arsehole muslim extremists burn poppies

Shu said:
History can not be taken lightly. No offense these people should be silenced in every fashionable measure.
Click to expand...

They have a right to express their opinions. Changing the law to limit these protests would contradict the views we have of our so called 'liberal' society.

By telling them they can't criticise those who died in this country's name, you're censoring them and limiting their rights to freedom of expression.
 
Indeed I am, and that's how I view it. No offense, liberal society is not exactly the best measure when it comes to disrespect, nor is a conservative.. it's a balance. Liberals can't exist without there being something to be rallying against.. in this instance, it's the UK's dead. The ignorance part is the fact that they are burning poppies because of the current war. Well this day of remembrance is outside of this war, hence it's very disrespectful.

It's about the same as living in their country and then burning their eulogies as well.

Protesting on any other day.. would be okay in my opinion.
 
Harlequin said:
They have a right to express their opinions. Changing the law to limit these protests would contradict the views we have of our so called 'liberal' society.

By telling them they can't criticise those who died in this country's name, you're censoring them and limiting their rights to freedom of expression.
Click to expand...

common misconception. we dont live in a society where we can say what we want. my freedom of expression is limited in that i cant use so called "racial slurs" without facing some sort of legal consequences because these words would "deeply offend" people of a specific race. these people have been allowed to "deeply offend" just about every british person/everyone who fought on behalf of britain not because they care about troops being present in the middle east but just because they want to tell us all how superior their religion is. not to mention the fact that this wasnt a peaceful protest at all. several of these "protestors" were arrested for breach of the peace and one for assaulting a police officer. and muslims against crusades are suspected to be a branch of another (banned) extremist muslim group.

apparently 20 police officers surrounded these wankers to protect them from certain right wing supporters. a waste of police time, funded by the taxpayer to protect people who continue to spit in our faces time and time again.
 
You don't decide what race you're born as, you do decide whether or not you want to fight on behalf of a country.
 
An obvious rebuttle. There is such a thing called conscientious objection, of course the government wasn't too lenient on those types but the option was still there.

Of course, the winner writes history, you'll have to remember that many German military personnel wouldn't have shared Hitler's views but would have been tried for them as war criminals, despite the obvious political pressures they would have endured.
 
interesting you should bring it back to hitler. i wonder why german (and quite a lot of other european) legislation makes it illegal to deny the holocaust. or to display signs of nazism ala the swastika and the "hitler salute". theyre only symbols after all.

and theres a simple reason that we had so many soldiers available for gettin' kilt. and that is conscientious objection generally wasnt an accepted excuse - if it were we'd have had considerably less military personnel at that time.

also i dont think individual german soldiers would've been tried for war crimes. not legally anyway. mostly its members of the nazi party who're sought after.
 
But our society would deem the exhultant exhibition of Nazi symbolism as endorsement of an ideology our government has decreed is negative and dangerous. The majority of the voting public agree, which is why the demand to have it banned is far greater than that to have it restored as a party. That would explain why you can't make the Nazi salute in Germany, seeing as the risk factor is too great to make it's exhibition legal. The denial of the holocaust would likely be along the same lines.

Objection wasn't considered an excuse, but you could still do it and die for it. Many Germans would have been threatened with death unless they carried out their orders, but if those orders had involved slaughtering hundreds of Jews is it justification? To trade their lives for your own cowardice?

Now the situation wasn't the same in Britain. British soldiers were conscripted in a war of defense and one of absolute necessity, but my point is if they felt it was an illegal war objection was always an option.
 
Harlequin said:
But our society would deem the exhultant exhibition of Nazi symbolism as endorsement of an ideology our government has decreed is negative and dangerous. The majority of the voting public agree, which is why the demand to have it banned is far greater than that to have it restored as a party. That would explain why you can't make the Nazi salute in Germany, seeing as the risk factor is too great to make it's exhibition legal. The denial of the holocaust would likely be along the same lines.
Click to expand...

symbols none the less. and no more or less dangerous than what these extremists stand for. but lets give them their freedom of expression anyway.

Harlequin said:
Objection wasn't considered an excuse, but you could still do it and die for it. Many Germans would have been threatened with death unless they carried out their orders, but if those orders had involved slaughtering hundreds of Jews is it justification? To trade their lives for your own cowardice?
Click to expand...

of course it was considered an excuse. by the majority if you didnt want to fight for your country you were a coward. for germans it was more than likely not just "your life or theirs" but more "your family's life or theirs". in that situation im sure i'd choose my family over people i didnt know.

Harlequin said:
Now the situation wasn't the same in Britain. British soldiers were conscripted in a war of defense and one of absolute necessity, but my point is if they felt it was an illegal war objection was always an option.
Click to expand...

of the thousands of COs in britain very few were actually granted complete exemption. most still had to contribute to the war effort, whether it be in manufacturing, of medical roles or farming or some other relevant work.
 
Jim said:
of course it was considered an excuse. by the majority if you didnt want to fight for your country you were a coward. for germans it was more than likely not just "your life or theirs" but more "your family's life or theirs". in that situation im sure i'd choose my family over people i didnt know.
Click to expand...

Yeah I think in the 1940s to not join the other men in fighting would have marked you out as a coward, but these days many famous objectors (ie poets) are lauded for their views.

As for family, it's a tough decision, but I suppose you do what you feel is right if it's a question of morality. If it's a question of sentiment as you've decided you would base your decision on, do you feel it would make you exempt from trial were you to be on the losing side?

Jim said:
of the thousands of COs in britain very few were actually granted complete exemption. most still had to contribute to the war effort, whether it be in manufacturing, of medical roles or farming or some other relevant work.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, but I'm talking about forcing the issue - not just writing to the authorities. If you feel it's wrong you don't physically have to pick up a rifle, whether or not they choose to allow you exemption.
 
Shu said:
And this is how Hitler came to power. He thought it was a good idea to rebel against the system, and then rallied a few people and marched on his own land to the very gates. History can not be taken lightly. No offense these people should be silenced in every fashionable measure.
Click to expand...

It also led to the Tianenmen Square demonstration, the fall of the Berlin Wall, the Boston Tea Party, among other popular movements that produced much more good than bad. Also, in terms of Hitler, it's not like people just up and decided go to his rallies. They were forced to by the German police forces. So that's a bit of an extreme reach, at best.

And Hitler did the silencing after he was in power. Religion was outlawed, communism was outlawed, anyone who didn't fit the correct phenotype was outlawed, Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, Jehovah's Witnesses were murdered by the boxcar load.

So which is it? If we allow them to voice their opinion, there's a minute chance we may allow the next Hitler to rise. If we silence them, we *are* Hitler.
 
Harlequin said:
As for family, it's a tough decision, but I suppose you do what you feel is right if it's a question of morality. If it's a question of sentiment as you've decided you would base your decision on, do you feel it would make you exempt from trial were you to be on the losing side?
Click to expand...

if you do as they say your family live and you may or may not have to face the consequences of your actions (even if you were essentially forced into it) if you dont, you all die and the jews you were told to kill die anyway. just as a for instance. to blame those whose hands were forced would make hitler completely innocent since im sure he didnt kill many (if any) jews, gypsies etc himself therefore he did nothing wrong?

Harlequin said:
Fair enough, but I'm talking about forcing the issue - not just writing to the authorities. If you feel it's wrong you don't physically have to pick up a rifle, whether or not they choose to allow you exemption.
Click to expand...

when it comes down to it we're only physically obliged to do a few things. eat, sleep and breathe. so in that sense you dont have to pick up a rifle, just as you dont HAVE to do jury duty...but you do, if that makes sense.

Terrible Terry Tate said:
So which is it? If we allow them to voice their opinion, there's a minute chance we may allow the next Hitler to rise. If we silence them, we *are* Hitler.
Click to expand...

the islam these extremists project IS the next nazi party. silencing someone doesnt make you hitler as im sure youre aware his crimes go far beyond silencing people.

yes they have the right to protest against troops being in the middle east - or they would if thats what their actual cause was. they do not, however have the right to be violent to our police officers.

as i said already this group is suspected to be a branch of another extremist muslim group which is banned. they were also holding up banners and posters that are clearly irrelevant: "there is no god, only allah","islam will dominate". totally irrelevant, they dont actually have a cause, theyre just like any other extremist islamic group. as for "hands off our muslim lands" how about "muslim hands off our lands and back to their own fucking countries".
 
Jim said:
the islam these extremists project IS the next nazi party. silencing someone doesnt make you hitler as im sure youre aware his crimes go far beyond silencing people.

yes they have the right to protest against troops being in the middle east - or they would if thats what their actual cause was. they do not, however have the right to be violent to our police officers.

as i said already this group is suspected to be a branch of another extremist muslim group which is banned. they were also holding up banners and posters that are clearly irrelevant: "there is no god, only allah","islam will dominate". totally irrelevant, they dont actually have a cause, theyre just like any other extremist islamic group. as for "hands off our muslim lands" how about "muslim hands off our lands and back to their own fucking countries".
Click to expand...

i agree with u , but muslims r not extremist , ofc there's sum like in any ohter religion who makes any religion looks bad for the others so tht doesn't mean tht any religion is extreme.
mostly we protest about the war in iraq but not like tht what they did is not acceptable even by muslims cuz it's not right to walk in the street cursing
 
Jim said:
if you dont, you all die and the jews you were told to kill die anyway. just as a for instance. to blame those whose hands were forced would make hitler completely innocent since im sure he didnt kill many (if any) jews, gypsies etc himself therefore he did nothing wrong?
Click to expand...

Well yeah one man can't make a difference with that attitude, but for example if one of my close friends decided to take a stand against something tyrannical I'd back him all the way and more people would back us as a consequence.

You'd need to create a domino effect. I'm sure there are more people who wouldn't want to live in an environment where they had to commit atrocities to preserve themselves.

Jim said:
when it comes down to it we're only physically obliged to do a few things. eat, sleep and breathe. so in that sense you dont have to pick up a rifle, just as you dont HAVE to do jury duty...but you do, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

No I agree, but I'm sure you know what I mean :wacky:
 
They did WHAT!!??

Well these fucks arent exactly sane to begin with, but this goes beyond all moral boundaries, l pulled a :tl;dr: job on most of this so lma respond lewises OP,
Mate you are spot on! fuck them off back home!

That shows complete and total disrespect for our fallen War heroes, we might fuck around here on FFF and joke and revel in goodtimes and shit but we owe it all to those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.

The dead cant defend there name and honor but we sure as hell fucking can!
Something needs to be done about flag burning and desecrating national remembrance days, like it should be made treason for such acts.

Freedom speech you say? Fuck that! not at the price of our dead!!!!

:lew: We held our remembrance Minute at 1.11 after lunch coz it was the only time we had together at work lol
 
Shu said:
I close this by saying.. Ignorance should not be rewarded, and this is very ignorant:
Click to expand...

You see, even if you may disagree with this and find it repulsive, one of the underpinnings of a liberal society is to allow all forms of opinions to circulate through our community. Of course there are limits in extraordinary cases; however, just because something is distasteful or "stupid" isn't sufficient for silencing. The general idea is that our society is sensible enough to evaluate and disregard dumb opinions while embracing the good ones.

One of the benefits of dong this is that nothing can be labeled as ignorant without acute examination. If the majority could just disregard everything that left a bad taste, then it may keep stuff like this at bay but it would also detriment our society by keeping out potentially beneficial ideas. TTT has already delineated some of the benefits that has come from allowing new ideas come to light. So I think we can all agree that this is a pretty bad thing to do, but we don't want to put down a bright-line and just silence these people. This act of putting active restraints is the start of a walk down a dangerous road of a repression of free expression that stems from idiosyncratic or rather arbitrary standards.
 
Burning a Poppy is as bad "on this day", if not worse than unzipping your zipper and pissing on a grave.

Even in America Freedom of Speech/Expression is limited. I won't go into detail since it's a direct de-railer, but my thing is.. If people have the balls to burn the damn things (poppies), then they should be able to take the rebuttal as well.

Nuff said =). Liberal thinking doesn't always go unpunished. It's to be argued, and will be argued, and often times violently if the notion is stupid and disrespectful enough. This is not gay rights, women rights, this is not NCAACP movements here in the States, this is a day to respect for the dead who have died in "wars." If you burn it, you are making a clear sign of disrespect to not one type of person, but to all. Screw Religion in this case, you made it known that Islamic faith is not just a belief it's a distorted society, where brain washing from birth is just another product of it.

I would love to revert to a time when there were no guns, and martial law would have been a bit easier to dish out in this scenario.
 
Well...in the USA you can burn the American flag on 4th of July and the gov't can't say boo (1st Amendment right). A lot of enforcement authorities did feel similar to how you do and arrested them anyway. Naturally, they got released.

It seems like we just differ on what the boundary of free speech or really what should be allowed/disallowed in a liberal society. But then again it does sound as if you'd prefer a more tightly regulated society then what we've got today in the USA. We're just different opinions butting heads against each other so if we got into a little argument it'd probably derail the thread by a mile. Guess we'll just leave it at that :/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top