Chief Executives in each department and agency.
Working with independent experts in key areas, these senior leaders ensure we have the capability we need to help the Government achieve its current and future priorities.
The civil service is politically neutral, of course, but it IS part of government, it is the enabling arm of it. To say otherwise is ridiculous.
InsaneApache
02-04-2008, 14:06
The UK Civil Service supports the government of the day
See, it's easy really. They are not part of the government, they are part of the State. A completely different thing. Still, an easy mistake for a Nu-Lab apologists to make. :laugh4:
Vladimir
02-04-2008, 14:06
Islamic, Moslem, Muslim, Muselman, Mahomedans, et al. I could have fun with this. :2thumbsup:
See, it's easy really. They are not part of the government, they are part of the State. A completely different thing. Still, an easy mistake for a Nu-Lab apologists to make. :laugh4:
Sounds like our WRR, the scientific bureau for government recommendations (would translate in something like that), supposed to be neutral but in reality it's a collection of pipesmoking commies who never come outside and lost all touch with reality, if the lefties can't convince people it's all in their best interest to give them absolute control they order an independant report there.
Pannonian
02-04-2008, 15:11
It wasn't until those crypto-Stalinists, Nu Lab got their mucky mits on the levers of power. The civil service was traditionally considered neutral.
Nice example of newthink though JAG. :2thumbsup:
Erm, isn't the civil service the executive part of government? As opposed to the elected government, which is the directive part? As such, it is the job of the executive part to carry out the projects of the directive part, although senior civil servants, being in their jobs for longer than elected governments, may also play a significant or even decisive advisory role. But the elected government, being elected, has the decisive say in policy.
Or are you suggesting that the elected government should defer to the appointed government as a matter of principle?
OK, not all Moslems are terrorists, as not all terrorists are Moslems but to imply that the 9/11 jokers or the 7/7 retards were not Moslem or influenced by Islam is disingenuous.
Having lived through the bombings of the 70s and 80s, curtesy of the IRA, this would be akin to saying that a little old lady from Bognor was as much a terrorist threat as that guy in DPM and balaclava speaking in a soft Ulster brogue.
agreed.
LittleGrizzly
02-05-2008, 17:13
I think this is being done to avoid offending muslims, now everyone nows islamic fundamentalism is the cause of recent terrorism in the west, and islamic terrorism is the terror we are having a war on, so everyone nows its muslim terrorists.
So does it really matter if the goverment tells the civil service not to mention muslim or islam when talking about terrorism as it seems they are just trying to avoid offence, now if they were trying to blame the terrorism on a different religion i would have a problem, but it seems they are just trying to cause less offence to muslims and maybe calm down some of the anti-muslim feelings in the UK.
KukriKhan
02-05-2008, 18:40
OK, not all Moslems are terrorists, as not all terrorists are Moslems but to imply that the 9/11 jokers or the 7/7 retards were not Moslem or influenced by Islam is disingenuous.
Having lived through the bombings of the 70s and 80s, curtesy of the IRA, this would be akin to saying that a little old lady from Bognor was as much a terrorist threat as that guy in DPM and balaclava speaking in a soft Ulster brogue.
Point taken. But I don't remember much talk about "Catholic extremists" back in those days, either. Just 'bombers', 'rogue elements', 'thugs', etc. So, my guess is they're just trying to apply the same standard to today's struggle.
macsen rufus
02-05-2008, 19:00
"Catholic extremists"
that's not a phrase that's been used in the UK since Mr Fawkes, AFAIK - the IRA and various splinters were invariably refered to as "Irish nationalists" or "Irish Republicans", and again both of those terms covered a grouping much wider than the armed bodies that existed within them. Not all such republicans/nationalists supported the "armed struggle", though many did, and not all that supported it took part. Even then, the term was often "paramilitary" as opposed to "terrorist" (and the same applied to the 'loyalist/unionist' side, too).
Ludicrous though the NewSpeak Dictionary may appear from some angles, the point behind it is to divorce the extremists from the community whose name they invoke for their 'legitimacy'. Part of the success in cooling things down in northern Ireland was Sinn Fein's realisation that to maintain the credibility of representing their community meant they had to embrace that community's weariness of violence, and promote their interests through the democratic process. I think generally most of the Muslim community in Britain is pretty thankful they live here rather than an Islamic state, and the same processes have to be mobilised to isolate and ostracise Islamic terrorists. The big difference is I don't really see a strong political entity in the muslim community that is on a par with Sinn Fein in Ireland, so the ground is too easy for the whackjobs to occupy :bow:
Ignoramus
02-06-2008, 02:42
Once again we see the craziness of PC.
Banquo's Ghost
02-06-2008, 08:31
Point taken. But I don't remember much talk about "Catholic extremists" back in those days, either.
Had Dr Paisley been the President of the United States and the terrorism directed at citizens of those states, I respectfully suggest you would have heard that talk as much as we did.
Characterisation of Irish Catholics by the Unionists and many British papers was just as ugly and universal as we now see aimed at Muslims. I will concede, however, that this rarely extended to Catholics of other nations, apart from the more frothing speeches by the good reverend on the evils of papism.
KukriKhan
02-06-2008, 13:08
I see. After I typed that, I wondered if it were true on the more local, Ireland, level.
So, given that that anti-catholic (and presumeably anti-protestant) rhetoric has faded 30-some years later, should we just not worry about today's anti-muslim rhetoric - as it too will fade when the conflict eventually resolves, and the shiek sits down with the pm in 2038?
Banquo's Ghost
02-06-2008, 15:11
I see. After I typed that, I wondered if it were true on the more local, Ireland, level.
So, given that that anti-catholic (and presumeably anti-protestant) rhetoric has faded 30-some years later, should we just not worry about today's anti-muslim rhetoric - as it too will fade when the conflict eventually resolves, and the shiek sits down with the pm in 2038?
If we resolve some of the issues that inflame eejits to acts of madness, and engage more constructively with moderate Muslims (rather than maintaining that there is no such thing) I can see the rhetoric of today looking as foolish as the papist-proddy nonsense of the Seventies.
Young men are notoriously foolish. When a callow youth, I was very impressionable in regard to the republican cause - not least because my father was a icon of the establishment, contrary to some of my more romantically doomed ancestors. "Atrocities" committed by the "Evil Empire" of the British were red meat and it was easy for us to wind ourselves up over internment, Bloody Sunday, Rev Paisley, the Orange Order and damn near anything.
I have a cut-glass English public-school accent that would shame a 1950's BBC announcer, but I also tend to fall into a soft Munster brogue from time to time. Doing that on the streets of England up until even the early eighties could attract unwelcome attention from Her Majesty's constabulary. There were certainly several examples of men jailed for life for the crime of being Irish after the hours of darkness.
All that is a potent cocktail for the foolish nationalism of youth. When one deludes oneself that the whole world is agin ye, it is easy to ignore the voices of moderation and listen to the radicals. Progressive, democratic achievement looks feeble and doomed compared to the glorious deeds of past revolutionaries. It's a remarkably easy step from nursing a Beamish listening to the Pogues to activism and finding oneself planting a pipe bomb behind a street brick. Or, as many Americans did, funding the ability to plant that bomb and dismissing the dead civilians alongside the soldier as casualties of the Great Cause.
I don't condone any of this, and look back on those days of stupidity with enormous embarrassment. But that experience, allied to the knowledge of terrorist methods gained when I took up the fight against them, informs me about how young Muslims may be feeling when so demonised. We must find ways out for them that are constructive, and laud them for taking the high road, and refrain from generalisations - and then yes, in thirty years' time, maybe the Great War for Civilisation will look as silly as the sectarianism of my youth.
Vladimir
02-06-2008, 18:00
Oh dear. You don't want to discuss funding sources of the IRA do you?
Not our problem BG, at least it shouldn't have been untill someone decided to import it. Never mess with the balance.
Crazed Rabbit
02-06-2008, 18:46
A question; did the government ever insist on calling the IRA 'anti-Irish terrorists'?
And I don't see how trying to change the belief of who you're fighting will help when the people you're fighting don't change at all. And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.
CR
Tribesman
02-06-2008, 19:41
Nice post Banquo , though when you see stuff like this....
And I don't see how trying to change the belief of who you're fighting will help when the people you're fighting don't change at all. And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.
..it really appears that some simple concepts are just too far beyond the grasp of some
LittleGrizzly
02-06-2008, 19:52
And I don't see how trying to change the belief of who you're fighting will help when the people you're fighting don't change at all.
They are not trying to change the belief of the people they are fighting where does it say this ?
And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.
wouldn't the plainest way to say it be... terrorist(s) why do we need to add a religion or nationality onto the start of it ? every idiot and his dog nows we are fighting islamic fundamentalists.
What if all the 7/7 bombers were from London should we start calling them london terrorists ?
The point is everytime someone says muslim terrorist your lumping all muslims together which doesn't help in a number of ways
The BNP (british nationalist party) uses the hate this helps generate against all muslims
Muslims will either feel insulted by being grouped with the terrorists or maybe it will make them feel closer to thier cause...
Crazed Rabbit
02-06-2008, 20:39
And I don't see how trying to change the belief of who you're fighting will help when the people you're fighting don't change at all.
They are not trying to change the belief of the people they are fighting where does it say this ?
Um, to be more clear, I meant to change the publics' belief of who Britain is fighting, not changing the beliefs of the people you're fighting.
And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.
wouldn't the plainest way to say it be... terrorist(s) why do we need to add a religion or nationality onto the start of it ? every idiot and his dog nows we are fighting islamic fundamentalists.
What if all the 7/7 bombers were from London should we start calling them london terrorists ?
Well, you're not fighting the red brigades, you're engaged with a specific type of terrorist, and it always helps to speak in detail instead of generalities.
If everybody knows who you're fighting, why should the government try to change that? The government is saying the exact opposite of what everyone knows - they are trying to make a 180 degree turn in public belief.
And when they accomplish that, when everyone ignores the mosques preaching hatred because 'we're not fighting Muslims at all', will that be of help?
The point is everytime someone says muslim terrorist your lumping all muslims together which doesn't help in a number of ways
The BNP (british nationalist party) uses the hate this helps generate against all muslims
Muslims will either feel insulted by being grouped with the terrorists or maybe it will make them feel closer to thier cause...
The government isn't doing this because they think it will help, but because they are a bunch of ninnies who don't want to offend and believe in crap like moral and cultural relativism.
And do you think Muslims will appreciate the gov't telling them what is and isn't Islamic?
CR
Pannonian
02-06-2008, 20:57
Rabbit, this is the government telling the civil servants what kind of language is useable given their policy. They're entitled to do that, as the elected government directing the appointed government. What you or I regard as plain speaking or whatever is irrelevant. The elected government is the boss, the civil servants are the employees. The boss is entitled to dictate what the employees can or cannot say in an official capacity. If the employees don't like it, they can say what they like outside working hours, or quit their jobs and say what they like when they like.
LittleGrizzly
02-06-2008, 22:14
The government isn't doing this because they think it will help, but because they are a bunch of ninnies who don't want to offend and believe in crap like moral and cultural relativism.
I think this is where we get our different opinions on the matter, I believe the goverment is mainly doing this to not insult muslims and for the insult it would save surely its worth it just to omit the word muslim from 'muslim terrorist' i mean if they were trying to convince us the terrorists werent muslim at all it would be a different story, but changing wording just to avoid offence is fine imo.
And do you think Muslims will appreciate the gov't telling them what is and isn't Islamic?
im sure saying terrorism isn't islamic will be fine with the vast majority of muslims, the only muslims i could see having a problem with that would be the terrorists and thier strongest supporters.
Tribesman
02-07-2008, 00:54
You are wasting your time Grizzly , such simple things are too hard for some people to grasp .
A question; did the government ever insist on calling the IRA 'anti-Irish terrorists'?
Playing with words can be useful in a hearts and mind type conflict. For example, the UK government was careful not to talk of civil war for fear of legitimising the IRA. Arguably the war on terror rhetoric falls into this trap that the UK avoided.
Another verbal ploy the Conservative British government used was to popularise the term "Sinn Fein/IRA". This packaged the political wing with the military wing and caught on, at least on the mainland. I am not sure if it had any positive role in the province, but it was intended to combat the illusion that the two wings were separate. (I believe Sinn Fein figures like Adams and McGuinness had key leadership roles in the IRA.)
The problem with the current Islamicist terrorism is that it is much less centralised and more diffuse than IRA terrorism. For example, labelling it "Al Qaeda terrorism" might be attractive in that it seems precise and does not directly associate it with a mass religion. However, that would aggrandise a loose organisation that probably plays no real part in many of the atrocities.
For me, it's a challenge to find the right label that precisely identifies the nature and ideology of the relevant terrorists, without slandering a much wider population or associating the terrorists with something seen as virtuous by that wider population. Islamicist may be the best I can think of. However, this seems to be one of the terms the UK government is trying to stop people using, in which case I can't support them.
I agree with the government that talking of "Islamic" and "Muslim" terrorism is clearly inappropriate (as a thought experiment with the terminology "Christian terrorism" reveals). It's too crude and puts the backs up of the millions of people you need on side. Even the label "Islamic fundamentalist terrorism" is questionable, given that Islamic fundamentalism seems very prevalent among people in Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc who are central to fighting the terrorists. "Islamicist" is not ideal, as it it verbally a little too close to something that is seen as very good by around a billion people on the planet. But I can't think of anything better at the moment. Avoiding labelling the terrorists at all just seems evasive and verging on the Orwellian.
And to put sensitive political correctness towards your enemy ahead of speaking plainly seems to be stupid.
I think the political correctness is towards UK Muslims, not the terrorists. The US does not have a very visible Muslim population, so perhaps it is not so clear to you. A US analogy with talking of Muslim or Islamic terrorism might be if the US government had kept referring to the Black Panthers as "African-American terrorists" or "black terrorists". Perhaps the label "Pan Africanist terrorism" might be analogous to the label "Islamicist terrorism".
I see. After I typed that, I wondered if it were true on the more local, Ireland, level.
So, given that that anti-catholic (and presumeably anti-protestant) rhetoric has faded 30-some years later, should we just not worry about today's anti-muslim rhetoric - as it too will fade when the conflict eventually resolves, and the shiek sits down with the pm in 2038?
only if we (the western world in particular) comprehensively beat islamo-fascism as a political force.
it tends to be forgotten that the IRA in the 1980's were almost totally compromised by the secret services via sig-int and hum-int methods.
we were:
booby-trapping their weapons caches
ambushing them on terror ops
getting them to kill themselves on false mole-hunts
they were in short on their knee's, and thus ready to engage in what some call a 'peace-process'.
You are wasting your time Grizzly , such simple things are too hard for some people to grasp .
Moderate muslims are just as terrified as those that represent us, and in their case with good reason because those that represent us settle for beard-whispering instead of letting moderate muslims get their boat afloat. This rediculous pc crap does nobody any good, keep kicking untill they start enjoying it and after that start hitting them.
Vladimir
02-07-2008, 15:59
Moderate muslims are just as terrified as those that represent us, and in their case with good reason because those that represent us settle for beard-whispering instead of letting moderate muslims get their boat afloat. This rediculous pc crap does nobody any good, keep kicking untill they start enjoying it and after that start hitting them.
Terrified? Fear is hardly the answer and may be driving this ridiculous language change.
Terrified? Fear is hardly the answer and may be driving this ridiculous language change.
Yeah but that is what it is, european leaders aren't fit for their job they are too scared for that. It isn't even your usual survivalism that comes with preservation it's the fear of being excommunicated by their network. Normal people would burst out in laughing when dealing with the sometimes rediculous demands muslims are encouraged to make but in european politics everybody is looking at what the guy next to him is doing. They have absolutily no idea how to deal with this and settle for having a bucket of water for the occasional fire, this multicultist thing is nothing more then collective braindamage, es muss sein.
Crazed Rabbit
02-07-2008, 21:40
The government isn't doing this because they think it will help, but because they are a bunch of ninnies who don't want to offend and believe in crap like moral and cultural relativism.
I think this is where we get our different opinions on the matter, I believe the goverment is mainly doing this to not insult muslims and for the insult it would save surely its worth it just to omit the word muslim from 'muslim terrorist' i mean if they were trying to convince us the terrorists werent muslim at all it would be a different story, but changing wording just to avoid offence is fine imo.
They are trying to remove all trace of Islamist label from the terrorists. They not just saying that the terrorists are not following Islam or whatever platitude is the fad, but engaging in double speak by calling them 'anti-Islamic terrorists'.
The terrorists are driven by their interpretation of Islam, and to deny that, as the government is, is to shroud yourself in ignorance.
But I think you might be missing the point of my post.
For me, it's a challenge to find the right label that precisely identifies the nature and ideology of the relevant terrorists, without slandering a much wider population or associating the terrorists with something seen as virtuous by that wider population. Islamicist may be the best I can think of. However, this seems to be one of the terms the UK government is trying to stop people using, in which case I can't support them.
Indeed, that would be one of the better terms - it avoids offending like Muslim terrorists (though I don't think of that term as being as inappropriate as you do ) while not engaging in double speak.
It seems like the desire by the government to avoid confrontation on this level is part of a refusal to strongly condemn the culture that supports Islamist terror, and a desire to be multicultural and not criticize other cultures.
I think the political correctness is towards UK Muslims, not the terrorists.
Yes, indeed.
CR
Tribesman
02-07-2008, 23:29
They not just saying that the terrorists are not following Islam or whatever platitude is the fad, but engaging in double speak by calling them 'anti-Islamic terrorists'.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
I think the political correctness is towards UK Muslims, not the terrorists.
I think it is not political correctness at all , and those that cry PC at every turn don't seem to be able to think about the subject .
...european leaders aren't fit for their job they are too scared for that...
Amen, brother...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2008, 04:19
capitulation (http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23436203-details/Adoption+of+Islamic+Sharia+law+in+Britain+is+'unavoidable'%2C+says+Archbishop+of+Canterbury/article.do)
What a joke. Tell me this isn't the exact thought process that we have been fighting against in the United States for years.
What is the Anglican church? Is it just the ferryman to international Rainbow Islam? No wonder Blair converted immediately after leaving office. What is the point of being an Anglican?
All of the pomp and circumstance of the RC church, none of the conviction or common sense. PLUS it was started by someone for the reason of divorcing his wife more easily and annexing the church coffers.
First Heresy, then Blasphemy.
EDIT: way to beat me to it RVG
What a joke. Tell me this isn't the exact thought process that we have been fighting against in the United States for years.
What is the Anglican church? Is it just the ferryman to international Rainbow Islam? No wonder Blair converted immediately after leaving office. What is the point of being an Anglican?
All of the pomp and circumstance of the RC church, none of the conviction or common sense. PLUS it was started by someone for the reason of divorcing his wife more easily and annexing the church coffers.
First Heresy, then Blasphemy.
You know, Tuff, my heart aches for Europe when I see something like this happening. All the disagreements aside, if Europe falls to this, it will be our defeat as well. If that happens, I will honestly miss Europe for absolutely unselfish reasons.
Banquo's Ghost
02-08-2008, 09:30
I must admit, that when I saw this story, I was fuming with outrage too and very nearly bought a Daily Mail for succour.
However, on reflection, and on reading Dr William's actual comments more thoroughly, it becomes apparent that he was advocating the option of having Shari'a available to Muslim citizens for activities such as divorce and inheritance - not for flogging or stoning. The challenge - which we have faced in discussing this subject in the Backroom - is that Shari'a has rather too many schools of thought - and has been tainted, perhaps irrevocably, by the fundamentalist loonies' version.
The principle of integrating religious groups' rules into law is well established. Britain has a blasphemy law, for example, that only applies to Christian sensibilities. Orthodox Jews have religious courts where the faithful go to resolve disputes, and the decisions of these courts are upheld in British law. Recently, Roman Catholic prelates tried to force the government to exempt them from the laws on adoption so their agencies could refuse to place children with gay couples. I didn't read too many right-wing commentators wailing at the end of European civilisation at that prospect. (Quite a lot of lefties though :beam: ).
I believe that Dr Williams was trying to address Muslim concerns by suggesting a similar parallel system, operated by the consent of both parties, might be appropriate. I fear he has, in the manner of churchmen, been kack-handed in his commentary, and a little disingenuous about the reality of Islamic practices, even moderate, in relation to women's rights and the pressures put on women to conform, for example. But he is emphatically not calling for the Caliphate.
In fact, what Dr Williams should be castigated for - and where he should have been guilty of a strategic mistake - is the idea that religion has any standing at all in law-making. Why should believers have parallel legal rights unavailable to the unbeliever? For pity's sake, anglicanism has the right to appoint men to the legislature - let alone the Christian influence on law in the UK. It doesn't matter if it is Islam, Christianity or Scientology - law should be secular, and the idea that there is one law for all, each of whom is equal before it, should mean that religious favours should be withdrawn from all these lobby groups.
InsaneApache
02-08-2008, 09:42
Cack handed indeed BQ. :yes:
In fact, what Dr Williams should be castigated for - and where he should have been guilty of a strategic mistake - is the idea that religion has any standing at all in law-making. Why should believers have parallel legal rights unavailable to the unbeliever? For pity's sake, anglicanism has the right to appoint men to the legislature - let alone the Christian influence on law in the UK. It doesn't matter if it is Islam, Christianity or Scientology - law should be secular, and the idea that there is one law for all, each of whom is equal before it, should mean that religious favours should be withdrawn from all these lobby groups.
:bow:
Then the deluded one says....
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
I'm one of those. My recent speeding ticket was a travesty, a travestry I tell thee. Can I have my money back now? It does make you wonder what planet these pillocks live on. Si thee. :smash:
You know, Tuff, my heart aches for Europe when I see something like this happening.
Not europe just the UK, we are a lot less nuts here, almost seems like they are having a pc-contest there. Nothing is being taken it is given away. And it's so terribly simple, this is who we are, and this is what we expect from you. All it takes is a respectable distance.
Tribesman
02-08-2008, 11:28
I wondered when someone would go for this , its outrageous In tell ya , absolutely frothing at the mouth outrageous ...
However...
However, on reflection, and on reading Dr William's actual comments more thoroughly, it becomes apparent that he was advocating the option of having Shari'a available to Muslim citizens for activities such as divorce and inheritance - not for flogging or stoning.
So that would be like what the Cof E has , what the Catholics have ...so its OK really as long as its Christians .
Bugger , someone introduced Talmudic law in Britian without much outrage , so why can it not be the same for Sharia ?
'why not' is the wrong question. If muslims want sharia laws there are perfectly fine deserts where they have it. Go there. If you stay shut up and respect english law just like everybody else. Law isn't a tailor.
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2008, 15:37
I wondered when someone would go for this , its outrageous In tell ya , absolutely frothing at the mouth outrageous ...
However...
So that would be like what the Cof E has , what the Catholics have ...so its OK really as long as its Christians .
Bugger , someone introduced Talmudic law in Britian without much outrage , so why can it not be the same for Sharia ?
it is absurd - i agree wholeheartedly.
I never thought that politically correct people were "calling for the Caliphate", I am against them because eventually, when sensibility is weakened, the Caliphate calls for itself.
The UK did not allow the Catholic church to opt out of the Homosexual adoption issue. It seems as though the U.K. wants to rip itself apart - I say let them. The beauty of an international community is that other countries which I have no ties to are free to try thing out. The more quickly and harshly they fall or undergo terrible consequences, the more fortified public opinion in the U.S. will become against it.
Killing themselves so that others may live - how noble of the U.K.
Tribesman
02-08-2008, 22:05
If muslims want sharia laws there are perfectly fine deserts where they have it. Go there.
So shoud Britain also get all jews who have talmud law in Britain to move to Israel ?
But hey how about a question that you are still unable or unwilling to answer Frag .
What is Sharia law ?
Come on you go on about it often enough , what is it ?
The UK did not allow the Catholic church to opt out of the Homosexual adoption issue.
Yes it did .
What the UK government did was say to them that if they wanted to opt out of the legislation covering government supported adoption agencies then they couldn't have any of the government money or assistance that goes to government supported adoption agencies .
InsaneApache
02-09-2008, 01:29
So shoud Britain also get all jews who have talmud law in Britain to move to Israel ?
It's my experience that they no longer inhabit Cheetham Hill and Prestwich in the numbers they did in the 70s and 80s, so you may well be onto something there.
It's a nice try though. :thumbsdown:
Here's a thought....
You say,” said Lord Napier (confronted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in India by locals protesting against the suppression of suttee) “that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3337984.ece
Crazed Rabbit
02-09-2008, 02:35
I believe where the Archbishop is most wrong is when:
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
So much for integration into society, for being a nation and not a collection of groups. And of course we must laugh at the idea of consent and sharia divorce courts.
CR
Tribesman
02-09-2008, 03:49
Here's a thought....
Now would that be the lord Napier that was working as an immigrant who wanted to change local laws because he thought his foriegn ones were better and should be imposed on the locals , or would it be his father Lord Napier who thought that foriegn laws didn't apply to him when he was out foriegn and got threatened with beheading for acting like a barbarian savage among civilised people.....hmmmmm , Apache your point was what exactly ?
Crazed Rabbit
02-09-2008, 09:31
Now was the article a dissertation on Lord Napier (Sr or Jr) or was it about something else entirely?
Seems you got your undies in such a bundle over some irrelevant point at the beginning and completely missed the point of the article. Now when you get over your little tiff, read the article and try to comprehend the main points the author is trying to make - and be assured that IA certainly did have a point and the fault is yours for being unable or unwilling to understand it - and then join the adults in the discussion.
CR
the blind spot strikes again??
Tribesman
02-09-2008, 12:19
be assured that IA certainly did have a point and the fault is yours for being unable or unwilling to understand it - and then join the adults in the discussion.
Says someone who supports the very thing that Parris is moaning against :oops:
So shoud Britain also get all jews who have talmud law in Britain to move to Israel ?
sharia isn't interpreted or allowed to be questioned, it is the word of God, it is either all or nothing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/09/do0901.xml
so nothing, thank you very much.
Here's a thought:
"You say,” said Lord Napier (confronted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in India by locals protesting against the suppression of suttee) “that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”
a sentiment I have a great deal of respect for.
we have been knocking on the head backward customs for a while now, it is has never occurred to me to apologise for interfering with cultural 'diversity'.
Vladimir
02-09-2008, 18:06
I like how this guy talks:
Tom Summer on February 9, 2008 10:04 AM - "I'm sure many victims of G.W. Bush's war on terror in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia etc would disagree".
Whilst I do not necessarily agree with the invasion and war in Iraq, based allegedly on questionnable intelligence (sic) there is a problem in some Middle East countries, much of it based on religion and religious fundamentalism, and the fact that one sect will not accept the beliefs or presence of another and learn to live in some kind of harmony.
So tell us then, with your very obvious knowledge of the Middle East, the different warring factions of the Islamic faith, the use of men, women and children to deploy and set off bombs, many against their own people as well as our troops sent there in pursuit of government's foreign policy, and the very strict application of Sharia Law, how you would deal with the very real problems in the Middle East, especially in Palestine and Lebanon and more specifically that associated with the Taleban and the likes of Osama Bin Laden in Afghanistan and Pakistan and the havoc they have wreaked over the last decade or so in many parts of the world?
The last thing we should discuss let alone consider is the application or introduction of sections of Sharia Law into our own system of Law and Order. That would only create more division in an already divided nation.
Geoffrey S
02-09-2008, 20:32
Dear me, this whole upheaval about those Archbishop comments is utterly ludicrous. It shows the complete lack of knowledge by most of the Sharia, and a complete lack of interest in any serious discussion. The man didn't even come close to suggesting a parallel system of law.
At most, he was advocating discussion about such things as allowing Muslims to marry within their own faith, as with practically every other religion in the UK - instead of the system right now of needing an unofficial Muslim marriage requires official British legal sanction separately. Other issues would be inheritance or other financial matters, similar to (legally binding) existing systems for Jews. In my opinion, perfectly legitimate concerns which are perfectly capable of being provided as additional options inside British laws, as has been done in other cases.
And then people go and instantly associate Sharia with hand-chopping and women-burning... :inquisitive:
Dear me, this whole upheaval about those Archbishop comments is utterly ludicrous. It shows the complete lack of knowledge by most of the Sharia, and a complete lack of interest in any serious discussion.
I think it shows a nation that is very very confused and abolutily clueless about where to go. Sharia, Talmud, whatever it could be anything. The only thing that matters is that Brittain came to be what it is by just becomming you shouldn't mess with that that's foolish.
Crazed Rabbit
02-09-2008, 20:51
Says someone who supports the very thing that Parris is moaning against :oops:
And, pray tell, where did I say I agreed with the article? The crucial part was that I was able to focus on the real point.
But you are right, in that I much more agree with Charles Moore's article linked by Furunculu5.
At most, he was advocating discussion about such things as allowing Muslims to marry within their own faith, as with practically every other religion in the UK - instead of the system right now of needing an unofficial Muslim marriage requires official British legal sanction separately. Other issues would be inheritance or other financial matters, similar to (legally binding) existing systems for Jews. In my opinion, perfectly legitimate concerns which are perfectly capable of being provided as additional options inside British laws, as has been done in other cases.
As it happens, I believe you would do well to read Charles Moore's piece:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/09/do0901.xml
CR
Geoffrey S
02-09-2008, 21:09
I think it shows a nation that is very very confused and abolutily clueless about where to go. Sharia, Talmud, whatever it could be anything. The only thing that matters is that Brittain came to be what it is by just becomming you shouldn't mess with that that's foolish.
Funnily enough, I think Britain is confused, yes. But not in the same way you do it seems.
There are many different groups in England, as in any European country. Short of kicking the lot of them out, some adjustments must be made. And can be made - I don't buy the idea that being British implies a cultural monopoly. But I'm biased in being a Brit in Holland, I suppose.
As it happens, I believe you would do well to read Charles Moore's piece:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/09/do0901.xml
And Moore would do well to read the Archbishop's comments once more. If he did, he would see that he did not and does not advocate Sharia law (a flawed term in any case, but I digress). He advocates creating the room for elements of Sharia practises to be used inside the British legal system, similar to the the way room is left open for the use of Hindu and Jewish practices when it comes to marriage and various financial matters such as rent.
Funnily enough, I think Britain is confused, yes. But not in the same way you do it seems.
There are many different groups in England, as in any European country. Short of kicking the lot of them out, some adjustments must be made. And can be made - I don't buy the idea that being British implies a cultural monopoly. But I'm biased in being a Brit in Holland, I suppose.
Oh common I don't want that read between the lines.
Tribesman
02-09-2008, 22:16
sharia isn't interpreted or allowed to be questioned, it is the word of God, it is either all or nothing.
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Absolutely clueless . Hey furunculus why don't you try and answer that question Frag can't ...What is Sharia ?
You have written something that implies that you think you know , but shows that you most certainly do not know , to make it even funnier you post a link that disagrees with what you thought you knew , so go on make me laugh some more , attempt an answer ....what is Sharia ?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
02-09-2008, 23:35
And, pray tell, where did I say I agreed with the article? The crucial part was that I was able to focus on the real point.
But you are right, in that I much more agree with Charles Moore's article linked by Furunculu5.
As it happens, I believe you would do well to read Charles Moore's piece:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/02/09/do0901.xml
CR
You might do well to read his lecture: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1561 Not for the ignorant or easily confused.
Which would appear to be why the popular press have got the wrong end of the stick.
Geoffrey S
02-10-2008, 00:22
Oh common I don't want that read between the lines.
I see what you mean, my apologies. So there's no misunderstanding, I didn't intend to imply that, which would be quite low.
Tribesman
02-10-2008, 01:40
Which would appear to be why the popular press have got the wrong end of the stick.
You don't mean to say that a big rambling piece has been taken down to a few sound bites so idiots can say OMG look what he said:yes:
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2008, 03:00
Absolutely clueless . Hey furunculus why don't you try and answer that question Frag can't ...What is Sharia ?
You have written something that implies that you think you know , but shows that you most certainly do not know , to make it even funnier you post a link that disagrees with what you thought you knew , so go on make me laugh some more , attempt an answer ....what is Sharia ?
Can you explain Sharia? I thought that it was the way in which law has progressed over the years in Islamic countries based on the ideas of the Koran and the evolution of the various cultures - very similar to Biblical/Talmudic law.
What do you "know" that it is?
Everybody, Everybody! Sit Indian style in a circle! Professor Tribesman will finally tell us the secret that only he knows!
I think that people have a rather decent grasp of Sharia law. They know that it is a competing system/s of law, whether codified or not. They also know about the life of Mohammed to some extent and the modern history of many Islamic nations who claim Sharia as the foundation of their legal systems. It is scary to many of us for good reason, particularly when it is being ushered into the U.K. by foolish do-gooders who eat what they believe to be flesh and blood and hope to be resurrected from the dead on the last days. Then, people like that will have the power to lord over citizens who are supposed to be equal under the law.
It's B.S. and it's scary.
It's both a political and a religious system and that alone makes it imcompatible with the western tradition of seperation of church and state. Of course there are good things in it that make perfect sense for any society but that is not the point. Democracy is flawed but it is what we build here and it works for us, look at how many wars are even hostile competition there is between democracy's it's at least a mutual goal we have in common and that is why we aren't bashing skulls, we like the comfortable life we have and we only have it because we all enjoy it in our lovely comfortable realm. Now I may not have any cosmopolitan ambition but even if I had I could find no reason at all to even consider implementing parts of the sharia, it simply does not belong here.
Banquo's Ghost
02-10-2008, 09:56
It's both a political and a religious system and that alone makes it imcompatible with the western tradition of seperation of church and state.
What, like the exemplar of this western tradition of separation of church and state found in the United Kingdom? :inquisitive:
Tribesman
02-10-2008, 10:28
Well tuff that was a fairly good answer , but then you went and edited to add nonsense .
So go back to this little bit....
and the evolution of the various cultures .....hmmm.... what does that mean ?
:laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
Absolutely clueless . Hey furunculus why don't you try and answer that question Frag can't ...What is Sharia ?
You have written something that implies that you think you know , but shows that you most certainly do not know , to make it even funnier you post a link that disagrees with what you thought you knew , so go on make me laugh some more , attempt an answer ....what is Sharia ?
my apologies for being unclear, I know there is no ONE sharia, i meant that sharia is considered by many adherents to supercede secular law, naturally so in their minds, but that is not something that britain should ever accept as a legal judgement.
given that this dominated by the ill-thought out words of the current archbishop of canterbury, here are thoughts of the previous incumbent of that post -
Lord Carey:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/10/nsharia610.xml
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2008, 16:54
Well tuff that was a fairly good answer , but then you went and edited to add nonsense .
So go back to this little bit.........hmmm.... what does that mean ?
It means the "life" of Mohamed as interpreted by various nations and the level of the punishment varying from nation to nation, etc.
It would be similar (but not the same as) saying "western jurisprudence"; certain societies have the death penalty for murder, others do not - based on cultural evolutions in acceptability. Right?
The real problem that I think everyone understands is that it is not based on equality before the law. Men and women have different levels of value according to the Koran and the life of Mohamed. In this case it is all we really need to know to condemn its use in our own nation and arguably in foreign ones as well.
Tribesman
02-10-2008, 18:44
It means the "life" of Mohamed as interpreted by various nations and the level of the punishment varying from nation to nation, etc.
So it means many things ...not a very definitive answer is it , but that is the point of the question I put .:idea2:
So then on to the next stage.....with all this different interpretation and evolution varying from nation to nation ...what is sharia in Britain ?
Now then is that another difficult question ?
Is it a question that will result in replies and objections of "but its sharia innit" to which we will go back to the "what is sharia ?" question ?
my apologies for being unclear
But Furuncuus you wasn't unclear , you was just wrong.....sharia isn't interpreted or allowed to be questioned, it is the word of God, it is either all or nothing.
:oops:
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2008, 18:47
So it means many things ...not a very definitive answer is it , but that is the point of the question I put .:idea2:
So then on to the next stage.....with all this different interpretation and evolution varying from nation to nation ...what is sharia in Britain ?
Now then is that another difficult question ?
Is it a question that will result in replies and objections of "but its sharia innit" to which we will go back to the "what is sharia ?" question ?
But Furuncuus you wasn't unclear , you was just wrong.....sharia isn't interpreted or allowed to be questioned, it is the word of God, it is either all or nothing.
:oops:
But what I said is that it is based on an unequal premise - across the board - The Koran and the life of Mohamed.
This is why it is so dangerous - why is this so hard? It is incompatible with a national legal code which believes in equality.
Tribesman
02-10-2008, 19:07
But what I said is that it is based on an unequal premise
What you men the same premis as is in biblical and talmudic religeous laws that are already long established in Britain ?
It is incompatible with a national legal code which believes in equality.
I see your point , what about the Jehovas , the Amish or dozens of other flavours..it does get a bit tricky doesn't it
How often are the JWs in the news because the courts are fighting against the (ever changing and differently interpeted ) parts of their laws about Gods role in health legislation ?
So Tuff you speak of equality across the board , in this context given the existing state , what does that imply ?
ICantSpellDawg
02-10-2008, 19:32
What you men the same premis as is in biblical and talmudic religeous laws that are already long established in Britain ?
I see your point , what about the Jehovas , the Amish or dozens of other flavours..it does get a bit tricky doesn't it
How often are the JWs in the news because the courts are fighting against the (ever changing and differently interpeted ) parts of their laws about Gods role in health legislation ?
So Tuff you speak of equality across the board , in this context given the existing state , what does that imply ?
I'm from the U.S. - it's very different. Here that would never fly. You can practice your religious laws as long as they don't undermine the basic tenets of the constitution.
We have a written constitution that guarantees equality before the law. The U.K. doesn't have that, just a serious of judicial decisions that obscures the true arbitrariness of the system in the long term.
I see why it would be an issue if the law doesn't ban an established recognition of religion, which the U.K. does not.
Tribesman
02-10-2008, 19:51
I'm from the U.S. - it's very different. Here that would never fly. You can practice your religious laws as long as they don't undermine the basic tenets of the constitution.
So you could for example claim that you do not have to have photo ID or produce photo ID when requested by the laws of the land because under the laws of your religeon photographs is bad .{though of course such things change with new laws of the land which change provisions on international border crossing)
InsaneApache
02-10-2008, 20:36
What you men the same premis as is in biblical and talmudic religeous laws that are already long established in Britain ?
In other words bollox.
That's the thing about being a smart arse....you just show yourself up.
In other news, it looks as though certain Moslems may well be on the road to retardation.
The former race relations minister told the Sunday Times: "If you have a child with your cousin the likelihood is there'll be a genetic problem.
Awareness does need to be raised but we are very aware of the sensitivities
Phil Woolas
"The issue we need to debate is first cousin marriages, whereby a lot of arranged marriages are with first cousins, and that produces lots of genetic problems in terms of disability [in children]."
Mr Woolas stressed the marriages, which are legal in the UK, were a cultural, not a religious, issue and confined mainly to families originating in rural Pakistan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7237663.stm
It gets better everyday.
my apologies for being unclear....
But Furuncuus you wasn't unclear , you was just wrong.....sharia isn't interpreted or allowed to be questioned, it is the word of God, it is either all or nothing.
:oops:
My my, what a thoroughly unpleasant fellow you are.
Tribesman
02-11-2008, 08:48
In other news, it looks as though certain Moslems may well be on the road to retardation.
Nice angle Apache , but this is not correct ....
were a cultural, not a religious, issue and confined mainly to families originating in rural Pakistan. .If it were correct there wouldn't be the same issue over here with cultural groups that are not Muslim and not Pakistani and just happen to have a large presence in Britain too . See if you can Snatch the answer .~;)
My my, what a thoroughly unpleasant fellow you are.
Thank you :2thumbsup:
For shame. Hirsi Ali goes french because the terrified dutch government refuses to be for her security. UN grabbers get free appartments in Manhattan but security for a dutch citizen with doubts about the islam is too much. First refugee since ww2 :no: :shame:
...UN grabbers get free appartments in Manhattan but security for a dutch citizen with doubts about the islam is too much. First refugee since ww2 :no: :shame:
She's been in the States, for quite some time now and nobody tried to off her. She doesn't need any special security here. This is purely an attention-grabbing ploy on her part.
She's been in the States, for quite some time now and nobody tried to off her. She doesn't need any special security here. This is purely an attention-grabbing ploy on her part.
First of all, I don't like her, she's an oppertunist a diva and a liar, but we have many of those. Point is that she does have a message, and a message the polititicans here don't like, and she is a dutch citizen and that means she should have absolute support from us. I have all the understance in the world for the people complaining about her moving into their apartmentcomplex, that was heavily critisized, but that doesn't bother me these guys live there and pay taxes so the government can do their job. So do it and take care of your citizens, and also the ones that work abroad and of which many a nutcase would gladly saw of her head. The message to the fundies is that if you keep threatening the terrified people that represent the dutch will eventually give in.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.