LFC2007 wrote:I'd also just add that I've never advocated that the protest should have been prevented because of the nature of their views. They were within their rights to demonstrate - and that's a right I will defend - but by the same token I'm perfectly within my rights to express my own views to the contrary, which I have done.
redbeergoggles wrote:LFC2007 wrote:I'd also just add that I've never advocated that the protest should have been prevented because of the nature of their views. They were within their rights to demonstrate - and that's a right I will defend - but by the same token I'm perfectly within my rights to express my own views to the contrary, which I have done.
This was never in question it was the use of the derogatory and inflammatory words that you used to describe the nature of the protesters ,this is what I found most offensive ,even more offensive than when you described myself as a c*** ,something I might add I had the tact not to reciprocate ..
bigmick wrote:1. There is a problem on the streets of the Uk with people openly disrespecting "Britishness" and what it stands for. Yes celebrate Ramadan and Dawali and the year of the tadpole and all that stuff, but at least doff your caps in the direction of the customs of the country in which you live. Burning flags, going to train in foreign lands to either kill our soldiers or to return 'home" and blow up tube trains and the like really isn't on. The avarage working man feels that he is discriminated against in terms of council housing and social provision, in favour of what he considers to be "migrants".
2. People in England particularly feel there is nobody to turn to when their village is overrun by armies of travellers who appear to be above the law. The authorites seemingly don't have the stomach to address the issue.
3. On council estates throughout the country people are afraid to leave their homes after dark as gangs of young men rule the streets. despite heartfelt pleast from accross the lands, the ruling classes seemingly don't give a feck, otherwise they'd do something about it.
4. Convicted paedophiles should in the opinion of most working people stay "inside" until they stop breathing. You can lump racists in there as well as far as I'm concerned, but I'm particularly convinced about paedophiles. I think the test for any of these jumped up college degree phsycologists saying such and such is reformed, is he should put his kids in the cell with the said monster for two days and nights prior to release. If he isn't prepared to back his judgement in such a way, we should leave the c... where he is.
All of these issues bring tut-tuts (not necessarily from LFC but from people who are "more cleverer" than me), but on all of these issues I'm right. So there.
LFC2007 wrote:From my perspective, they are making the greatest generalisations of all; they make no effort to distinguish between extremists or moderates because of the strength of their Anti-Islamic views (to give you an idea; they liken Islam to Nazism). Those who are not known to be extremists (the peaceful majority) are considered to be tacit approvers of extremist behaviour - which, in the context of this forum, would be to argue that Metalhead is an extremist sympathiser.
In my opinion, that makes them ignorant c...ts. If you disagree, I'm all ears.
s@int wrote:Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese-born Christian was hounded out of her home by Muslims, along with so many others that Christians, once having comprised the majority in Lebanon, now form only about 25%.
metalhead wrote:s@int wrote:Brigitte Gabriel, a Lebanese-born Christian was hounded out of her home by Muslims, along with so many others that Christians, once having comprised the majority in Lebanon, now form only about 25%.
I know its not about a topic, but thats just BS, the reason there are few christians than of before because of the civil war which led to many people leave the country, plus muslims growing twice as more than christians in the country. You can say the samething about christians kicking muslims out of their house in leb, and the other way around (all happened in the civil war by the way).
andy_g wrote:a serious issue both in the social and forum discussion aspects of this situation is the over eagerness to pigeonhole people because of their stance. quickly the argument becomes too focussed on what people 'are' rather than what the issues are. maybe this is intentional, as by arguing against the stance of a person or a group we don't have to think too much any more about the complexity of the matter in question.
the slightest hint that you might be against the islamicisation of the west and you are a racist.
the slightest hint that you might be prepared to consider the needs of all the parties involved and you are a 'bleeding heart liberal'.
the slightest hint that a muslim might be unhappy with his or her lot in the west and they are a potential terrorist.
etc etc etc etc
its not really very constructive
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 53 guests