No Muslim outrage

Status
Not open for further replies.
Permabanned
Joined
28 Feb 2007
Posts
1,317
Location
Somerset
Azagoth said:
Why, because I believe in putting white British people first and don't agree with allowing the religion of terrorism to dictate what we can and can't do and what we can and can't say in our own bloody Country?

Exactly!
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Posts
30,259
1mm3 said:
Nows he's conducting his own surveys :o He just does not give up, amusing
Who? Fini? Yup a sample size of 2. Amusing indeed :D

PWNED go sit in a corner teeheee :D
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Posts
30,259
fini said:
I'll disagree with the survey on multiple angles:
1. The question was ambiguous. 'Some people also said that the July bombings were justified because of British support for the US war on terror. '. When I disagree am I disagreeing with the statement that they were justified or am I disagreeing that 'some people also said...' - ie that I think nobody said that.
2. The percentage is nowhere near as high as you stated it - look at the poll again
3. The results aren't actually based on all the data they collected, but 'A mix of re interviews and new interviews were conducted across the country '.
a) Why did they conduct re interviews?
b) How did they choose the mix?
c) Did channel 4 have any input into any of these?
4. From gfk's website in a section on what they do: 'supports you in creating and managing marketing programmes that deliver maximum result'. It seems the company's more about spinning data to promote a company or its cause rather than getting objective data.

Suddenly their poll is about as reliable as yours...

You can actually take the exact same poll online on the same link as before.
No ambiguity whatsoever.
 
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Posts
30,259
Sleepy said:
Yes you do.
The 4 men who got sent down for inciting terrorism were not "peacefully demonstrating".
Can you give examples of UK citizens getting 6 years for "peacefully demonstrating"?
Or do you think incitement to terrorism is "peaceful"?
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
1 Aug 2005
Posts
20,001
Location
Flatland
Azagoth said:
I've tried, but for the life of me I can't figure out how we incited 19 cowardly muslims to hijack 4 four airliners and fly 2 of them into the WTC, one into the Pentagon and cause one to be brought down prematurely by the passengers having a go.

Care to explain that?

I think this is a big problem. A lot of people - most of all Americans - don't understand that 9/11 was a provoked attack. It didn't come out of nowhere. It was a reaction to something.

Type 'causes of 9/11' into Google. There are enough articles there.
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Nov 2004
Posts
24,654
Carzy said:
And some people should stop regarding all Muslims are representative of the entire population. I always liked that episode of the West Wing, post-9/11, where they said that Islamic Fundamentalists are to Islam as the KKK are to Christianity. I think it's quite an interesting analogy.

I suppose so, except for the fact that the KKK don't believe that they should take over the planet. Also, when was the last time you heard anyone defend the KKK?
Is there a KKK presence wherever there is Christianity?
How many countries are controlled by the KKK?
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,394
Location
Leicestershire
VIRII said:
The 4 men who got sent down for inciting terrorism were not "peacefully demonstrating".
Was their violence at that demo? Was their blood split? Did two sides face off and have at it?

No ... Therefore it was peaceful.

Now whether you think that what they did was a legitimate demonstration or went too far is irrelevent. They were not violent, their protest was itself peaceful.
 
Last edited:
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,394
Location
Leicestershire
Lysander said:
I think this is a big problem. A lot of people - most of all Americans - don't understand that 9/11 was a provoked attack. It didn't come out of nowhere. It was a reaction to something.
That's true enough but what they were reacting to and how they did it was an act of evil terrorism. Lets not forget that Islams claim to Jerusalem is based on a dream Muhammed had. Jerusalem was a xian city and part of the Byzantine empire [Eastern Roman empire] during his lifetime. It was occuped and its inhabitants slaughtered by Religion of Peace invaders a few years after his death.
 
Permabanned
Joined
24 Jul 2003
Posts
30,259
Sleepy said:
Was their violence at that demo? Was their blood split? Did two sides face off and have at it?

No ... Therefore it was peaceful.

Now whether you think that what they did was a legitimate demonstration or went too far is irrelevent. They were not violent, their protest was itself peaceful.

So if I make a lot of noise and fuss and wave nasty placards outside your window you'd still claim to be having a peaceful afternoon?

No, I didn't think so.

peace·ful /ˈpisfəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pees-fuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective 1. characterized by peace; free from war, strife, commotion, violence, or disorder: a peaceful reign; a peaceful demonstration.
2. of, pertaining to, or characteristic of a state or time of peace.
3. peaceable; not argumentative, quarrelsome, or hostile: a peaceful disposition.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peaceful


As I said you don't get 6 years for a PEACEFUL demonstration :) Chanting kill kafir through a megaphone and inciting others to bomb and kill and murder is NOT peaceful according to the dictionary ...
 
Permabanned
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
7,394
Location
Leicestershire
VIRII said:
So if I make a lot of noise and fuss and wave nasty placards outside your window you'd still claim to be having a peaceful afternoon?

No, I didn't think so.

<snip>

As I said you don't get 6 years for a PEACEFUL demonstration :) Chanting kill kafir through a megaphone and inciting others to bomb and kill and murder is NOT peaceful according to the dictionary ...
As demonstrations are by default noisy, your usage of 'peacefully demonstrating' is thus an oxymoron and your point is thus rendered irrelevant.

Now can we get off this irrelevent point and get back to the matter at hand?
 
Permabanned
Joined
5 Dec 2006
Posts
1,097
I agree with host 101%.

As sig, signifies.

britainpc3.png
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
31 Dec 2005
Posts
11,179
Location
Glasgow
naffa said:
The 'religion of terrorism' ? I don't think you can call it that. There are extremists in all religions. Just because there are an absolute minority of Muslims choose to behave, and conduct themselves in a poor manner and commit acts of terrorism, that does not deem their religion a 'religion of terrorism'.


Suicide bomber extremists in all religions? Could you post source or link? Applying to present day only of course.

thanks
 
Capodecina
Soldato
Joined
1 Aug 2005
Posts
20,001
Location
Flatland
I've got another spin on this thread which needs to be considered. What is the point of that radio broadcast? Is it helpful, informative, productive, positive, useful?

No, the only thing it incites Americans to do is hate Muslims. It's terrible. Yes, the extremist Muslims have been up in arms against people but broadcasts like these don't help the situation. Fighting hate with hate. Why put something like this out? Bloody Americans are becoming as bad as the things they detest. It's wanton political hatemongering.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom