It takes a nation to protect the nation
This forum is for catching and recording significant, well written comments on forums and walls, which we do not want to get washed away in the waves of forum history.
It is the corollary to the "Key Discussions" box on the Homepage and the 'Featured' discussions in each room, which maintain a permanent pointer to the most noteworthy forums. Those methods keep track of good forums and point to their beginning. This forum however, is to point inside a forum, to a particular comment we wish to preserve.
from Joe Bloggs
on the EDL vs the Media, and trusting 'social workers'
Islam is the words that came out of the mouth of Mohammed, and his deeds are an example to all Muslims. What Mohammed said is supposed to come directly from Allah therefore his word is the law not to be doubted or questioned. Islam is the words and the deeds of Mohammed as recorded in the Hadith and the Koran, and it's nasty stuff. Mohammed was a terrorist and a conqueror, and the ideal Muslim is the terrorist and conqueror. The only way to combat Islam is to expose how wicked its doctrine is and to close our borders to Muslims. The greatest threat to us is from the Muslims that live amongst us. We must unite against the common enemy: Islam. Islam is intent on forcing us into submission.
Reply by Philip Smeeton 15 April 2013
Art as we understand it and Islam are incompatible. Islam is incompatible with almost anything.
Shiva's comment on the taking of hostages.
Reply by paul collings
I'm sure as soon as the details of this case are released, another sex scandal involving a high profile celebrity will be found to keep the public amused.
there seems to be a consensus among the British media that anyone raped by a British celebrity, represents a far more serious crime and is more news worthy than a bunch of white girls, who have allegedly been assaulted by a bunch of hard working misunderstood immigrants of Asian origin.
its only a matter of time before we get a new reality programme called i'm a celebrity rapist get me out of here.
A programme called, i'm a member of a Pakistani grooming gang who brutally rapes drugged and drunk young girls and then pass them round to all my friends so they can do the same, doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Comment by Paul Collings on Tuesday, 30 July 2013; on the occasion of the English Defence League planning a demo in Tower Hamlets, East London.
A spokesman for the East London Mosque, based in Whitechapel Road, said ''''the organisation was working with authorities to prevent far right protests in the borough.
The diversity and cohesion of Tower Hamlets should be celebrated, he added.''''
That's great! The EDL can go to tower hamlets and celebrate the diversity of the place.
Flags could be waved celebrating all the cultural fanny mutilations that go un punished in the area. That's got to be worth a high five!
What about attacks on school teachers who teach islam to girls from muslim family's. Yer!! that's worth a bit of street dancing.
How about attacks on women who aren't covered in the Islamic body bag. That has got to get you in the mood for a toffee apple and some candy floss!!
Yep, lets celebrate. After all Islam has really benefitted Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Syria, Sudan, Mali, Iraq, Iran and countless other place's. Islam really makes a place more exciting.
Personally, I think diversity rocks.
Comment by Alan Lake
Anyone who says "This is a Muslim area" should be immediately charged with hate speech. This filthy apartheid segregation of our one country should be stamped out, and stamped out hard. We don't want this thuggish racism here.
I think all these "interfaith" Christians etc who continually organise "kumbiyah" type events to say how cuddly muslims are should have their bluff called and be posted to Syria,Iraq,Afghanistan etc to organise touchy-feely love-ins with the Islamists.
Philip Smeeton in the UK Room
The genius of Islam is that it combines reality with religion in a deadly manner. If you simply, and under Islam legally, kill anyone that disagrees with you then you win every argument. It is psychopathy organised into an effective system with the extermination of all resistance as its objective. The Peace of Islam is achieved when nothing other than Islam exists. Every concievable form for violence is allowed to achieve this end. At the same time it masquerades successfully as something moral and just. We, with our misconception that it is possible to sit down and debate reasonably with this opponent, are defenceless.
This is evident in the way that Muslims are given priviledged treatment in our feeble justice, political and social systems. The only thing that can defeat Islam is something even more ruthless. Realising that, we become warriors.
Now the Supreme Court has not only confirmed the National Court's ruling, but it has gone one step farther. Its ruling states:
"The right to the freedom of expression does not guarantee the right to intolerant manifestations or expressions that infringe against religious freedom, that have the character of blasphemy or that seek to offend religious convictions and do not contribute to the public debate."
This paragraph is strangely similar to an international blasphemy law being promoted by the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, a bloc of 57 Muslim countries dedicated to implementing a worldwide ban on "negative stereotyping of Islam."
So now Spanish judges are not only going to have to judge what is 'offensive' and what is a 'religion', but even more reliably, what does not "not contribute to the public debate". You couldn't make this stuff up. How far is that from, was it Oscar Wildes observation, that Free Speech is precisely for that speech that offends. Now it must not only be non-offensive, it must be 'productive' as well.
We have an entire generation of Europeans that have not only lost their spine and become cowards, they've lost the distinction between subjective and objective in jurisprudence.
Joe Bloggs on Anarchism:
The problem with the common understanding of anarchism, is that it is a) a "leftwing" thing, b) that it is merely prescriptive.
One can look on people like Hayek as anarchists. They believe in an absolutely minimal state (where even currency is a product which anyone can [in principle] produce).
Moreover, the "right wing" anarchists don't just think that small groups of activists will sit around and generate structure within this an-archy ("no ruler") system. People like Hayek assert that spontaneous structures and institutions arise from the natural interaction of human beings. In this sense, "capitalism" is a word applied to one of these structures by the enemies of this structure. Von Mises and Hayek see the market system as a spontaneous order, which no-one created, and which is superior to any structure deliberately created by a rationalist committee (be that committee anarchists or communists or social democrats).
From this perspective, the state and the welfare state and planned economies are rationalist corruptions of the spontaneous natural orders. And these corruptions are less efficient and end up (on average) making people poorer.
The leftwing anarchists understand none of this. Their position is still that of the rationalist human who will impose "democratic" structure on the world. The rightwing anarchists are utterly opposed to this idea i.e. they are truly oppose to rulers and the rules created by them. The leftwing anarchists have no trouble with the idea of rules: it's just they want to be the ones imposing them, and with a smaller Demos, these anarchists think they can become the rulers more easily.