Tommy Robinson (EDL) punched in the face

Permabanned
Joined
13 Jan 2003
Posts
4,211
Location
The road to erudition
What about free speech for MAC?

I support that too.

They are ancient texts, there is little can be done about that now. It is from a distant time, it's how people make it relevent to modern day that is the issue.

That is the problem, they're societal operating systems from the distant past and should have nothing to do with how our civilisations run. Sadly not everyone agrees...

Venting at the text itself is irrelevent.

Quite the opposite, I'd rather attack the source of the problem and not its symptoms.

Well it isn't as simple as 'its them, its their book and nothing else'.

Which is often argued, implied and what not else.

Arguing foreign policy would take a new thread, a few essays and a hell of a lot of tin foil.

What about people who commit crazy acts without religious externalities?

What about them? I'm interested in intellectually attacking any perceived threats to our way of life. Islamofascism is most certainly one of the biggest threats, quite how that changes our stance is another matter entirely though.

Again, it is a minority and it can be combatted well away from cruising about in cars videotaping the heathen swines.

Let's say Israel bombs Iran or at worse the US decides it has to free the **** out of them, can you see Muslims in this country not speaking out against them? Of course there is a difference between speaking out against foreign policy and Islamism, but one could quite easily lead into the other.
 
Soldato
Joined
28 Oct 2002
Posts
5,002
Location
Port Toilet
I must be very dull :( All I see in this thread is a Muslim assaulting a man in a car because he was losing an argument and Biohazard praising the violence without giving a coherent answer to any question along with others performing bitchy sniping and personal insults without discussion of what is asked. Do people not realise the world would be boring if we all held the same belief, but it does nothing for your credibility to use personal insults and whiny sniping when you can't put forward a logical counter argument?
 
Permabanned
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
I support that too.



That is the problem, they're societal operating systems from the distant past and should have nothing to do with how our civilisations run. Sadly not everyone agrees...

A minority disagrees.



Quite the opposite, I'd rather attack the source of the problem and not its symptoms.

Why attack a religious text? It is only ever going to inflame the situation surely you have the accumen to see this?



Arguing foreign policy would take a new thread, a few essays and a hell of a lot of tin foil.

We have all the cyberspace in the world. Foreign policy is a component structure of the problem we have, successive Governments have had advice as such. They are fully aware of the risks they take.



What about them? I'm interested in intellectually attacking any perceived threats to our way of life. Islamofascism is most certainly one of the biggest threats, quite how that changes our stance is another matter entirely though.

One of the biggest threats? I doubt it.



Let's say Israel bombs Iran or at worse the US decides it has to free the **** out of them, can you see Muslims in this country not speaking out against them? Of course there is a difference between speaking out against foreign policy and Islamism, but one could quite easily lead into the other.

There is correlation none the less.
 
Caporegime
Joined
29 Jan 2008
Posts
58,899
Argumentum ad nauseam. It isn't correct from their mindset, how is videotaping fighting back? They aren't a political movement they are a "street protest group" with a penchant for violence and thuggery. The correct response would have been not to create the situation, and not incite religious and racial hatred.

I don't believe they officially endorse violence rather you seem to have interpreted 'fight back' at face value. I don't doubt that they are full of mindless racist thugs but I'd also point out that your original comment was rather mindless too. You also seem to have issues with women.
 
Permabanned
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
I must be very dull :( All I see in this thread is a Muslim assaulting a man in a car because he was losing an argument and Biohazard praising the violence

Can you tell me where I have praised the violence?

I have consistantly and repeadly shown a different stance, I oppose violence.. What I did do was took this **** out of the EDL and their self image, nothing more. Which so far has had its intended effect. ;)

without giving a coherent answer to any question along with others performing bitchy sniping and personal insults without discussion of what is asked. Do people not realise the world would be boring if we all held the same belief, but it does nothing for your credibility to use personal insults and whiny sniping when you can't put forward a logical counter argument?

Where have I personally insulted anyone?

Evidence your accusations.
 
Permabanned
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
I don't believe they officially endorse violence rather you seem to have interpreted 'fight back' at face value. I don't doubt that they are full of mindless racist thugs but I'd also point out that your original comment was rather mindless too. You also seem to have issues with women.

They are a fascist neo-nazi cult. They have often been caught glorifying racism and violence. They value their strength and thug tendancies. It seems they aren't as boastful in action as when in groups or behind closed doors. I have no issue with women, they just don't fight like men. ;)
 
Permabanned
Joined
13 Jan 2003
Posts
4,211
Location
The road to erudition
A minority disagrees.

I'd say thankfully, but the fact that ANY do is cause for concern.

Why attack a religious text? It is only ever going to inflame the situation surely you have the accumen to see this?

Ideally I'd like everyone to respect other people's beliefs, but in a world of militant evangelism, I like to fight back. I'm an evangelical agnostic, I believe people should question the foundations of their belief systems. Hopefully the power of religion over world politics can disappear, but that'll only happen with people attacking it.

We have all the cyberspace in the world. Foreign policy is a component structure of the problem we have, successive Governments have had advice as such. They are fully aware of the risks they take.

One of my worries is that our foreign policy is necessitated by our economic paradigm. A paradigm that breaks down without access to cheap plentiful oil...

One of the biggest threats? I doubt it.

Depends how you discern threats I guess.

There is correlation none the less.

Crazy people will always commit crazy acts, the bigger problem appears when 'sane' people are led by crazy people following crazy ideologies. You try and fit a faltering world structure in with a messianic religion that believes in the apocalypse, it doesn't really bear thinking about (and sadly the Americans are in almost the same bracket).
 
Permabanned
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
I'd say thankfully, but the fact that ANY do is cause for concern.



Ideally I'd like everyone to respect other people's beliefs, but in a world of militant evangelism, I like to fight back. I'm an evangelical agnostic, I believe people should question the foundations of their belief systems. Hopefully the power of religion over world politics can disappear, but that'll only happen with people attacking it.

I am a free thinker, so would have course broadly agree. I don't think we are largely the people to do it, not unless you are well enough versed and accepted into the discussion. There are enough moderates to do this amongst their own.

"Attack" is a very strong word for such intellectualism, which is why I felt there was undertones of a violent struggle there.



One of my worries is that our foreign policy is necessitated by our economic paradigm. A paradigm that breaks down without access to cheap plentiful oil...

Isn't a long term problem. We will transition from oil dependency.



Depends how you discern threats I guess.

Yes, it would.

Crazy people will always commit crazy acts, the bigger problem appears when 'sane' people are led by crazy people following crazy ideologies. You try and fit a faltering world structure in with a messianic religion that believes in the apocalypse, it doesn't really bear thinking about (and sadly the Americans are in almost the same bracket).

We have certain, and at times dubious, safeguards. Yes, the world is a dangerous place. The EDL don't make it any safer.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
29 Aug 2003
Posts
31,330
You just come across as Muslim defender and support a Muslim hitting a white man in his car, what is your religion, why are people so scared to say what religion they follow.

Muslim defender lol. I have no sympathy for either, one got a mouthful of racist abuse for his biting and the other got a slap around the puss for it and his baiting.

Why are you asking my religion if you make public declarations that I am a Muslim? Don't you have a photo of me with a Qur'an or something?

Again with the wink, you think its ok for someone to be attacked.

I think the bitchslapping and "bloody chief, bloody chief" was ******* hilarious. The guy even smirked himself. Tool.

Either which way, I don't think unprovoked violence is accepted at all. I accept that provocation can provide a mitigating circumstance in some cases, it is still no absolute excuse.
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
13 Nov 2006
Posts
23,712
How exactly did he provoke him? Being white in a Muslim area?

Yes, whities need to be banned from all muslim areas. Perhaps road signs are needed, stating as such?

In fact, ban all white people from everything tbh!

Might as well ban darkies too!
 
Back
Top Bottom