arsehole muslim extremists burn poppies

[Davey Gaga]

Forgive me if I've missed out on the scope of the last page of this but it sounds as though we have a few advocates of allowing this behaviour to continue?

Sure, we can try to be level-headed and call it their "opinion" but what we can't do is accept such a blatant disregard for our traditions and beliefs in this country when we'd be stoned or shot for doing something even less outspoken in their own. Much like Jim I'm not slating Islam itself (I have no problems with any religion whatsoever), just the extremists who seem to be deficient themselves in "separating good opinions from the bad ones".

The world might've been one single stretch of land once upon a time but right now it has borders, and (allegedly) tight ones at that. Right now it is a privilege to be allowed to cross those borders - when crossing over is abused in the sense that individuals attempt to destroy those borders completely, then their privileges, I'm sorry, should be removed.

 

[CassinoChips]

Sure, we can try to be level-headed and call it their "opinion" but what we can't do is accept such a blatant disregard for our traditions and beliefs in this country when we'd be stoned or shot for doing something even less outspoken in their own.

That's why you and I (and possibly even they) don't live there.

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." - Noah Chomsky

The freedom of expression, or the suppression thereof, is one of the hallmarks of a society that believes in individual liberty. It should be protected at all costs, regardless of whether one agrees with what is being espoused or not.

EDIT: Also, so are you saying you want to live by those rules? Aren't we saying that a government that suppresses people who have differing opinions is a negative thing by saying their government would prosecute someone for speaking out against Islam, for example? Saying that, then turning around and denying these folks the right to speak out against something they feel is wrong is not only hypocritical, but would make the English government no better than the Middle Eastern government you are deriding. Because that is exactly what they do: Step in line, or pay for it.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

That's why you and I (and possibly even they) don't live there.

"If you believe in freedom of speech, you believe in freedom of speech for views you don't like. Stalin and Hitler, for example, were dictators in favor of freedom of speech for views they liked only. If you're in favor of freedom of speech, that means you're in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise." - Noah Chomsky

The freedom of expression, or the suppression thereof, is one of the hallmarks of a society that believes in individual liberty. It should be protected at all costs, regardless of whether one agrees with what is being espoused or not.

EDIT: Also, so are you saying you want to live by those rules? Aren't we saying that a government that suppresses people who have differing opinions is a negative thing by saying their government would prosecute someone for speaking out against Islam, for example? Saying that, then turning around and denying these folks the right to speak out against something they feel is wrong is not only hypocritical, but would make the English government no better than the Middle Eastern government you are deriding. Because that is exactly what they do: Step in line, or pay for it.

i think youre missing the point about these particular people. (again) theyre believed to be a branch of an already banned extremist organisation, the banners and posters they held up for the most part arent at all relevant to the cause they're SUPPOSED to be protesting. if the government have already banned an organisation like this (i didnt know previous to reading these articles and related ones) then that would suggest either britain is a dictatorship or these people and the views they hold are generally dangerous.

there were arrests. breach of the peace and assaulting a police officer doesnt sound peaceful, or relevant to their supposed "cause".

i also doubt thats the reason they dont live there since as dave said theyre seeking to destroy our traditions. "islam will dominate", and if it does the whole world will be just like their country. besides, what with our society being so liberal and them feeling so deeply about this issue, why is it they have to hide their faces?

The right to freedom of expression upholds the rights of all to express their views and opinions freely. It is essentially a right which should be promoted to the maximum extent possible given its critical role in democracy and public participation in political life. There may be certain extreme forms of expression which need to be curtailed for the protection of other human rights. Limiting freedom of expression in such situations is always a fine balancing act.

 

[CassinoChips]

i think youre missing the point about these particular people. (again) theyre believed to be a branch of an already banned extremist organisation, the banners and posters they held up for the most part arent at all relevant to the cause they're SUPPOSED to be protesting. if the government have already banned an organisation like this (i didnt know previous to reading these articles and related ones) then that would suggest either britain is a dictatorship or these people and the views they hold are generally dangerous.

Believed to be?

And I have an issue with a group of people being "banned" from a country. That sets a dangerous precedent. Of course, the banning seems to be working well, if these particular people are tied to that group, as they are believed to be.

there were arrests. breach of the peace and assaulting a police officer doesnt sound peaceful, or relevant to their supposed "cause".

I agree. And that's the point where the government can and should step in. But not before.

i also doubt thats the reason they dont live there since as dave said theyre seeking to destroy our traditions. "islam will dominate", and if it does the whole world will be just like their country. besides, what with our society being so liberal and them feeling so deeply about this issue, why is it they have to hide their faces?

Because if they say the wrong thing they could be banned from the country?

 

[Marquis of Granby]

I agree. And that's the point where the government can and should step in. But not before.

well thats exactly what happened in this instance which is what ive said three times now.

and "believed to be" is more than enough in america, why should britain be any different. freedom of expression does not mean you can say whatever you like, ive already demonstrated that. and yes, extremist groups are banned from britain as they are "believed" to train/brainwash british muslims. i believe the so called muslims who carried out the attacks in london and glasgow were british "muslims". america is not the world son, there are threats elsewhere.

 

[Davey Gaga]

Your child talks back to you when you're disciplining him? You ground him, you don't let him carry on because he has freedom of speech. He's becoming a threat to your authority, so you stop him.

You call your boss a cocksucking wangbanger? He sacks you, he doesn't let you go around saying whatever you like. You're going against the aims of the business, so you're stopped.

You threaten to kill someone? You're charged or arrested, not left to your own devices just because you're allowed to say whatever you like. You're dangerous and can potentially cause harm.

You burn poppies and stick two fingers up to Western traditions? You're told to get the fuck out of the West because you're a threat to the way we live.

There are, and should be, restrictions on freedom of speech and it's for the benefit of all (in most cases).

I personally think it's ridiculous to be debating the particulars of free speech. I know what they did was wrong, you know it and no amount of "equal rights" permits it. It's unfair, it's wrong, and they should be punished for it - their privileges, as I said before, should be removed. Say what you like in your own country where it's not a threat to the way we live.

 

[Harlequin]

You can't really compare insults and threats to protests on ideology. Their burning of poppies might be untimely and provocative, but if we ban that particular action surely we should ban the depiction of Muhammed, seeing as both protests are similarly provocative in their nature to either party?

 

[Davey Gaga]

Separation of church and state etc etc. Banning of poppy burning and the rest, I support, because ours isn't a religion, whereas Islam/Muhammed etc is, and I don't believe laws should be made with a religious base...but that's an entirely different matter.

 

[coffeecup]

You burn poppies and stick two fingers up to Western traditions? You're told to get the fuck out of the West because you're a threat to the way we live.

No.... The reason why we have a liberal rights-based society and allow freedom of speech (TO AN EXTENT, there are always limitations but silencing this stuff is too narrow) is so that our current beliefs can continually be criticized and sharpened. We pride ourselves to allow people critique and even lambast the current government, because it will only fortify our current beliefs when they are still standing strong in the end. That's the basic idea. Of course, the natural consequence is that we're going to see opinions like these that the majority would find disgusting. But that's why we have faith that society will just disregard these guys. If the only consequence is disgust, that's no reason to ban them or tell them to gtfo of the country.

It is not a threat to the way we live, it's a direct consequence of a liberal society. By putting up barriers that are similar to the one you're proposing, you're actually undermining the exact foundation of the society that you're trying to protect.

 

[CassinoChips]

Your child talks back to you when you're disciplining him? You ground him, you don't let him carry on because he has freedom of speech. He's becoming a threat to your authority, so you stop him.

That's not freedom of speech.

You call your boss a cocksucking wangbanger? He sacks you, he doesn't let you go around saying whatever you like. You're going against the aims of the business, so you're stopped.

That's not freedom of speech.

You threaten to kill someone? You're charged or arrested, not left to your own devices just because you're allowed to say whatever you like. You're dangerous and can potentially cause harm.

That actually is freedom of speech, but unless it's a case of harassment, or there's a salient possibility you could actually carry it out, nobody does anything. Or if they do, it's a wag the finger type of deal. And it's wildly different from suppressing a protest.

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like without repercussions. Freedom of speech (or expression) means the government can't prosecute you for what you say. You're still beholden to the rules and regulations of the social entities (families/workplace, in your examples) in which you reside. These Islamists can be shouted down and ridiculed by the public. And they should be. But, all other things equal, they should not be shut down by a government agency. That is the definition of the suppression of free speech.

You burn poppies and stick two fingers up to Western traditions? You're told to get the fuck out of the West because you're a threat to the way we live.

Seriously? How has this directly affected your daily life? It hasn't.

I personally think it's ridiculous to be debating the particulars of free speech. I know what they did was wrong, you know it and no amount of "equal rights" permits it. It's unfair, it's wrong, and they should be punished for it - their privileges, as I said before, should be removed.

No, what they said was stupid. But it wasn't illegal.

Say what you like in your own country where it's not a threat to the way we live.

Oh bullshit. There's no direct threat, other than the direct violence that stemmed from the protest itself. As someone who lives in a country where our day-to-day life was actually disrupted for a short period of time by an Islamist terrorist attack, the actual threat of this small minority of people is just that: incredibly minor. It took years of planning and training to execute one major attack that was little more than symbolic in the larger scope of things. Nine years later, and we haven't heard a peep from al-Qaida since, really. Islam may become the largest religion in the world at some point in the near future, but Islamist fascism will never take hold, because Islamists are a minority within their own culture.

Don't Glenn Beck the situation. (Yes, that's right, I created a new verb.)

 

[blakstang98]

Oh bullshit. There's no direct threat, other than the direct violence that stemmed from the protest itself. As someone who lives in a country where our day-to-day life was actually disrupted for a short period of time by an Islamist terrorist attack, the actual threat of this small minority of people is just that: incredibly minor. It took years of planning and training to execute one major attack that was little more than symbolic in the larger scope of things. Nine years later, and we haven't heard a peep from al-Qaida since, really. Islam may become the largest religion in the world at some point in the near future, but Islamist fascism will never take hold, because Islamists are a minority within their own culture.

Don't Glenn Beck the situation. (Yes, that's right, I created a new verb.)

They have new x-ray machines in airports (which is an uproar that I'm sure you heard about). People still have some fear of flying when they didn't 9 years ago. People are still protesting a mosque being built in NYC because its so close to Ground Zero. All of this is a result because our day-to-day life is still being threatened. Some people have put it behind them, others are still threatened that something big can happen again. You can downplay it all you want, but people are still very wary that there's a threat of another Islamic attack out there. It may seem minor, but the time and effort put into the attack says otherwise. People are still seeing Muslim people in a bad light, and it's not fair to them that a group of extreme Muslims got out of line. Now an entire religion is branded as bad news. You and I may believe that Muslims are really a group of good people, but many others will continue to see otherwise, hence the threat that exists in a lot of people.

Treating the situation like it was an isolated incident that will never happen again is just Barack Obamaing the situation.

 

[Shu]

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.

Do you mean Memorial day? Who gives a damn about the 4th of July being boo'd to be honest. We are talking about recent events here. Vets and folks have died in the war are remembered with a Poppy.

When someone takes one and burns one and then protests something entirely disrespectful on this day of remembering the dead and what not.. It's called ethics. Let's say your dog died recently. Well what if I pissed on his grave because the dog used to come over and tear up my newspaper. It's a lower scale thing we are talking about, but it's the only example I can think of off the top of my head without it being subjected offensively to someone. I could make it about MLK, but no offense, the dude was brilliant, just didn't have the Government backing him for the most part.

Bottom line is this was a day of respecting the dead and those who have served, if it were like the Treaty of Versailles day or something that had nothing to do with serving, then yea.. I could brush it off as a mere... Oh they are just bitching because their country is a mess. (Iraq)

 

[Marquis of Granby]

Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say whatever you like without repercussions. Freedom of speech (or expression) means the government can't prosecute you for what you say. You're still beholden to the rules and regulations of the social entities (families/workplace, in your examples) in which you reside. These Islamists can be shouted down and ridiculed by the public. And they should be. But, all other things equal, they should not be shut down by a government agency. That is the definition of the suppression of free speech.

our politicians are supposed to be by the people, for the people so if the majority of britain don't want this utter bullshit in OUR countries then we shouldnt have it.

and trust me, we dont want it. its a direct threat. its an insult to OUR way of life. because as ive pointed out what these people are projecting is nothing to do with troops being in iraq. its anti-western and anti-anything-not-islamic bullshit. for a change i find myself agreeing with stang and just about the majority of the folk in this thread. whatever your beliefs in politics and freedom of expression, what these people are doing isnt right (which you obviously know).

the threat in america is minorer (i made up a word too!). youre on the other side of the world. not only are we much closer than you are but we have "home grown" islamic extremist "terrorists". these people werent criticising our government. they were disrespecting our dead. thats personal, not political. as a british citizen i dont want idiots like this in my country. fuck their human rights. consider your own people before you consider these wankers.

 

[CassinoChips]

They have new x-ray machines in airports (which is an uproar that I'm sure you heard about).

Because of the dude who snuck in a bomb in his underwear, not because of 9/11.

People still have some fear of flying when they didn't 9 years ago.

Airline industry seems to be surviving.

People are still protesting a mosque being built in NYC because its so close to Ground Zero.

Won't go there, since it'll derail this thread in a heartbeat, but you know my feelings on that.

All of this is a result because our day-to-day life is still being threatened. Some people have put it behind them, others are still threatened that something big can happen again. You can downplay it all you want, but people are still very wary that there's a threat of another Islamic attack out there.

They feel threatened because they have chosen to allow themselves to be threatened. Nothing has actually changed in their day-to-day life. They still go to work the same way they did, they still send their kids to school the same way they did. Very little has changed significantly.

It may seem minor, but the time and effort put into the attack says otherwise.

That's exactly the point. It exhausted virtually all of al-Qaida's resources. We've arrested and/or killed virtually all of their hierarchy in the last 9 nine years, and have driven them even further underground than they were then. They simply do not have the capability to mount another attack of that scale.

People are still seeing Muslim people in a bad light, and it's not fair to them that a group of extreme Muslims got out of line. Now an entire religion is branded as bad news. You and I may believe that Muslims are really a group of good people, but many others will continue to see otherwise, hence the threat that exists in a lot of people.

So we succumb to the mob mentality? Let the loudest of opinions be the most important? Throw all sense of reason out the door? No thank you.

Treating the situation like it was an isolated incident that will never happen again is just Barack Obamaing the situation.

Using deductive reasoning to objectively assess the situation? Yes. Yes it is.

our politicians are supposed to be by the people, for the people so if the majority of britain don't want this utter bullshit in OUR countries then we shouldnt have it.

That's why we don't have direct democracies. It's a filter.

and trust me, we dont want it. its a direct threat. its an insult to OUR way of life. because as ive pointed out what these people are projecting is nothing to do with troops being in iraq. its anti-western and anti-anything-not-islamic bullshit. for a change i find myself agreeing with stang and just about the majority of the folk in this thread. whatever your beliefs in politics and freedom of expression, what these people are doing isnt right (which you obviously know).

It's wrong on a moral level, I agree. But it isn't illegal. They shouldn't be doing it, I agree. But the government has no business stepping in and shutting down an opinion.

the threat in america is minorer (i made up a word too!). youre on the other side of the world. not only are we much closer than you are but we have "home grown" islamic extremist "terrorists".

We have those too. David Walker Lindh, sleeper cells in Pennsylvania, Florida, the cat who tried to board a plane with a bomb in NYC just this summer, among others. Hell, even the 9/11 attackers were training in the U.S. for years before the attacks.

these people werent criticising our government. they were disrespecting our dead. thats personal, not political.

Exactly. It's not political. It's two groups of people who stand on opposing sides of an opinion. So the government should keep its nose out.

fuck their human rights.

Lol. Amazing.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

no, its not political. its far worse. its religious.

these people will take any chance they can get to to degrade the western world because islam is superior (etc etc) and try to disguise it as them giving a shit about the current events. these people are just as racist as the kkk, 'cept their pet hate is westerners. but theyre not white so nothing will be done.

and you took that last one out of context. if islam does dominate as they say it will we'll have no "human rights", why grant them the privileges they want to take away from us all (and themselves).

 

[blakstang98]

My point may have been missed. I'll try to drive this home in a different way.

If the general population feels threatened, then the government makes it an obligation to step in and protect the people of their country. After 9 years ago, people were ready to board a plane with as many firearms as they could and blast the fuck out of people. Since then, people have calmed down enough to leave it in the past, but there are still a significant amount of people that feel justice wasn't served. And because of those people, there still exists paranoia, so the government makes the effort to take precautions to help people be safe. If our country felt like al-Qaida wasn't a threat, we wouldn't have troops in various places in the Middle East. Hardcore liberals will spout off "that's Bush's fault, blah blah blah", but what choice did he have? If we had "diplomatic discussions", do you really think al-Qaida would have backed off? They can, and still will, take any open shot they get. Because our country has made an effort to lock out extremists, they're taking it out on the place that helped us in our war efforts, the UK. That's not fair to UK either. Both of our countries are safe for now as a result of how both countries will operate their military, but you'd be naive to believe that when we do let our guard down, we won't have another major attack, even if they have to build funds to do so again (and I firmly believe they still have plenty of funds left, even after a large scale attack like 9/11).

And for the record, I'm sure parents count their lucky stars everyday their child comes home safe. I'm not a parent, but I know I would. The kids are probably threatened by other things more than extremists, but the threat still exists.

 

[Marquis of Granby]

theyre not strapping black people to trees and whipping them to death anymore.

islamic extremists are still strapping bombs to things/themselves and they dont mind who's harmed when the boomy thing goes boom.

 

[GalaxyFlare]

boomy thing goes boom.

How profound James.

The fact is you guys is that they chose to have there "protest" on a day of remembrance
fr our war dead! Why? if there intent was not to cause an uproar why not hold the protest on another day? What were they protesting anyway?

That the west is bad? IDK if its possible to protest a region on a map?

Freedom of speech is a great thing to be sure to be able to express opinions uncensored is the right of every one in the free world, but what was the message of these people? that islam is, lm happy they feel that way but do they have hold there pep rally on remembrance day by burning poppies and shit?

No they dont, thats ridiculous!

It may not have been a direct threat Triple T but there "protest" was designed to undermine the very fabric of British/western society, it was used as a catalyst to inspire there "cause" and draw attention to there "cause" by desecrating the memory of our war dead.

The same tradition of remembrance day is held in Australia as well, and l am a british citizen as well as an Aussie citizen, and l care a great deal about the security of both countries as l have family in both, Such blatant disregard for our traditions cannot be ignored...........it simply cannot be.

Every freedom has its limit.

 

[coffeecup]

Do you mean Memorial day? Who gives a damn about the 4th of July being boo'd to be honest. We are talking about recent events here. Vets and folks have died in the war are remembered with a Poppy.

When someone takes one and burns one and then protests something entirely disrespectful on this day of remembering the dead and what not.. It's called ethics. Let's say your dog died recently. Well what if I pissed on his grave because the dog used to come over and tear up my newspaper. It's a lower scale thing we are talking about, but it's the only example I can think of off the top of my head without it being subjected offensively to someone. I could make it about MLK, but no offense, the dude was brilliant, just didn't have the Government backing him for the most part.

Bottom line is this was a day of respecting the dead and those who have served, if it were like the Treaty of Versailles day or something that had nothing to do with serving, then yea.. I could brush it off as a mere... Oh they are just bitching because their country is a mess. (Iraq)

:/ I really think your personal opinion regarding strong deference to the dead is really biasing your view on this matter. I'm not saying it's bad to feel that way or what you're saying isn't without support. But given the foundation of our current liberal rights-based society, it would be improper to ban these opinions. What you as well as many individuals in this thread are proposing flies directly in the face of the underpinnings of the principles that Western societies attempt to preserve and defend.

Naturally if you change this foundation into something else (which is what most people are implicitly doing by supporting a more constrictive view), then banning statements like these wouldn't pose such a inconsistent problem. But...these aren't the principles of our Western society, and something that I would be wary to change anyway.

 

[alternate]

it's time for me to talk again :

1-we do have human rights but u can't c it bcuz of those extremists
2-cursing and insulting ppl isn't islamic at all but u think so bcuz of those fuckin extremists as well
3-what they did wasn't religious or political or anything , i don't know the reason tho
4-there r 2 types of those extremist:1)the kind who don't know shit but he just saw ppl moving 2gether so he joined w/o using his brain
2)another kind of ppl who just have a grudge against ppl so he makes his religion an excuse , and ofc leads the other ignorants
5- sumtimes news overstate sum news to make a scene
6- just so u know im muslim and i want to beat those guys arses cuz what they did it's not right , yeah im against war in iraq but there's many other ways to say it away from insulting